HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:45:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.190441.9736@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>(1) The company's stability.  NeXT hasn't released any new hardware
>that I've heard about for a very long time now, and the only software
>I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
>operating system.  IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big

I think I'm missing the point here. NeXT has no new hardware because there's
no new 680X0 chip. They're working on new hardware, but it won't be based on
the 68000 line. That takes time. Apple can have new hardware every month 
because it's just rehashing all of its old computers.

NeXT hasn't come out with new software since NeXTSTEP 3.0 because that's
the only software they produce. What other software are they supposed to 
release. They're too busy with NS486 and NS3.1 to waste their time on
diversions.

>
>(2) Compatibility.  Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>acceptable speed?  I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
>seen how slowly they go?  And no emulator will EVER run software as
>well as the real thing.
>

Does Windows run reliably and at an acceptable speed under any circumstances?

>(3) Competition.  I thought NeXTStep 486 was due out this past fall?
>If it's being delayed further until the middle of next year, then
>Windows NT will probably beat it to market, killing it before it even
>gets a foot in.  Look at the GEOS operating system, after all -- a
>good design, well-implemented, but crushed by Windows.

I don't think they're aimed at the same market. NT is aimed at people
that need Windows. NS486 is aimed at people that need 486's and a good
OS.

>
>If you're just starting out with computer equipment, buy Macintosh
>hardware.  If you already have a considerable investment in MS-DOS
>software, then get 486's and DOS/Windows, OS/2, or Windows NT.  If you
>want a neat machine and you don't feel a need to worry about it
>becoming obsolete (this isn't a worry in some cases), then try
>NextStep 486.

If you're buying 486's, why not run NeXTSTEP 486? If you don't like it,
put DOS/Windows on instead. Why would your NS486 machine become obsolete
when the same machine running DOS/Windows wouldn't? They're the same
hardware.


Terry Wilcox
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:55:58 GMT

In article <1jtr00INNvb@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>At some of the prices people are throwing around, you can expand your
>horizons.  HP has some workstations in those price ranges that will blow
>the socks off NeXT and Macintosh for speed.


Definantly, like the HP9000 model 710 for ~$23000 LOADED.  But we
didn't pick the price that was quoted;  the $17,000 was how much BYTE
actually spent on a Q950 that they were comparing to a $5000 NeXT system.


>
>$5000 is also around what you can get a complete Sparc for from Sun.
>
>--Tim Smith

Well, almost.  Sun has a deal right now selling SPARCstation
"classics" for $4500... if you buy 12 or more.

I believe the going rate for a minimal SPARC is around $6000.

-Howard

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						   howard@netcom.com
		"I AM the Lizard Queen" - Lisa Simpson
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dms50304@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Darkman)
Subject: Re: YA Mac horror story
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:43:14 GMT

cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:

>Well, where should I start?  I guess that dreadful day when my prof told
>me we'd be using Object Pascal Genie for the class (surprisingly written
>here at CMU on Macs, by a bunch of computer illiterates).  Into my head
>popped up images of dialog boxes like "Cannot quit, not enough memory. 

I've never seen this error before...

>Push okay."  Or even, "Low on memory, some functions will be disabled,"
>after just opening a 29000 byte program.  I didn't even run it.  Didn't
>even edit it!  By the way, this is all on a IIci with 8 megs of Physical
>ram.
>Well, I decided I'd see what software this Mac had, so I started looking
>around.  Of course, I couldn't quit Genie Pascal because of low memory,
>so I was using a crippled Mac.  I loaded up MacWrite II.  Pretty cool,

How did you load this if you had low memory?  Hmmm?

>pretty neat.  I closed that window.  I then loaded up Mathematica. 

Gee, you loaded another huge program (don't forget Pascal Genie and
MacWrite are still loaded) even though you don't have enough memery to
quit the first??  The shit is getting pretty deep now....

>Pretty cool, pretty neat.  I closed that window.  Because I'm so lucky
>with Macs, I started looking around again, and all of a sudden, the
>system locked up.  Why?  Well, I was closing only the document, not the
>whole app.  But wait, most other systems close the app when you close
>the document, so why not the Mac?  I mean, it makes sense; if I'm not
>gonna work on Document X which uses MacWrite II, why should Macwrite II
>be loaded in the system?  

How about "Why should the program quit unless I tell it to?"

[bunch of useless dribble deleted]
>I then realize that Macs have a
>limit of 32 characters on filenames.  Much smaller than 256.

Why would you want to name something that long in the first place??

>Jeez, what a relief to get out of there.

All I can do is laugh at your stupidity and lies, lies, lies...
>Carl Jabido

>ps- that was mostly true.  the exaggerated parts weren't exaggerated
>that much, at least no more than 10%.  BTW, I'm not that stupid, I'm
                                  ~~~
				  I think you left a 0 off that number...

>just making obvious remarks.  Just to piss off some Mac owners.  I had
>to wake you up to the fact that Macs aren't the ultimate computer. 
>There are some nice things about the system.  Generally however, I don't
>like it.  It may be easy to use, in fact, I'll personally vouch for the
>fact that it's probably the easiest computer to use to date.

All I can say is that the shit got so deep that I nearly drowned in it
before I finished the article.  Is this a wet dream for DOS heads? I've
never heard such preposturous BS in my life...  Gimme a break.
-- 
--- Daryn Sharp   Darkman@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:10:11 GMT

In article <FXaoXB2w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca> jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:

>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning.  Let's face 
>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT?  I'm beginnin to think not by your 
>stupid comments.  The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in 
>most cases.  It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves 
>like an 030 IIci.  The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better 
>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer!  The 
>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming 
>up!  But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better 
>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC 
>platform is OS/2, forget about windows.  I don't see next capturing a 
>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>

Why is it that incoherent name calling always pops up in advocacy groups?
Oddly enough, it's always the same people. Didn't this guy just insult
Amiga users around the world?

Let's face it. Anybody can say 'my machine is better than yours', but
intelligent people will come up with intelligent reasons. The more
you flame and insult, the less respect people have for your opinion.


Terry Wilcox



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jess Holle)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:59:02 GMT

[many details of desired word processing, accounting, etc, power platform
deleted]

>NeXT.

I hate to put it this bluntly, but despite all of the NeXT's merits, this
will never fly.  The Mac MAYBE (I would hope, but bet not), but the NeXT
not any time soon.

To put it another way, the university here wanted to get a network of
workstations to teach freshmen engineers programming.  Of all places,
this sounds perfect for the NeXT.  A professor, who was reasonably
influential in such areas, pushed hard for NeXT.  The idea was, of
course, shot down, in favor of SUN.  NeXT is perceived as a niche without
a user.  Power hungry engineers run to SUN, 3D hungry people fun to SGI,
people on low budgets or with a compatibility complex run to PC clones,
those with a penchant for a usable computer (okay, somewhat biased) run
to a Mac, but few people seem to see NeXT as the computer to run to.

>How about giving him NeXTSTEP 486 when it is released?  For the price
>of a network of Quadras you could get far faster machines with
>a far faster operating system.

You can't simply say to a manager, "Wait until such-and-such is released,
it is SUPPOSED to be great if/when it is released."  This won't cut it.

>>	I don't think he's realized the added cost of networking cards and
>>the $249/user price MS is reportedly going to be asking for WFW (Windows User,

Yes, as someone posted WFW is out and at discount rates, BUT it is another
Microsoft mass-market-hack.  If Microsoft churns it out, it will be:
(1) quasi-acceptable (though I hate to admit it), (2) over-hyped and 
generally far below being actually acceptable, except in managerial eyes, 
and (3) a slow and bloated pain in the buttocks.


Jess Holle
From: jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: tmaas@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Anthony Maas)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:45:16 GMT
Organization: The Draco Unix System [BBS]

In a message written on 20 Jan 93 20:52:13 GMT by, 
tmaas@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Anthony Maas) writes:

In article <ocaoXB1w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca>, 
jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca
(Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
|>
|> I've use a couple nexts, and I wasn't very impressed.  The speed is
|> nothing compared to a Quadra because of the overhead of the NeXT os.  
The
|> interface is annoying, as well as the two button mouse.  There is 
nowhere
                                         *****************
 
Two buttons too complicated?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, just Godawfully annoying.  With that stpuid little pop up menu..  
Alas..  :)
/es


---
jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
The Draco Unix System [BBS]

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:18:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.205949.21863@gallant.apple.com> bell@apple.com (Mike Bell) writes:
>
>On the Mac, we call it ClarisWorks......
>
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!   Oh, PLEEZ!!!!!

Why don't you call Taligent and tell them it's time to move away from
a doc-centered paradigm because one lame integrated Mac app shares
document types with several modules within the SAME PROGRAM?

This is the trailing edge of oop.  NeXTSTEP, Taligent, and others are
looking at object exportability... the OS managing one program using
another's object types.

-H-



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						   howard@netcom.com
		"I AM the Lizard Queen" - Lisa Simpson
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie)
Subject: Re: YA Mac horror story
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: An Ol Ag surrounded by a bunch of unfriendly Seminoles
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:24:21 GMT

In article <C1JECw.5t5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron
Insel) wrote:

> I remember some Macs use command-option-reset.  The IIci has a hardwired
> "programmer's key" in the front panel of the case, so it doesn't have such
> a key combination.

Which must be installed by whomever sets the machine up (or has access to
the little plastic buttons).

James
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kaya@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:25:46 GMT

In article <=al3f1_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 1jq1p6INNfml@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca, wrob@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Wong) writes:
>>In article <f-k39qq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>[whoops, I munched the other guy!]
>>>>  As a regular user of NeXT, you will NEVER need to
>>>>log in as root.
>>>
>>>Unless you want to change your login tiff. :)
>>>
>>>But what about the poor fool system administrators? Why should
>>>they want a delicate system?
>>
>>Perhaps I should try and clarify the issue of the login TIFF.  When the 
>>sysadmin changes the login tiff, everyone who logs in to the system will have
>>this new login tiff.
>>
>>The changing of the login tiff is not a system-supported operation.  You 
>>change it at your own risk.
>
>Ow.
>
>Ok, I do see where you are coming from, and it does make
>some sence, but I disagree with this philosophy.
>
>This essentially says: "This bit of the computer shall not be used,
>penalty for illicit usage being the chance of mucking your computer
>up."

How about - if Joe Mac user destroys his system it is his fault,
but on a system with built-in safeguards it is the OS's fault?

It is easier to muck up a NeXT because there are so many files.
But they're protected.  
>
>If this is so, don't bother putting the feature in at all, because
>some of the users will try to use it, and some will screw up.

I've seen people trim 5.25" disks to fit in 1.44 meg drives.
I have no doubt that some people will want to use the new feature. 
See below.
>
>If, on the other hand, the feature is actually there for people to use,
>then it should be done in as solid a way as possible. There is no
>benefit gained from this failure to log in! No power is accrued this
>way! You might as well make the system recover from human errors when
>it can. Because humans DO make the errors, even Wonderous System
>Admins With the Root Password, never mind Ordinary Joe Single
>User Types with the Root Password.

Luckily for these Murphy's Law users there is an application called
DefaultManager.  With a GUI, you understand.  With drag and drop
simplicity, you could say.  Even changes the login tiff.

Let be see if I got you on this one - if a system adds features,
it has a responsibility to idiot proof these features.  So far,
so good.  That's why there is root.  There has got to be some
level, however deep, that you can do this sort of thing with
impunity.  Joe MacUser could start fiddling with system files
with a hex editor on the mac - does a panel pop up?  
>
>---
>			- 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.


-- 
Kaya Bekiroglu - "Don't mind him, he's just crazy"
kaya@world.std.com
[If you're looking for something witty and amusing here, then
congratulations, you've just found it]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kitchel@manta.dpsi.com (Sidney W. Kitchel)
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:05:17 GMT

gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) writes:

>I'm pretty sure that RISC never refered to the number of instructions in the  
>instruction set.  

	Wrongo!! The advocates of RISC also made the argument that fewer
instructions meant faster interpretation and execution of the simple
instructions, because the decoder logic was simpler. They also argued
that once you reduced the decoder silicon real-estate you could have room for
much larger register sets, which were of more value for throughput.

>                 It refered to the kinds of instructions in the instruction  
>set.  Each instruction only does "little" tasks, as opposed to CISC  
>instructions such as "translate and test" or "pack" and "unpack" (in IBM 360  
>land) which actually do a fair amount of work for a single instruction.

	The arch-culprit in the 360 instruction set was block copy,
which ran for an arbitrary number of machine cycles. But the early
RISC advocates usually took the VAX as their main whipping boy.

							--Sid
--
Sidney W. Kitchel  	    kitchel@cs.indiana.edu, kitchel@dpsi.com
Data Parallel Systems, Inc.  ============||  DPSI  ||===============
4617 E. Morningside Drive	                      (812) 334-8100
Bloomington, Indiana,  47408  USA		FAX:  (812) 334-8121
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: PC, MAC or Amiga?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:06:45 GMT

>Might as well fan the flames...I would buy a high speed 486...That way you
>can run NeXTstep486 (which will also run DOS and Windows)...NeXTstep has
>a Mac emulator, Executor, which is pretty good, although doesn't emulate
>everything...actually the list is pretty short (maybe around 50 tested and 100
>not tested apps)...but if Quorum ports its emulator to NeXT, then any NeXT
>user can run any Mac app...in addition to DOS and Windows...

The part about Quorum porting its emulator is a fairly big if, I suspect.
It would seem that they would at least wait to see if NS486 takes off.  I
say this because they would have to emulate an Motorola 680x0 on a 486.  I
don't even know of any emulators doing this for them to buy this portion
of the port from, so it is likely that it will take them time and money in
quantity.

>So, with a 486, you have the option of running NeXTstep, the industry's best
>GUI/OS (I don't need to be flamed about this...), and if that doesn't work
>out for you, you still have DOS or Windows...

You are, however, asking to be flamed, but I'll ignore the request.  Having
DOS and Windows as backups would seem VERY little consideration.  Much like
saying if Ada doesn't suit your programming whims there's always assembly.


Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ted C Brown)
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:24:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.203127.19389@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:

>and NeXT with the 68040 FPU problem.} Being patient enough to let others set 
>the specs or find problems with the hardware is a better way to{This is likly
>why Apple is letting IBM reliece its PowerPC 601 9 to 6 months ahead of them;
>to find out what the bugs may exist in the PowerPC chip or in PowerOpen.}

Just thought I'd point out that there was *nothing* wrong witht the FPU.
What was wrong was Motorola's code to handle the Trancendental Functions
(which aren't on the 040 FPU).  Anyone who'd used the 040 that early would
have had the same problem.  Motorola, once told of the problem simply
rewrote the code (I believe a sign was wrong on Tangent ?) and NeXT just
sent out the new lib.   So it was a problem...but hardly anything serious
at the time...or difficult to fix.  Now the slow SCSI on the NeXT...

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Douglas Taylor)
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Summary: Mac users - some just can't stop stereotyping 
Keywords: stereotypical characterizations NeXT on Geraldo 
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 20:17:22 GMT

In article <21688@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> putzolu@cs.ucdavis.edu (David Matthew Putzolu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.144753.10079@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Douglas Taylor,
>dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu writes:

>>	applications, all at the same time... thanks to EMPLANT, ATOnce Plus,
>>	and, of course, CBM.

>
>At least the Mac users don't keep touting things like the EMPLANT, which
>requires pirated Mac roms to emulate the Mac. Ooops, I forgot, there are
>all the Amiga people who bought a new color Mac just to tear the ROMS out
>of it, right? 
 You know, this would be true but for one *little* item - one can buy used
	ROMs, and occasionally new ROMs, at a fraction of the cost it takes
	to buy a full-blown Mac; I bought ROMs fro Shreve Systems to power my
	original AMAX II emulator for a fraction of the cost...
>
>EMPLANT Mac emulation = Piracy (definitely not something to brag
>about) or buying a new Macintosh in order to emulate it (what a dumb
>idea!)
 It is truly endearing when the competition must revert to libel and slander,
	simply because they are slightly insecure... unless, of course, you can
	tell me where I can find *pirated* ROMs - what arre we talking about,
	software copies?  Emplant uses a proprietary format... hardware copies?
	Suuuurrre.  Answer this, kind sir - if Amiga users were pirating ROMs,
	wouldn't Mac sue?  After ll, there was that VERY small notebook company
	that they planted/found the *pirated roms* on... why haven't they done
	that to Utilities Unlimited?
>
>"I knew I should have gotten"                ______-==-______
>"the new version of Rival..."    ____-------=----------------=-------____
>           ________________  _ _-    --------________________--------
>          (______________(_||_) _______ /
>             /_____/_____            _-
>Ex-Capt David Putzolu    \__________-
>U.S.S. Yamato
>Senior, CS & Psych, U.C.Davis - putzolu@cs.ucdavis.edu - my opinion

Annoying attitude, but I msut admit, that *is* a cool picture...

/============================================================================\
| L. Douglas Taylor InterNet: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |    IMPORTANT:    |
|=========================================================|   This message   |
| Guildenstern: We cross our bridges when we come to them | has cost the Net |
|   and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our | hundreds, if not |
|   progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a |    thousands,    |
|   presumption that once our eyes watered...             |    of dollars    |
|                                                         |     to send.     |
\============================================================================/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy