HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:03:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct10.102922.18130@netcom.com>, jazz@netcom.com (David C. Navas) writes:
> In article <TOMSTER.92Oct9210910@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>>If you are openning a file, you mean, you also want to be able to type into
>>the spreadsheet simultaneously?  That seems rather silly.  Of course it is the
> 
> Yes I DO!

David, you are confusing the issue. This wasn't what I was talking about.

> Well, maybe not access to all of them. But it would be useful to be able
> to cut/paste an app name into a file dialog box.  Although the Mac variety 
> does not have a place for the text to go, some other filerequesters do....

It works in the SFP Put dialog. (eg for Save)

>>Huh?  The 'real' shortcuts?
> 
> I agree, this was really weird.

(eg the ones that work in dialogs, not the ALT shortcuts)

>>Honestly, Bill.  You are pushing this dialog box thing way too far.  If you
>>can't explain *exactly* what you mean by it, I suggest you drop it.  I would
>>rather you explain yourself, because it sounds like it'll be a good one ...
> 
> Hmm, he has gotten rather confusing down here, hasn't he?

I am not confused. I've clearly stated the problem several times. 

>>Now Bill.  You just assertained that low-level brain activity is faster than
>>high-level.  Now you're saying that the mouse is faster, but reason it out
>>by using higher brain functions (grabbing, image recognition).  This is
>>necessary with a mouse because not everything is in exactly the same place
>>all the time.  The 'E' key never moves from its spot above the 'd' on
>>my keyboard.  I don't have to do any of this recognition of grabbing.  The
>>Alt-key shortcuts, by your own definitions, should be faster.
> 
> Repositioning your hand from the mouse, to the keyboard, and back again is
> a very time-consuming operation.

If you practice, you can be real quick.

Of course, remembering what menu you need to activate, then symbolising the
appropriate keystrokes takes lots of time, too. Don't just measure the motion,
you have to measure the cognitive time as well.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:10:19 GMT

In <6202.2adad58d@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <strobl.718933838@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>> In <6182.2ad988cb@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The USERs apps
>>>shouldn't crash. Period.
>> 
>> This is a very shortsightened reasoning. The users applications SHOULD
>> crash, IMHO, as long as they are buggy. 

>No, yours is the reasoning that is shortsighted. User's shouldn't be given
>buggy applications at all. 

>> Memory protection in the end users system gives developers a strong 
>> incentive not to release buggy applications. 

>Not at all. Applications can be buggy and still not cause memory protection
>violations. Having memory protection in the users systems doesn't improve
>application quality one whit.

True, just like saftey belts or airbags cannot prevent a single car
accident.

I didn't say that memory protection in a users system improves
the quality of a buggy application. This would be ridiculous.

But it can ensure that a buggy application can't crash other applications
or the system - it only can crash itself. Because of that, it's much
easier for the user to find out which application to blame, if some-
thing fails. And *this* gives developers a strong incentive - they
don't get away with buggy applications as simple as they do on a system
without protection. 

Memory overwrite bugs are only one kind of bug, there are lots of others. 
But they are an nasty soft of bug, because they are hard to track, 
especially in a multitasking environment. In addition they are hard
to explain, because users normally don't understand whats 
going on - they don't think in terms of memory locations and
adressing.

Because of that, I think that good memory protection is essential
for interactive multitasking systems for the common user.  

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: trepidations of a longtime Mac user
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:07:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.81327
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


First, I would like to thank the people who have responded to my
posts and my st00pid questions.  I especially thank companies
like Aladdin Systems who have helped me along with trying to
get my apps to work and do system 7 things correctly while obeying
Apple Computer guidelines.

Now for my main complaint with the Mac:  Macs crash so often that
Apple should include a black box (NeXT Dimension :-) with each one
sold.

This morning, I went to scan a graphic for Pipeline, and merely
turned a //si that the university had.  The thing crashed.  I
used the Extensions Manager and disabled everything that was
not needed for scanning.  I ran the scanning stuff, scanned the
photo, spent 10 to 15 minutes tweaking the image, and saved
it onto disk.  The Mac froze so solidly that the 4-finger
salute did not work (Command-Option-Control-Power key).  I
had to power cycle the !@#$!@$#$@!#!$@# thing to get it to
work.  And to boot, the directory on the floppy I was using
was trashed.

  The Dell 386-33 I have has only froze up on me a total
of five times in the three months I had the thing.

  I like the Mac, and have been a Mac fan since 1984.  But
when programs crash like cars in a Demolition Derby, it
is time to move on.  I cannot trust the Mac for any work
that is vital to me at all.  If I do anything that is
vital, I use a sun or the NeXT.

This is probably one of the reasons that Macs are not
used for vital work.

I hope this nightmare of crashes on crashes ends.

Here my call:  The Mac needs an OS that has
memory protection.

PS:  I have mentioned this OS memory protection before,
but until the Mac has it, or something is fixed, it is not a viable
platform for me anymore.

PS/2 (UGH! :-):  If anything I stated is wrong, flame or reply.  Opinions
matter.  I apologize for this long post, but I am tired of an
AWESOME computer burdened by an eight year old tasking scheme.

-- 
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
             (Insert standard disclaimer here)

   I would rather have a frontal lobotomy than Windows NT!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:51:05 GMT

In article: <1992Oct8.144319.13273@tamsun.tamu.edu> Daryl Biberdorf writes:

> In article <#9tzcma@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> >In article <4eoxNRS00YV949Gsxy@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
> >|> I think that neither OS/2 nor Windows has the ability to virtualize
> >|> monitor 2 as part of monitor 1, producing one big monitor (a la mac). 
> >
> >They don't, from every account I've heard. There is supposed to be
> >a board that lets u use 4 vga monitors, but they all have to be 4-bit
> >deep and the same size. It isn't very usefull.

> Why is this not "very usefull[sic]"?  Granted, the Mac method of adapting
> to different bit depths is more convenient (and it allows you to still use
> internal video in conjunction with a video card), but most people who
> realize from the start that they need multiple monitors (they *did* buy
> a quad-VGA or quad-EGA card, right?) will probably buy 4 of the same type
> of monitor as well.

> This doesn't sound at all like a real limitation.

Are you kidding?  Most users don't purchase a computer with 4 displays.  If
they needed that much room, they would have gotton a larger monitor in the
first place.  Most PC users have a hard time getting the most out of big
screen monitors in the first place.  Standard DOS applications just show up
as larger text, or text in a subspace of the total display.  Only Windows
applications would have a chance at using a larger monitor effectively, but
they would have a nearly impossible time dealing with multiple monitors.

Mac users can add a second (or third, or...) monitor as they see fit.
Perhaps you have an SE/30 and would like a large two-page monitor - No
problem with this set-up (quite common).  Or maybe you have a color
monitor (landscape oriented) and decide that an inexpensive monochrome
portrait display would be nice for word processing or DTP - Just add
it on.

All of your Mac applications can use extra monitors in any bit depth.  No
additional programming or special applications are required.  Run Excel
or Word across two displays, or have a different application in each
monitor.  You can even span windows across both screens at the same time.

No special software or tricked-up display drivers are required.  And you
don't have to purchase everything at the same time.  Mac users can add
monitors as they go.

In fact, the Mac OS handles monitors so effectively, that you can get
a Pivot (tm) display that actually sits on a swivel base that turns
the monitor from a landscape orientation to a landscape one.  The
software automatically recognizes that you are rotating the monitor
and dims the current picture, and fades in the new one.  The applica-
tions that are running automatically resize thier windows the fit
properly.

As Mac users, we have come to expect this sort of quality in a user
interface.  Other GUI's don't always measure up.

[MGM]
From: mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:38:06 GMT

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <strobl.718933838@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>> In <6182.2ad988cb@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The USERs apps
>>>shouldn't crash. Period.
>> 
>> This is a very shortsightened reasoning. The users applications SHOULD
>> crash, IMHO, as long as they are buggy. 
>No, yours is the reasoning that is shortsighted. User's shouldn't be given
>buggy applications at all. 

Yes, and the best way to get users bug-free applications is for the
OS to enforce strict coding standards so that if an application places
the OS or other apps in danger then everyone should know about it so the
developers are forced to fix it quick.

>> Memory protection in the end users system gives developers a strong 
>> incentive not to release buggy applications. 
>Not at all. Applications can be buggy and still not cause memory protection
>violations. Having memory protection in the users systems doesn't improve
>application quality one whit.

For a start, memory protection will stop an application from crashing the
OS and other applications.  It also allows the user to know there is a
bug in the program.  All to often in these systems I find applications
"doing strange things" and end up spending lots of time trying to work
out if the user is at fault.  With memory protection many of these bugs
can be caught early so you know who to blame without wasting time.

-Martin.
mph@plasma.apana.org.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:12:07 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct16.004630.25634@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:

>>>From my understanding, ``cooperative multitasking'' means that programs
>>>have to cooperate to create a multitasking environment, 
      
>>>i.e.  programs
>>>have to delibrately relinquish control of the processor to give other
>>>programs a chance to do work.  The operating system has no effective
>>>ability to determine how much processor time each program receives, so
>>>setting processor priority is not useful in a cooperative multitasking
>>>environment.

>I believe this describes the Mac OS well, but it poorly describes the
>Amiga OS.  Will Edward try to use this definition to argue that the
>Amiga OS is a cooperative multitasking OS?

Okay.  I'll use your definition -- the first two lines above --
rather than your explanation -- the next several lines -- which
describes a specific *implementation* of that definition.

Amiga programs have to cooperate to create a multitasking environment.
They have to refrain from calling Forbid() when it isn't necessary,
match it up with a call to Permit() whenever it is necessary, and
set their own priority to a reasonable level instead of jacking it
up to the maximum.


>In my earlier article, I should have been more precise about my
>definition of a pre-emptive multitasking OS:

>  1. The operating system decides which waiting process gets to use the
>  processor.

>The Amiga OS has (1), (2) and (3).  

Nope. The Amiga OS decides which waiting process gets to use
the processor only *if* all applications cooperate by not
forbidding it to do so.


>Using Edward's assertion, the Mac
>OS has (1).  However, tasks also wait for the use of other resources,
>such as disk or printer access.  From my experience with Macs, I am
>unable to do anything else while a file is being copied or while
>printing a document.  

*Sigh*.  Have you tried turning on background printing in the Chooser?

Next thing you know, we'll hear a Windows user say, "I've used the
Macintosh extensively and don't find it any easier to use than the
PC.  In fact, I haven't even been able to find the power-on switch!"


>If Edward wishes to argue about definitions, he should supply what he
>believes are the attributes of both a pre-emptive multasking
>environment and a cooperative multitasking environment.  

Preemptive multitasking -- a system in which the OS can preempt
an application at any time, for any reason.

Cooperative multitasking -- a system that requires the application's
cooperation for multitasking to occur.
 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:45:50 GMT

jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:

> runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:

> > Besides, why can't that shitty System 7 catch Divide By Zero errors?
> > Mac's the only machines I know of which totally crashes when an
> > application divides by zero.

> This is a wonderfully IGNORANT question, or else very poorly phrased.  The
> default for the math environment on the Mac is to flag all 0/0 results (and
> various other math errors) as NaN's (not a number).  It is then up to the 

[...various floating-point tech deleted...]

I dunno about you, but I assumed this guy was talking about the 680x0
exception for div-by-zero on the DIVS and DIVU instructions. NO operating
system (even the Mac) should ever crash on floating-point errors.

>Jess Holle

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:45:45 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <Bw38ss.3Lp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey) wrote:
> 
> In <mike_steiner-131092155722@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct13.034620.3505@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
> >wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Speak for your own desktop.  I can safely say that an Amiga will dorn my
> >> desktop for many...many....years to come!
> >> I'd take the first Amiga (A1000) over the first IBM or Mac *ANYDAY*!!!!
> >> At least it would be in color, multitask (pre-emptive, too), and play
> >> some GREAT games.  Can either of the first IBMs or Macs do that?
> >> HELL, can *ANY* of their most recent ones do that?????  Who's clueless?
> 
> >Well, if all you want is a game machine....
> 
> ....then BUY A NINTENDO.
> 
> If you want an OS which supports <real> multitasking (read: pre-emptive), 
> then buy an Amiga, NeXT, Sun, Unix box of some type, or...(snicker snicker...)
> an IBM w/ OS2 (Baww ha hahahaha!!! yeah, right). If you want to do serious
> video work with a more affordable budget, buy Amiga. If you want to do a lot
> of work in DTP, buy Mac or NeXT. Different platforms have their own strengths
> and weaknesses. It just happens that the lack of pre-emptive multitasking is
> a weakness of Mac which has not been fully addressed (YET).

For the 10e100th time, co-operative multitasking is just as real as
pre-emptive multitasking.

> It is obvious to me that you have no clue about Amigas if you only think of
> them as game machines.  That's as ridiculous as saying that a Mac is a game
> machine. Just because Amigas have some graphics facilities which make it
> relatively easy to make "killer" games does NOT make it a game machine. Does
> a clone's ability to make a great boat anchor mean that it has no other 
> purpose? err, well, this may be a bad example... 

Sheesh.  Please reread the original message, and my reply.  Does every bit
of humor require an emoticon for people to get it?  If I had been serious,
I would not have ended with an elipsis; it would have finished the
sentence.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University
	<92275.135853ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> <6105.2acc370e@hayes.com>
	<1aot96INNch@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <6139.2ad1cd7b@hayes.com>
	<1avro0INNdl0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:52:33 GMT

>>>>> On 7 Oct 1992 18:26:56 -0500, nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) said:

>>> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
Nan> [ some System 7 features vs. OS/2 features...]

>>>If you change something in document A that you've pasted into
>>>document B, the changes get updated in B.
Nan> Hmm, sounds like DDE, no?

But does DDE/OLE work over a network, today?  DDE sounds more like
AppleEvents, except that the AppleEvent data and command types are
more structured, at least from my understanding of DDE and AppleEvents.

Nan> I know in WPS you can sort the icons of a folder in
Nan> name/size/date/etc order, also you can setup the
Nan> date/time/currency formats.

The WorldScript services of System 7.1 allow one to mix scripting
styles (left to right and right to left) in the same document.  The
date/time/currency formatting is a *part* of WorldScript.  This is
important for application developers who need to localize their
software for foreign markets.  Like Japan.

[ big, long, hairy multimedia interface document deleted]

Frankly, as a Mac User, I think that MultiMedia (on either platform)
is hype.

>>>* Automatic slot conflict resolution (NuBus and Slot Manager) (Not, Not)

>>>  ( MCA helps, but it isn't automatic )
>> 
>> Hardware issue, both MCA and EISA have auto device configuration,
>> running some register setup program during device installation.

>>>Important hardware issue. Hardware is part of the system.

Nan> But that's not what we're talking about here, we're supposed to
Nan> talk about features of System 7 and OS/2.

Except that device drivers are a "feature" of OS/2.  The equivalent
functionality on the Mac happens to be built into the hardware, in a
very nice fashion, I might add.

>> Of course, OS/2 has quite a bit of features that MacOS doesn't
>> have: pre-emptive MT, memory protection, multithreading, OO GUI,
>> REXX, etc.

In what way is the WPS OO?  In it's implementation?  Who will care?

Nan> As to the benefit of memory protection, I think lots of Mac users
Nan> here would disagree with you.

Count me in.  But I know why.  Most people who don't know why don't
care.  They just want to keep running their apps.  Which is really all
most people want.   The most telling argument to me is that for
everything except hacking, Mail, and News, I'd rather use the Mac II
in our office over the SparcStation.  Yet the Sparcstation has
pre-emptive MT, memory protection, multi-threading, etc, etc. 


Ted
--
Ted "Theodore" Leung 				| twl@cs.brown.edu
Brown Object-Oriented Database Group		| twl@BROWNCS.BITNET
Box 1910, Brown Univerisity			| uunet!brunix!twl
Providence, RI 02912-1910 			| (401) 863-7673
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:21:29 GMT

In the response to Mr. Scott Boyd I wrote:
>It would help you to present more educated opinions.

Since I was notified that this statement has a strong
negative (say insulting) conotation, I apologize for it.
I didn't mean to insult Mr. Scott.

I attempted to express in this sentence the following meaning:
"It would help you to present opinions based on even more
thorough knowledge and established experience."

I hope this sounds better.

Anyway, I apologize to all who fell offended (if any) and to Mr. Scott Boyd.

Regards,

Dariusz Bolski
-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy