HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:28:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.190312.271@physc1.byu.edu> goblec@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>What WP programs are available for the Next other than WriteNow and
>(ugh) Word Perfect.  WriteNow is nice, but is lacking quite a few features
>that some writers need.  It has no table editor for instance, one reason
>why MS-Word is so popular.  The last version I saw had no style sheets
>either.  The Mac version does now, but I don't know if this has been
>ported to the Next yet.  I don't know about it's glossary, footnoting,
>indexing or table of contents managers.

FrameMaker is a very solid port.  It would have been better if it had
been written expressly for the NeXT, but that almost defeats the
purposes of Frame.

>As far as I know there is only one page layout program for the Next,
>and it is considered a shoddy port by many I have talked to.  I've
>heard many people on the Mac side who don't like FrameMaker either.
>PageMaker and QuarkExpress aren't available.

There's FrameMaker, PasteUp, and Virtuoso for page-layout.  Take your
pick.  Virtuoso blows away anything on the Mac in the same catagory
(single page layout) for sure.  PasteUp needs to mature, but is way
cool.  Very close on the horizon is Pages by Pages which is so far
beyond anything out there that it's not funny.  It's page-layout with
artificial intelligence.  It's great for big companies that need to
maintain a corporate image.  There's also the Archetype Document
Engine, but that's at least a year away or more.

>In graphics things are better, but there still isn't a program
>akin to the Mac's photo retouchers.  In spreadsheets there is
>Improv and Wingz which are indeed nice, unless you need Excel
>compatability.  I'm afraid I don't know much about terminal
>emulators, beyond the fact that Terminal isn't up to much.  That
>is what I am using to post this message.  It is incompatable with
>our Vax's editor for some reason.

You are a bit behind the times.  For retouching:

ComposeInColor
TIFFany
CRANACH (those German hackers; go figure... ;-)
Image
Retouche
PixelMaster
Emerald
Icon - free!

Spreadsheets:

Improv
Wingz
Mesa
Questor
Solution - not shipping though....

Term-Emulators:

Terminal is pretty good.
Stuart is better, and is shareware
MicroPhone Pro



Really, there is software for NeXTSTEP.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot)
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:42:34 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1g0bsaINNe5b@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
> I thought I may contribute a few words of wisdom :-)
> 
> -- Create a system that even a fool can use, 
>    and only a fool will want to use it.
> 
> -- "User friendly": you spend fifteen minutes learning how to use it,
>    and the rest of your life fighting with it to get your job done.

I don't see any wisdom here. Just flame-baiting and nay-saying.

Simple systems don't have to be useless, nor do easy to use systems have
to get in the way of experienced users. Both the principles espoused in your
"words of wisdom" are false propositions.

It *IS* harder to make such systems, than to simply crank out complex,
feature-laden incomprehensible systems on the unwary user. Worth it, though.

I'll admit, there's times when you need applications with all the grace of a
600 HP chainsaw, but I wouldn't want to foist such a system on anyone without 
sufficient experience to operate it properly. (Consider the implications of
activating the 600 HP saw....)

Such conditions won't work in the real world. Users come in all levels of 
experience. It is the duty of good application designers to allow the 
application to seamlessly match that experience.

-- 
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: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: Re: MAC percentage of the Market
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:55:50 GMT

asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel) writes:

>Title gives the question which this note addresses.

>About 2 weeks ago the WSJ had an update of PC sales. Apple was third, having
>just lost second place back to IBM. My recollection is that Compaq was first.
>Anyhow, the answer isabout 17%. That is; Apple gets about 17% of the market

>of microcomputers.

I hate to disagree but...
 
I received this in my Email box the other day...
 
"Worldwide industry research from both InfoCorp and IDC indicate, for the
first half of '92, Apple has shipped over 1.3M units up 29% from last year
while IBM has shipped 1.2M units, dowm 20% from last year. Apple's revenues
for this period were $3.46B, compared to IBM,s at $3.15B.
Currently. Apple is the WORLD'S #1 SUPPLIER OF DESKTOP COMPUTERS!!!"
(Emphasis Mine!)
 
TED
PS I think that puts them at about 20-21% market share too.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:28:17 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Dec14.143904.1237@yvax.byu.edu> feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>As far as combined resources of Apple and IBM go, it's been my experience  
>that, with the exception of Apple, large computer companies make only-okay  
>stuff.  It's the service, marketing, advertising, and positional power  
>that lands sales for them.

IBM definitately has the resources and respect of business to land sales for
Pink and PowerPC, should they decide to wield it.

>I'm not impressed with IBM as a whole, though OS/2 is a good showing.  I'd  
>say NeXT has significantly more to worry about from Apple being part of  
>Taligent than Big Blue.

"OS/2 is a good showing"
What part of IBM are you not impressed with?  The Mainframes and Minis?  The
join venture with Apple is not going to develop either.  The RS/6000's 
architecture is what the PowerPC is going to be based on; I would consider 
THAT the model for expectations from Taligent and the joint venture.  IBM
Research is a big organization, and I have seen some amazing things come out
of it.  Why the pessimism?  IBM for too long has been exclusively associated
with the mainframe world, which is (by all indications) drawing to a close.

>Sean Luke
>sean@digaudio.byu.edu  

[sorry, third post today with same .sig, I'll go change it now...]
"The 1980's were the me generation. The 1990's are the me-too generation."
                               - G. Donald Moncreaff
--------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!
Andrew R. Southwick
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:48:36 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <of9bvL_00WBNE6iJR9@andrew.cmu.edu>, Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> No, I use key shortcuts because it's faster than even using the Mac menu
> bar. 

You sure? Have you actually sat down and timed yourself? It might surprise
you to find out that using the menu bar is faster than using the keyboard
overall.

To paraphrase Tog on Interface:

Apple has spent over $50M in user interface testing. They've learned that
users think the keyboard is faster than the mouse, but they've consistantly
measured that the mouse is faster than the keyboard.

> Access speed is not a problem for me, and I haven't seen to be much
> of a big deal for most users.  That is my big problem with the speed
> argument; I just haven't found it to be true.  Even worse is the fact
> that with large monitors, I've found it true that access times to the
> Mac's single menu bar to be higher than that for Windows users.

Untrue. Getting to the mac menu bar requires nothing more than a flick of the
wrist to zoom to the top of the screen. Access to Windows menu bars requires
precise positioning to a tiny area of the screen.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:39:03 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <168BBDAAD.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>  writes:

>Hmm. I guess the combined resources of Apple and IBM won't be any
>help to Taligent? Yeah, NeXT could easily stay ahead of two giants,
>especially now that they'll be supporting two platforms. Don't
>expect NS 3.0 for awhile now that they'll be worrying over NS486.

NS 3.0 has shipped since September.  We are using a copy.

As far as combined resources of Apple and IBM go, it's been my experience  
that, with the exception of Apple, large computer companies make only-okay  
stuff.  It's the service, marketing, advertising, and positional power  
that lands sales for them.

I'm not impressed with IBM as a whole, though OS/2 is a good showing.  I'd  
say NeXT has significantly more to worry about from Apple being part of  
Taligent than Big Blue.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:07:46 GMT

In article <Bz2Au7.9r0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>
>> This is the problem with Mac.  It has FUNDAMENTAL problems in its design.
>> Sure, you can multitask, but you have to go out and buy all new software
>> written to do so.  Sure you can do many things with Mac, but every time
>> there is a change for the better in the OS, you have to rewrite the software
>> to take advantage of it, and that means users are forced to spend $$.
>
>No, this isn't true.  Software doesn't have to be rewritten to take
>advantage of many new features.  I get System 5.0 just after it came
>out, and the majority of my existing software multitasked just fine, 
>including public domain stuff written for the 128k Mac.  Because the
>OS code is seperate from the application code, most OS changes don't
>require new software.
>
>> Object oriented technology avoids this problem.  If you upgrade your OS with
>> this type of design, your existing software takes full advantage of the
>> upgrade.  The NeXT is the only fully object oriented system, designed from
>> the ground up, being sold today.  Object oriented UNIX technology is
>> the future, Mac technology is the past.
>
>The NeXT is better at this than the mac, but I was under the impression that
>NeXTSTEP 3.0 broke a good deal of old software.

NeXTSTEP 3.0 broke no software.  3.0 is totally binary comptible with
2.1.  ADB keyboards broke software that was peeking at hardware
dependant key codes rather than hardware independant char codes, but
this is not NeXT's fault.

>One thing annoys me, however, about NeXT's.  Everything is distributed in
>executable form, like a personal computer.  One of the things I like about
>running a UNIX system is having source code available for nearly everything,
>and I miss this on a NeXT.

A few software packages have source available.  RightBrain's products,
with the exception of PasteUp, and Simson Garfinkle's SBook have
source available.  However, most NeXT users don't know how to compile
source even if they had the compiler.

>-- 
>Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
>  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:07:20 EDT
Followup-To: bhan.723682500@husc10>

Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <ibhan.723682500@husc10>, ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
> Re: Multiple button mice
> 
> This is the most rediculous argument I've ever read.  

You must not have been reading the net long. <grin>

> Obviously, some
> people think that one button mice should be the standard, other think that
> two button mice should be used, and others that there should be two button
> mice with the option of not using the other button (and thus the software
> not relying on it).  

Obviously.

> WHO CARES?  Don't go through these rediculous proofs
> of wasted time one way or another.  

OK.

> Unless we poll thousands of users and
> ask which they prefer or find more intuitive, we can't really establish
> anything.  

I submit that polling users won't help.

You need to do scientific, controlled studies. Asking people's opinions is
a useful observation, but it isn't scientific at all. 

Apple has at least spent some research dollars on the topic, and has found
the one button mouse to be easier to use.

> Why don't we spend our time on something more worthwhile?

You're right.

EVERYONE! Off the net! <grin>

-- 
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.
From: tim@Apple.COM (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:28:15 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec15.233825.5352@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:

|Where is the "joint" development??  It looks like IBM is getting
|Motorola to codevelop and fab their processors, and Apple is just
|getting a good deal on them.  While at the same time, IBM and Apple
|are developing their own separate and distinct operating systems
|independantly of eachother.  Some of this development apparently
|happens in the same building (Taligent HQ).  I guess that's the
|"joint" part.
|
|This looks like an IBM-Motorola joint-venture with Apple going along
|for the ride as far as hardware goes.

The Apple people here at Somerset would tend to disagree with that
statement...




-- 
	-- Tim Olson
	Apple Computer Inc. / Somerset
	(tim@apple.com)
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs. NeXT (was Mac Multitasking?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:14:35 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Dec17.193836.7297@cuug.ab.ca>
wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Dec14.231636.522@athena.mit.edu> mflafeer@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer) writes:
>>.
>
>I hope NeXT never goes mainstream. Mainstream means an inability to innovate.
>Your user base is too large and they don't want change. Mediocrity sets in.
>
So I guess this means you are against Nexts move into the intel
world with NS486?
 
 
 
>Terry Wilcox
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Eaton                    | Opinions? We're not allowed to have
UC525655@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU | opinions at Mizzou... get back to me
                              | in '94 when I graduate... ;)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:17:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.195557.25818@athena.mit.edu> zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>You never did show me
>how seemlessly a Mac plugs into a Novell Network.

I have a Mac IIci sitting right next to one of my NeXTstation colors.
I have two of our NetWare servers mounted as AppleShare volumes on it.
All I had to do was click the chooser and enter my password for each
server.  It's this easy on NeXTSTEP too, but let me tell you, NetWare
for Macintosh (which makes the NetWare server look like an AppleShare
server) works one hell of a lot better than the NetWare client for
NeXTSTEP.

Also, you can get NetMounter from Dayna which will work with NetWare
servers that don't have NetWare for Macintosh.

> You never did show me
>how simple it is to obtain data from a SYBASE database and incorporate it
>into one of your applications.  

Macintosh has DAL, or Data Access Language.  It's a 'unified' query
language.  If you write some DAL code, it will work with Sybase,
Oracle, 4D, or even BTrieve on a NetWare server.  It's transparent
too.  It's not as good as DBKit (being that it's just a query language
and not a nice OO toolkit), but it is powerful nonetheless.  Creating
the rest of the application is still significantly more difficult than
on NeXTSTEP.

>You never did show me the CD-quality sound
>(44kzH) coming out the the Powerbook speakers.

You can do 44khz sound on Macintoshes if I remember correctly.  You
still have to get the sound out of the Mac, but you need to do the
same thing on the NeXT...


Mac's aren't that primitive.  It's not as slick and smooth as a NeXT,
and there are some things that are definitely better on a NeXT, but a
NeXT is definitely not for everyone.



andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:34:16 GMT

wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:

> In article <Bz2Au7.9r0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
> >No, this isn't true.  Software doesn't have to be rewritten to take
> >advantage of many new features.  I get System 5.0 just after it came
> >out, and the majority of my existing software multitasked just fine, 
> >including public domain stuff written for the 128k Mac.  Because the
> >OS code is seperate from the application code, most OS changes don't
> >require new software.

> Wow. You mean the getNextEvent's changed to waitNextEvent's when you upgraded
> to System 5.0?

> I thought that Multifinder compatible meant using waitNextEvent instead of
> getNextEvent, but now I find out that that isn't so. Are you sure you don't
> mean your old apps could run under Multifinder and could be moved to the
> background? This isn't multitasking.

GetNextEvent() is patched under multitasking systems.  It yields processor
time nearly as efficiently as WaitNextEvent() does, and applications using
GNE can still get background time.  The only difference is WNE takes extra 
arguments so the foreground application can request foreground time be given 
less frequently than normally.  GNE even did primitive multitasking before 
System 5.0 -- DA's received processor time when an application window was 
in the foreground.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." 
					-- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.hardware
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:01:58 -0500 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info-Version .90
Distribution: na

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 12-Dec-92 Mac & IBM
Info-Version .90 by GRUBB@dante.nmsu.edu 
> XGA: newer and faster than 8514/a, only available for MCA bus-based
>      PS/2s, clones are coming out soon.  Max resolution at 1024x768x8b,
>      same as 8514/a, also some 16 bpp mode.

You should add XGA-2, a new standard, currently only available from IBM,
on MCA.  Soon to be released by Radius for ISA busses.  Here are the
features (taken off a fax sheet posted to the OS/2 board):

Excerpts from mail: 7-Dec-92 The Radius XGA-2 Graphics Card by Lewis
Kawecki@novell.com 
>IBM XGA coprocessor:
> 
>Accelerates graphics functions up to 20 times faster than standard VGA in
>Windows and OS/2, including line draws, bit and pixel-block transfers, area
>fills, masking and X/Y addressing.
> 
>Up to 65,536 simultaneous colors:
> 
>Photo realistic quality for viewing and editing in 640x480 and 800x600
>resolutions for presentations, multimedia computing and publishing.
> 
>640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions:
> 
>Supports nearly any size monitor and application you choose to use.
> 
>Bus Master support:
> 
>Improves video performance and off-loads the CPU by accessing system memory
>directly with the XGA processor.
> 
>DMOS automatic display identification:
> 
>Allows OS/2, Windows and CAD to run at the highest resolution and refresh rate
> 
>the monitor is capable of
> 
>Refresh rates up to 75 Hz:
> 
>Ensures flicker free, rock solid images to reduce visual discomfort
> 
>VGA compatable:
> 
>Ensures compatibility with virtually all software.
> 
>Specifications:
>system requirements:
> 
>Hardware:
>CPU:             386sx or greater  (which all OS/2 2.0 user have)
>BUS:             16-bit ISA (compatible with EISA Bus)
> 
>Software (included)
>Install:       Copies and installs all necessary DMOS and Diagnostic software.
> 
>DMOS:          Monitor definition files for automatic configuration
>Diagnostics:   Provides testing and information about the XGA-2 installation.
>windows 3.1 Drivers:
>AutoCAD Drivers:
>OS/2:          Supports for XGA-2 dirivers from IBM(included with OS/2) for
>               resolutions from 640x480 to 1280x1024
>XGA-2 Al:
>Bus Mastering: Speed performance of graphic operation over the system BUS
>Multiple Instancing: Use up to 7 XGA-2 cards in one computer.

We have yet to see how it will use 7 XGA-2 cards, but I've heard a rumor
that installation and usage will be Mac-like.  (ie, add a card and
monitor combo, and you increase your desktop space)  That would be nice,
especially since it goes up to 1280x1024.

Carl
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy