HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Mac vs Amiga
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:57:34 GMT
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


After taking some time out this weekend to do some looking, here
is what I have found, if you are looking at Amigas vs. Macs.  Feel
free to augment, flame if something is wrong, etc.

Lets start off in the Amiga department:

The Amiga is excellent for doing video work with.  I do not know enough
about the Video Toaster, but from what I know, it should be very easy
to use.

If C= got its act together, The Amiga would be a perfect "chamelon
computer", being able to run almost anything on it using cards
and emulators, like Emplant, once they get it running, or AMAX II.

I could find nothing wrong with it, except for one thing:  C='s
marketing.  In the US, C= markets stuff very rarely.  If C=
could get on the ball, instead of Macs and weenie PC systems
in stores, Macs (performas) would be competing with Amigas.

Now for Macs:

There is nothing I have found really wrong with Macs, that has not
been fixed up by Apple or a third party.  QT is excellent, the
resource manager saves loads of space, and if you stay within
(mostly) well thought out guidelines, your program will not
bomb.

After using a sun sparcstation for my Internet access, I am glad
to see a decent computer like the Mac or Amiga at home.

Both computers can do almost anything you want them to, and well too.

PS:  I did this to follow up on an Amiga bashing article that
-- 
********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
                             ***********************************
You WANT your hard drive trashed now.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 10:33:00 CST

In article <1992Nov15.072616.4261@sol.cs.wmich.edu>
22black@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Martin Black) writes:
 
>
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>
>>jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>>>Does an A3000 have a 25 MHz 040, like the Quadra 700???
>>>
>>>No one has as of yet answerered this question.  If it does not, then it
>>>is not in the same league as the Quadra, regardless of whether it has
>>>all the other features of a Quadra, which I gather it doesn't.
>
>>Not exactly true.  The HP-9000 I am using now only has a 25MHz 68030, yet
>>I would place this system way above the Quadra 700 in the next room.  A
>>microprocessor alone does not make a computer system.
>
>>>How much does it cost to take a 25 MHz 040 Amiga system (is this the
>>>A4000?), add Emplant, and the other essentials for using Mac software?
>
>>It costs nothing since it cannot be done.  Why are you arguing over a non-
>>existent product?
>
>Listen misinformed person, the emplant is out and it is real.  They have more
>work to do to make it compatible with all systems, yet it does work and has
>been delivered to their customers.
 
So you've actually got an A4000 and an Eggplant (excuse me, Emplant)
and run some mac software... Color? Benchmarks? SCSI/Disk/Video support?
Or are you just spreading smoke?
 
>
>>>First, who in the hell makes cards for Zorro slots, I've never even heard
>>>of Zorro slots.
>
>>That's a joke--right?
>
>>>Second, who wants PC-AT slots.
>
>We have zorro II and zorro III, which are isa, and eisa in terms of performance.
So? Considering most Zorro cards are graphics cards, or accelerators,
and most of the graphics cards can only run software written explicitly
for them, who cares?
>
>Martin
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Eaton                    | Opinions? We're not allowed to have
UC525655@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU | opinions at Mizzou... get back to me
                              | in 2 years when I graduate... ;)
From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs Amiga
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:59:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

[a lot of Mac and Amiga stuff deleted]

>After using a sun sparcstation for my Internet access, I am glad
>to see a decent computer like the Mac or Amiga at home.

>Both computers can do almost anything you want them to, and well too.

>PS:  I did this to follow up on an Amiga bashing article that
>-- 

>********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
>Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
>                             ***********************************
>You WANT your hard drive trashed now.

Since most of the stuff we have been reading on comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
are bashing of other computers, I would like to congratulate Douglas in
taking time to try an Amiga out.  (I remember he and I got into an argument
about Mac vs Amiga at least once).  I think Douglas did a good job--and he
also demonstrated the importance of "giving someone/something a chance"
before bashing the living-day-light out of of he/she/it.  

I encourage our fellow Amigans to do the same.  It is OK to be defensive
about the Amiga.  However, please don't go around trashing other computers
just for the sake of doing it...

Thanks. :)

Yours Sincerely,
Kelvin
e-mail: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Emplant - Why it is not feasible as a workstation
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:29:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.722104145

>The Emplant is, like the Toaster, not a computer but a peripheral board. The
>Emplant is a card for the Amiga 2000 and greater line of computers. It will
>allow the Amiga community access to cheap colour MAC emulation right out of 
>the package, and the company that produces it has hinted that other forms of
>emulation (PC, Quadra, etc...) may follow. This is because the Emplant is not
>a dedicated MAC emulator, as A-MAX is, but rather a multiplatform emulation
>system controlled by a set of (easily?) replaced custom chips. Emplant will
>most likely run well over 90% of all MAC software, since it has access to the
>same processor as a "real" MAC. On applications software, most likely what Amiga
>users will want it for, that ratio could hit (pure guess...) 97- or 98%!!!

No one, repeat, no one has succeeded in making a clone of a color
Macintosh yet.  I don't think ANYONE has seen an Emplant working in color
yet.  Let's leave further discussions about how it will destroy the
Macintosh, etc. to the time when it exists.
-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was:Macintosh advocacy (really!))
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:28:26 GMT
 <1992Nov20.000816.5458@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <By0y12.CEv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey) writes:

>>One many Mac programs, holding down one or more of the 4 modifier keys:
>>Shift, Control, Option, and Command, will change the behavior of mouse 
>>clicks.  This gives 16 different possible mouse clicks (2^4, from 4
>>buttons possible states, on and off).  Nobody actually uses all 16
>>possibilities to my knowledge, however, some programs use as many as 5
>>or 6.

>This isn't meant as a flame, so please don't take it that way...
>I know what you are saying about using the keyboard is a viable alternative
>to multiple mice buttons, but it seems a bit complex to do. Some people's
>arguments for Apple's choice of a single button mouse was that using 2 or
>more buttons would be too "complex" or "confusing". Again, don't take
>this as a flame, but don't you think that if a user can't remember which
>mouse button (out of 2) to use, they will be a bit confused about which key
>to press in conjunction with the mouse? (6+ possible keys) I have a
>3-button mouse, and there are still some things that I need to do while
>holding a key. I have a hard time remembering if it is the 2nd button with
>the shift and alt keys, or the first button with control, or.......

By having one mouse button, programs DEFAULT to having one button
commands.  The extra key combinations are only used for rarely used
functions, and are usually only an alternative to another method.  This
forces developers to develop their programs to rely on one button.  If
there were two buttons, programmers might use the second (as in some other
OS's) when not necessary.

>My point is that swapping the 2nd mouse button to a key-mouse combination
>is certainly not easier to remember than a 2-button mouse.

No, but that's not the swap.

>I know there are multiple button mice available for the mac, but does the
>OS support those buttons? If so, is their use standard between programs?

Most are programmable for the user.
-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:37:32 GMT

putzolu@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (David Putzolu) writes:
>Of course, as the earlier posting about copying a friend's Mac ROMS
>shows, Amiga/Emplant users will probably just pirate the ROMS.
>What a lovely bunch of people.

I know of no PC owners--be it Mac users or otherwise--who do not
pirate some software.  I am not advocating this, but I do not hide
from reality.  All people are "lovely".

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:07:54 GMT

In article <ewright.722020368@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Nov13.154107.1150@yvax.byu.edu> feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>
>>What was silly about this?  The Net is still over 50% educational.  
>
>The Net is not The World.  
>
>>The NeXT market (for single machines, at any rate) is still significantly  
>>educational.  
>
>Of course it is.  That's what I've been trying to get through to you.
>The NeXT market is primarily educational because only students can buy
>NeXTs at nonexhorbitant prices.  And there just aren't enough students
>around to make the NeXT (or any computer) a success by themselves. 

Actually, you are both wrong.  Higher-ed is becoming an ever smaller
market for NeXT.  The vast majority of purchases are in large
corporations.  The price of the machines barely enteres the equation
here.  They are bought only because of the huge savings they make in
developing MCCA's, and the competitive advantage they get from those
MCCAs.  If NeXT did not exist, they would have bought Sun
workstations - which cost more than Macs.  If price were the barrier,
NeXT would have lowered their price.


andrew

-- 
andrew@cubetech.com     | "Carpe Nocturn - I get more work done after
Andrew Loewenstern      |  2 a.m. than most people do all day."
Cube Technologies, Inc. |                          - Simson Garfinkel
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:19:51 GMT

ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
> > In <83567@ut-emx.uucp>  ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
> > 
> > > >    I don't think so.  I have used 5 A3000's so far, and all five look 
> > > > "workstation quality."

> They look "workstation quality", but are they?  Enquiring minds want
> to know :-)

Yes

> > > Please.  You have just insulted every Sun (> =sparc1+), NeXT, Mac II,
> > > VAX, and PC in the world.  Please do not use Amiga and workstation
> > > in the same sentence :-).

Ok, I was just about to say "Amigas are not workstations", but that sentence
doesn't meet the criteria and is therefore false. ;-)

> > Thank god for the smiley.
> > 
> > is an 8086 PC a workstation?

> Ten years ago, it was.

> > as for the Mac II, how can it be a workstation and the A3000 not, when the
> > A3000 is faster, has better hardware, a proper multitasking OS?

> The Mac II is a Mac, the A3000 is an Amiga.

Well come up to the front of the class and get a gold star.  You may not
have answered the question whatsoever, but I can't deny that last statement
of yours.

> > Or do you define "Workstation == Any relatively powerful computer that costs
> > far too much"?

> Workstation == Any computer that is generally used for high-end stuff

> > My A500 is a workstation.  I do work on it.  Boom-boom.

> An A500 is an Amiga.  An Amiga is not a workstation.  Boom-boom-SPLAT!

> [For the humor impared :-) * 10^6]

Are you using smileys to make totally inaccurate statements?

The Mac still can't multitask.  It's OS is huge and still doesn't get much
done.  You can have multiple applications open, but only one of them gets
any processor time.  Backgrounded applications on the Mac aren't actually
doing anything; they only wake up when you bring them to the front.

:-) :-) :-) etc...

> -- 
> ********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
> Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
>                              ***********************************
> You WANT your hard drive trashed now.

No I don't.

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
#include <standard_disclaimer.h> 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Organization: UPR-Mayaguez--ASEL Lab
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:39:51 GMT

In article <bmccnnll.722514883@unix1.tcd.ie>, bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:
|> In <84074@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
|> 
|> [A3000]
|> 
|> >They look "workstation quality", but are they?  Enquiring minds want
|> >to know :-)
|> 
|> Don't tell me you are flaming a machine you have never even used! Sigh...
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Typical of people from the Mac or Pc platform (on the average, not
everybody!)

[stuff deleted]

--------------------------------------------------------------
  Raist   // Amiga 500, 38Mhz Special MegaMidget Racer
        \X/  Avid user of AmigaVision, sending mail from Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 
---------
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:56:14 GMT

22black@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Martin Black) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>It costs nothing since it cannot be done.  Why are you arguing over a non-
>>existent product?
>
>Listen misinformed person, the emplant is out and it is real.  They have more
>work to do to make it compatible with all systems, yet it does work and has
>been delivered to their customers.

The board does not come close to meeting specifications.  It is like
advertising a computer system and only selling the motherboard.  That is
no more an Emplant board than my calculator is.

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell)
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:29:52 GMT

In <1992Nov20.224855.27377@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:

>It is much easier to REMIND yourself quickly without any annoying possible 
>effects.  By seeing the new cursor produced by pressing a modifier key, 
>the user knows immediately whether it is going to do what he wants before 
>he/she actually does it.

That is assuming the application changes the pointer/cursor to a new image
when the user holds down a modifier key. In my experience of working with Macs,
they don't! Can anyone give me a few examples of applications that do this, or
are we just talking about an ideal world here?

Barry.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jason Balicki (KodaK))
Subject: Re: Emplant - Why it is not feasible as a workstation
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:45:06 GMT

In article <83769@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>The Emplant as a WORKSTATION is a totally different bird.  To
>my knowledge, it does not have any TCP/IP, token ring, 
>LocalTalk, or SLIP software so that precludes using it as
>a workstation for high-end use.

Personally I see it as a novelty, unless you need to use mac software and can't
afford to buy a real one.  But I thought Emplant has LocalTalk capabilities?

>Amiga's sw base is too small to find the items you need to
>care and feed a workstation.  The NeXT can use all unix
>stuff.  The Mac and PC have excellent sw bases.  (I am

To be fair:  the Amiga can run UNIX as well.  Also I have found that the
PD and shareware base for the Amiga is much more professional than those
found on an IBM or MAC, even though it is smaller.  (As an example, I am
using "term" and it is nicer than any emulator available commercially, 
the same goes for JR-Comm.)

>not knocking the NeXT's sw base either, 600 MB freebies
>are not bad with a system release :-).

>IMHO, I just do not see C= making a dent in the places
>where a workstation is needed.  If I do, I will be
>surprised.

Would it be a pleasant surprise?  Personally I'd like to see all computers
flourish, I LIKE variety.

>********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
>Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
>                             ***********************************
>You WANT your hard drive trashed now.


--Jason Balicki
kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: PostScript Costs (Was: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT...)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 20:00:43 GMT

> BTW, Novell's publishing dept. ....
> is exclusively NeXT-based.  I've seen it with my own eyes.   
> Pretty cool:  a network of just under 100 or so machines. 
> They used to use FrameMaker and Illustrator, but now
> Create, Virtuoso and PasteUp are threatening to take over.
> 

Just wondering... are they networked with Novell's own software, or  
do they use NetInfo?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (JohnC)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.230148.6720@cs.uow.edu.au> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
>>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> I don't understand. Apple has recognized a failing of their system software
>> and fixed it. Now you complain they didn't fix it soon enough?
>
>Many of the Mac advocacy articles here, arguing about graphics quality,
>sound, multitasking, you name it, seem to consist solely of several
>instances of the phrase "This is not an issue in System 7".  How many Mac
>users have System 7?  None that I know.  I certainly can't run it on this
>machine.

What machine would that be, Mr. Ling?  Unless it's an original Mac 128, a Mac
512, or a newer model that doesn't have more than 2Mb of RAM installed, you
_can_ run System 7.

Does the set of Macintosh users that you know form a representative sample of
all Macintosh users?  Figures I've seen state that at least half of the
installed base has upgraded to System 7, and you mustn't forget that all new
Macs (1 million+ per year) ship with System 7 installed.  Bill Coleman's point
stands.

-- 
John Cavallino                  |  EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Hospitals |         John_Cavallino@uchfm.bsd.uchicago.edu
Office of Facilities Management | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 0953
B0 f++ c+ g++ k s++ e+ h- pv    |         Chicago, IL  60637
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: joel@dflores.eagle.mission.tx.us (Joel Garza)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:15:29 GMT
Organization: Dave's Amiga

AAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


MAC SUCKS! AMIGA SUCKS! SGI SUCKS! IBM/ET AL. SUCKS! CRAY SUCKS! ETC....


I LOVE MACS! I LOVE AMIGAS! I LOVE SGI! I LOVE IBM/ET AL.! I LOVE CRAY! ETC...



Tune in next century to see if someone says something new.

I just made as much sense as most others....think about it.  :)

JAGuar!
From: jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Resource fork saves space
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:19:18 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <92325.154243ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>Another (partial) explanation is that e.g. Winword 2.0 and Word 5.0 which are
>considered equal in functionality are not. I've not looked very hard but I
>found at least one or two features of Winword 2.0 that were missing in Word
>5.0. Of course that alone doesn't explain the HUGE difference in size.

Well the difference in size can be attributed to the fact that winword 2.0
includes alot of extra resources that are not included in windows 3.1.

peace,
-justin
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:46:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <bmccnnll.721752329@unix1.tcd.ie> bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:
>In <6322.2b02a382@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>>Or it could be that Apple wanted to know the truth. Are these proportional
>>scroll bars more intuitive? How would *YOU* find out? Would you ask a bunch
>>of technophiles in a survey? Heck no.
>
>Why couldn't they have a simple option in the preferences (control panel,
>whatever) to *allow* you to have proportional scroll bars if you wanted.
>It is stupid to limit the functionality of your machine just because some
>people wouldn't understand some of the more complex things which experienced
>users want.


You CAN have proportional scroll bars.  Just use a TSR called ClickChange
by DoublClick.

The nice item about the Mac is the power to load extensions and
control panels to change stuff.  If an extension crashes and dumps
into Macsbug, trace it and disable it.  The NeXT also has this
ability using its objects.

-- 
********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
                             ***********************************
You WANT your hard drive trashed now.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy