HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:01:07 GMT

In article <92325.110931RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>Eirik:
>
>I dispute that NT's APIs are "better structured" than OS/2's because NT
>came after OS/2. Please, take into account that NT was originally targeted
>as being the portable version of OS/2. After MS-IBM split, IBM restructured
>OS/2 2.0 (the 32bit version) such, that it became portable too. Of course,
>the restructuring took into account all the reasonings both MS and IBM
>did while they were designing and talking about NT (previously known as
>OS/2 3.0), so these results became part of NT *and* 32bit OS/2.
>
>It simply boils down to the fact that the base of both NT and OS/2 are
>probably on par, in respect to the window- and graphic-interface OS/2 is
>cleaner and better structured.
>
>By the time NT hits the market, you can expect OS/2 to have all the features
>presently missing in comparison with NT (e.g. C2-security will become part
>of OS/2 with the expected December release which contains Windows 3.1, SOM
>goes DCE and CORBA, no plans yet from MS except of Cairo, etc.).
>
>---rony

I guess we'll argue to death on this one, since API preferences are
very personal. I know of people who prefer non-prefixed functions
(CreateWindows to WinCreateWindow), and that to me is a *death sin*.

Anyway, my view: 

os/2's Win and Gpi APIs are superior to NT's window and graphics API.
NT's base API is better than os/2's. The object orientation that is
in the base of Windows NT is making things easier than they are in
os/2, imo.

I am not discussing the features of os/2 and NT. I believe, like you,
that IBM can and will keep os/2 up to par with NT. I also believe
that the os/2 Workplace Shell is a feature that sets os/2 above
Windows NT, at least until Cairo. But my original comment was on the
subject of API's.

I do work with both NT and os/2 on a daily basis, and have programming
experience with both.

Eirik
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2755 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2730
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: For all you Mac users...
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 21:58:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.120033.1171@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.164103.10573@engr.LaTech.edu>  writes:
>>I guess my primary statement is that the Macs are hurting pretty
>>bad and need to get on the ball.  
>
>If you mean by this that Apple's not doing well, I'd advise you to change  
>stockbrokers.  Macs are gaining marketshare rapidly.
>

Partly true. Apple outsold IBM's machines for the first time this
every in terms of quarterly reporting. However, IBM does not own a
majority share of the market, which still outsells Apples platform
by roughly 10 to 1. This includes all PC clones, Intel UNIX boxes,
etc. But, you are correct in that Apple is gaining market share
rapidly compared to their previous sales history.

>If you mean by this that Macs can't do things that PCs with Windows *can*  
>do, I'd quite frankly like to know what.  No flames intended, but I can  
>honestly not think of anything significant that can't be done on a Mac as  
>easily as on Windows, though I *can* think of some things that can be done  
>on a Mac but not a PC.  And quite a few things that can be done on Macs  
>but require high-end-PCs because of the PC's antiquated I/O subsystem.
>
>--
>

Would you care to cite specific examples of what can be done on a
Mac, but not on a PC ?

Considering IBM designed the PC to be a general solutions box;
albeit with old technology, what constitutes a high-end PC, and
what is antiquated about it's I/O subsytems that warrant the moving
off the platform to something else? I will give you multi-tasking
as one example to move off the hardware.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jbailey@world.std.com (james d bailey)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:49:38 GMT

dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:

>I agree with your statement that Quadras are aimed at the workstation market.
>They have the price of a low-mid range workstation. Unfortunately, they don't
>really have the performance of a UNIX workstation, so it seems to me that the
>Quadra will remain a small niche market, unable to capture either the desktop PC
>market or the workstation market.

Hmm, some don't agree with you.  See the November Byte article on the
ultimate DTP workstation.  I'm not usually in the habit of reading or
quoting Byte but I kind of liked this article.  Quoted from page
207-208 without permission.

"Despite our preconception that the sweetest workstation was going to
be a Unix system, we chose the Quadra 950 as our favorite.  The Quadra
is the winner not only because of its performance on our DTP tests,
but because there is more software that is better supported and easier
to install, manage, and use than for any of the Unix workstations."

>Daniel Silevitch                                  dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:21:40 EST
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
 <Bxr2Br.Fqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <92320.121834MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <strobl.721855220@gmd.de>

In article <strobl.721855220@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) says:
>
>In <92320.121834MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish
><MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <Bxr2Br.Fqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra
>>Stewart-Cole) says:
>>>
>>>hmm... can you REALLY create a program in DOS or Windows that demands a 1Mb
>>>heap...
>
>>You can in OS/2 2.0, but not in DOS or Windows.
>
>Not true. Just use one of the 32 bit Compilers (Zortech, Watcom)
>and a 386 DOS extender. Zortech comes with a royality free one.

Then you're not really running DOS, are you?
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:41:42 GMT

In article Cnt@news.cso.uiuc.edu, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722125075@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <s0x191c@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>[deletia- lots of >s]
>>>
>>>>Hmm, thats 2 votes for 8 bit and 1 for 24 bit now, I think. :)
>>>
>>>Most of these cards have 1MByte video memory, so for 1024x768
>>>its 8 bit deep, probably. For smaller resolution, it may be
>>>more.
>
>>Right. Same for the Mac. Gotta question now tho- how does
>>a Windows card/driver/etc know what the "right" resolution is?
>>(after all, you wouldn't want 640x480 on a 21 inch monitor most of the
>>time, no?)
>
>It doesn't. _You_ have the freedom to set whatever resolution you want.
>If you really wanted, (and if your monitor supported it), you could
>do 1600X1200 on a 14" monitor.

On the Mac you can do this also, if your monitor supports it (this
trick requires a multisynch monitor or it produces a lot of flicker.
Most Mac monitors aren't this way)

What I meant was can the system take care of this for you. The
answer appears to be no.

[deletia- floppy stuff, resource stuff]
>
>>Hmm? All strings are in the ui? Anyway, the point was just that
>>you can (and do) put all sorts of rediculous things in there,
>>just cuz it easier.
>
>What's ridiculous about a string table?

Not the table, the things in it. (if you dont have
rediculous things in your string tables, you should.
Adds a pinch of class. :) )

[deletia- more resources stuff]

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: garym@runx.oz.au (Gary Makin)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.171019.13425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>The rules are indeed spelled out in detail:
>For example, if you want to do file I/O, "all" you need to do is:
>1) Know that the information in Volume 1 has been entirely obsoleted.
>2) Read the 94 page chapter in Volume 4.
>3) Read the 25 page chapter in Volume 5, noting what parts have been
>       superceeded and what has been added.
>4) Read the 54 page chapter in Volume 6,  again noting what has been
>       superceeded and added.
>5) Now check the 200+ technical notes to see if there is more information.

Sure, *you* could do all that.

Me? I would prefer just to read the 69 pages in "Inside Macintosh: Files"
that described pretty well all that most programmers would need to know
about working with files on the Mac. (Note that this 69 pages contains
about 13 pages of sample code.)

If you feel that you need to know more, then read the other 325 pages in
the book.

Real hard going, this learning to use Mac files.

Okay, I must admit that IM:Files is only fairly new, but it's the best damned
technical reference I've ever seen.

Gary Makin

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:06:55 GMT

In article 11976@mcs.drexel.edu, tjhendry@mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry) writes:
[deletia- Next Guru Stuff]
>>NeXT apps do not use the CLI very well (I _think_, better ask a NeXT guru
>>to be sure, but I dont have one handy. :( ); X apps DO use the CLI
>>very well but are truely pitiful with the GUI- many (trivial) things MUST
>>be done with a CLI. Say putting a window on a second screen; or even
>>just setting up your prefs. (Well, thats not a CLI exactly but its
>>obnoxious nonetheless)
>
>Speaking as a NeXT guru-in-training, I agree that most NeXT apps don't 
>allow use of a CLI. However, because NeXT apps are now really bundles, some
>apps use command line apps as part of their operation. These are normally
>hidden inside the app's directory, but users can get at them. Of course, 
>documentation is a problem. I know of one program that includes 
>a cli equivalent (ImageViewer, a graphics viewer translator). Other programs
>have these cli programs in them, but no documentation on how to use it.

Hmm, come to think of it, providing two interfaces does mean lots of docs. :(
That will probably discourage use of both (or documenting both)
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:33:29 GMT

In <5821wza@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>What is the difference, tho? What does copy do if the /b
>flag is not set?

It stops when it sees the first ^Z (== 0x1a) in the data stream.
This is a carryover from CP/M. The EOF character was necessary
there because disk files didn't have an exact length.

--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windows Multitasking
From: Simon_Cheung@kcbbs.gen.nz (Simon Cheung)
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:32:11 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand


WINDOWS MULTITASKING ?



Now, I've read from all these magazines how great

multitasking can be, and how Windows may be used to achieve

that. The problem is that my windows don't seem to be

multitasking at all! Could there be something wrong with my

setup or is my hardware not good enough?



Here is my setup:



   - Windows 3.1 running in enhanced mode

   - 33 Mhz 386 with 4Mb ram

   - Perm. swap file, around 2 meg (not enough physical hard

       disk space as I use Stacker)



There are a couple of situation which prompt me to feel that

my windows is not multitasking, the following are a few

examples:



   - When the file manager is formatting a disk, you suppose

       to be able to click on to something else and do other

       things while fileman does its work - but it doesn't, I

       won't allow me to do anything else while it's

       formatting the disk.



   - When I am downloading from my DOS based communication

       program, I suppose to be able to do other things, but

       it just freezes up when I attempt to run other windows

       program. This still occurs when I set both foreground

       and background priority to 10000. (would a windows

       based communication package solve the problem?)



   - There are many other instances where "non-multitasking"

       occurs, eg. when I run a spell check, and move on to

       other things, the spell check just freezes up.



What could my problem be? Incorrect setup of PIF files? Not

enough ram and too small a swap file?



I would appreciate any help from anyone who know what the

problem is or has similar problems, I am starting to feel

very confused with these Windows things...



Thanks!



S.C.



 -----------------------------------------------------------

| Simon Cheung      |   Auckland, New Zealand               |

|-----------------------------------------------------------|

| "A pessimist is an experienced optimist..."               |

 -----------------------------------------------------------

 
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2752 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2729
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:07:05 GMT

Although your post strikes me as complete garbage in general, I have
to comment on one or two bits of it.

>production. Given Apples litiganous attitude, the strangle hold
>they place on development by attempting to completely control it, a

Apple does seem overly litiganous (did you spell that correctly?).
This should not be a significant problem to their developers, however.
Apple has only tried to sue those who are copycatting their work on other 
platforms, in actuality, or just in spirit.

Apple does not, however, try to place a "strangle hold" on development.
They do try to _encourage_ developers to follow their technical and user
interface guidelines.  The first protects the developers from having to
rewrite their program at the next update of the OS.  The second helps to
keep the Mac's level of consistancy as high as it is.  Developers ARE
free to write whatever sort of program they want, however they want to
write it.  The Mac user community does tend to be vicious with respect to
user-vicious software, however.

>less than desirable set of tools and development environment as
>compared to the PC and UNIX bases, it is absolutely cost

The Mac does not have the full set of UNIX tools ported to the Mac OS.
A/UX does have the majority of UNIX programming tools available.  Not
many Mac developers use A/UX, however.  Why?  Because the Mac does have
very nice development systems that run under the Mac OS.  Think C is
VERY nice, well integrated, and easy to use.  Comparable to Borland C/C++
from what I understand, with only part of C++, at present.  MPW is huge,
but does allow scripting, complex make files, project management, multi-
language programs, etc, etc.  MacApp provides a very thorough, deep, solid
application framework for the Mac.  This doesn't sound like an undesirable
set of development tools to me.  (I personally find them easier to use
than anything on the PC or UNIX).

>ineffective to develop software for the Macintoy, unless your whole
>process is geared to support that environment alone. Much of the

How is it that Framemaker, WingZ, Mathematica, Matlab, etc. all exist
and are supported on the Mac if what you say is true?  How about
AutoCAD (though this hacked port is not a gleaming example)?  How about
Ashlar Vellum (which LATER expanded to the PC)?  You point is dead.

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:01:37 GMT
Organization: MDGAC
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy


The word CRAP!!!  pertains to the PS-2 architecture.......not DOS
I love my HP95!!! and I would NOT turn down a free 486 box either.......

BUT.......

The fact remains that all who have stated that the MacGUI is the difference
don't understand......

It ain't the GUI that really makes the difference.....never was......never
will be....

What makes the difference is the very thing that can also be considered the
Mac's biggest disadvantage....the closed architecture.....  true...the
developer/programmer can do almost anything he/she pleases with DOS... the
user...can't.

However, thanks to the firmware control over all sorts of stuff that really
goes much deeper than just the GUI, those who spend $ on the Mac will get
more bang as end-users..... The firmware forces a level of internal
integration unseen in any other architecture.... if any other company tried
to do that they would likely fail...Apple created evangalism and beat the
odds.....  

... I can take data here and use it there and there and there.....  I can
easily focus on my product rather than on the tool that I am using for the
product....  Also, MacTCP lets me connect in a way almost as nice as the
Sun's....  
I've wasted time with MSWindows....I dumped it stayed with the straight dos
interface you can keep MSWindows it's a Kludge....


Was that still uhhh...too undiplomatic? 
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2770 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2740
From: jbailey@world.std.com (james d bailey)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:22:31 GMT

(Tim Keitt) writes:

>I subscribe to byte and I thought that was one of the worst 
>technical reviews I've seen from them in four years. They set 
>out to review workstations, but then ad hoc defined workstation 
>as DTP and/or CAD. Their performance evaluation was misleading 
>(like most magazine reviews). They completely ignored the issue 
>of tradeoffs between ease-of-use and overall real-world 
>performance (for those willing to learn to use their system). 
>I'm sure for certain tasks, I'd really like the Quadra, but 
>their analysis was too shallow. I often handle large numbers of 
>scanned images (10-20+MB each) in my research. I can't imagine 
>how frustrating that could be on a MAC. Performance and 
>ease-of-use varies with different kinds of applications on 
>different platforms. I guess I'm a pluralist - the best tool is 
>really dependent on how you use it. The rest is just user 
>preference (which I find has a *lot* to do with what your 
>accustomed to).

>--
>Timothy Keitt
>tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to do with 10-20MB
images that you think a Quadra 950 can't handle.  This isn't a flame,
I'm just curious.  A Quadra 950 can do 24 bit video without any extra
hardware, you can buy JPEG compression boards and such.  There are
Photoshop accelerators to speed up filters.  I do believe that there
are things a Q950 can't do that a seriously high end workstation could
but you are talking very high end.
From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:11:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.1ly1r_q
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 722126636@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <90x1y=d@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>[...]
>>>>>>(where accelerated Mac cards are usually 24 bits, as 8 bit accelerated
>>>>>>is overkill; this beefs up the price of course)
>>>
>>>Why is this overkill? Silicon is cheap these days. Why not
>>>let a specialized CPU do all the drawing, and have the main
>>>CPU free for real work?
>
>>Its unnecessary; you could spend the money on something else.
>>Memory, or a plain ticket to <insert favorite spot here>.
>
>I don't buy that. A CPU can do only one thing at a time. If it
>is busy redrawing an 1 MPixel bitmap, it can't do anything
>else at the same time. Using a general purpose CPU, which 
>doesn't perform that well on that special task, while there
>is other work to do, is a waste of resources, IMHO.

Really? Isn't ANY processor doing ANYTHING a waste of resources
by this argument, since it could hand off the job to specialized
circuits and do something else?

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: robertk@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Organization: Lotus Development Corporation
	<92325.110931RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:26:29

In article <92325.110931RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:

   After MS-IBM split, IBM restructured
   OS/2 2.0 (the 32bit version) such, that it became portable too.

How do you know ? OS/2 2.0 has a portable interface (for the most
part), but the shipping implementation isn't portable. I'd expect that
the "real" portable implementations that have demonstrated privately
are forked off from 2.x.

   By the time NT hits the market, you can expect OS/2 to have all the features
   presently missing in comparison with NT (e.g. C2-security will become part
   of OS/2 with the expected December release which contains Windows 3.1, SOM
   goes DCE and CORBA, no plans yet from MS except of Cairo, etc.).

What do you mean by OS/2 having these features ? I would be surprised
if you meant that a shipping version of OS/2 implemented the present
differences on the day NT ships. (Maybe if NT shipped in 1994...) In
beta by that time, maybe. So far, only plans have been announced.