HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dinda@cae.wisc.edu (Dinda Peter)
Subject: Re: OS/2, not the dream OS?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 25 Jan 93 07:50:48 CST

In article <1993Jan24.025441.13350@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>On 386's here, there have been a couple of observations about OS/2:
>
>1)  It takes MINUTES to load Word and Excel.

If you start up an entire Windows environment for each Windows program on
a machine with minimal memory this is quite correct.  Starting Excel 4.0 for
Windows as a seamless but shared session on a 486SX here takes about 20-30
seconds.  Starting up DOS or OS/2 programs is *very fast*.


>2)  There is no nice little watch cursor or any other feedback that
>    things are actually being loaded.

True, because in general you can continue doing work while the load is
proceeding.  Even if you're loading a full-screen program, just ALT-ESC
to the desktop and do other work.  

>3)  There is no easy way to see what programs are all running (at least not
>    an obvious one).

The Window List is available with the *same* CTRL-ESC keystroke as in 
Windows or by clicking both mouse buttons on the desktop.

>4)  It is very easy to confuse iconicizing with quitting and thereby
>    inflict marvelous thrashing upon the disk until the swap space is
>    full.  The Mac has been accused of this problem, but the worst that
>    happens there is leaving one copy of each program running (which the
>    Finder will let you quit at the click of OK when memory runs low).
>    New users often leave 5 copies of Word running.

Confusing iconizing (or hiding) with quiting is something that about 2
minutes of training would cure on both Windows and OS/2.  Too bad
organizations are wont to spend $0.02 on training after a $3K purchase.  This
is in the same catagory as the mysterys of the application menu on the mac.

>
>These are the observations of novices, professors, etc.  Perhaps they
>will suddenly love the machines and all confusion will cease in the
>near future.  In the mean time, OS/2 is SO easy to use?????  It doesn't
>seem so.

Yah, right-clicking on an object to find out what it actions can be 
accomplished with it requires excessive gurudom...  And *ick* on-line
documentation - no, can't demean oneself to look at that...
From: rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert Alexander Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXTstep for PowerPC --- THE ONLY CHOICE
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:16:38 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu


James...interesting question...however, why cripple a machine intentionally?
I don't think the Mac system has anything to offer that NeXTstep doesn't
already kill...now software...the Mac wins hands down (in the shrink-wrapped
division)...how about porting some of that!

-Rob
rawyatt@scf.usc.edu
NeXTmail welcome...ASCII mail prefered
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Computer abbreviations
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:50:18 GMT

vhs@qb.rhein-main.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.092904.3610@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson  
>FOA2) writes:
>> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> >Has anyone heard a better abbrivation than this for Macintosh?
>> 
>> >Makes Applications Crash If Not The Operating System Halted
>> 
>> >Any good ones for Win NT, or Microsoft?
>> 
>> Win NT = Not in Time (weak, I know).

>Marketing Incredibly Crufty Retard Operating Systems for
>Obsolete F***ing Terminals

I Buy Macintosh 
(tried that one when I applied for a job there. They were _not_ amused. Didn't 
get the job, either)

cheers
--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 20:16:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


Macs are not dead, but will be unless they get a heavy performance
boost.

-- 
       ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  (Douglas Floyd)
       Disclaimer:  I speak for myself        Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

Windows NT is a great reason to WISH for a destructive virus.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:55:13
Organization: ZikZak Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:41:17 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:41:17 GMT, bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) said:

  G> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
    >I'll take that bet.  The NeXT's graphics are faster on its 68040 than
    >the Quadra's are on its 68040.
  G> WHICH Quadra?

    >Note also that the ci has 8 bit color.
  G> WRONG! The IIci has 32-bit color even though people normally only
  G> use 8-bit of it at a time. ALL Present Macs have 32-bit color
  G> even though most monitors
  G> display either in 2-bit{black and white} or 8-bit mode.

Sorry.  This is just bugging the hell out of me.  Black&White is one
bit, not two (on or off, get it?)  Two bits would be four colors like
CGA on the PC (or three colors for you purists who regard black as a
non-color).  Okay, I've said all I have to say on the subject ... feel
free to press 'n' now ...

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu
--
/****************************************************************************\
| "I sometimes used to try to catch her, :	FROM:   tomster@wpi.wpi.edu  |
| but never even caught her name."	 :	TO:	who(m)ever reads it  |
|	---- the cure			 :	CC:	programming language |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:16:45 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

kocks@leland.Stanford.EDU (Peter Kocks) writes:
>My solution...(and I cannot believe I am actually saying this)... is Novell.
>Novell allows you to mix Macs, Windows, OS/2, NeXT, and Unix.  Moreover,
>the system deals well with each of the different environments.  It is used
>by 80% of the business world, which may help you convince your boss.  You can
>also buy a 486 server with Novell installed for probably less than the Quadra
>server.  Novell is not married to any platform, which I consider a big plus.

Why can't you believe that you are saying this?  First of all, networking is
basically all Novell does (OK, they've been buying non-network companies, so
this is not quite true anymore), whereas the other companies under
consideration only do networking as a secondary thing.

Second, a lot of people buy Netware, even though the server software costs
just a little bit less than than the national debt, and people continue to
do so despite Microsoft's attempts to get get into that market.  Say what
you will about Microsoft, but you have to admit they know how to sell stuff.
If they can't make headway against Novell, it indicates that maybe Novell
should be looked at.

Third, the architecture of Netware 3.xx is very good.  It's basically a kernel
(I'm not sure if it's a microkernel or not) that doesn't know anything about
networks or filesystems.  The network code and filesystem code runs as
separate kernel tasks, and the system is designed to allow for multiple
network and filesystem modules to be used at once.  Furthermore, the driver
architecture is very clean and straightforward -- it's easy for a developer
of new controller cards or peripherals to write Netware drivers.

If you network is going to be big enough to make the per user cost of Netware
reasonable, I think it's not surprising that you would consider them.  It's
obvious that you would consider them!

--Tim Smith

ps: this assumes Netware 3.xx.  Many of the above points do not apply to 2.xx.
2.xx was where they made all the mistakes that they through out in 3.xx!
From: laug@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Lau)
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:46:24 GMT



   Okay. Here's why I bought a Mac over other computers. This may be true
of you as well..

 I bought a macintosh because I needed a computer that was handy to use all
the time. Meaning, that I could do some desktop publishing, programming, and
other sorts of stuff anybody would encounter taking a computer program in
a post-secondary institution. But this is not the only reason, because while
other computers can do this as well (and even better thant the mac), the mac
has a good reputation..and I needed a computer with support.

  I could have bought a PC instead, but since my family needs to use the 
computer as well (and I don't like teaching them all the DOS or unix commands)
I settled for a Macintosh. This turned out to be a fine computer, it can do
all the things other computers can do in it's class and it has a nice interface.

With these things in mind, I recently looked up a list of BBS's in my area
and to my surprise, 75% of the BBS's were MS-DOS based. and with the other
24% or so BBS's were Macintosh.. sadly enough, only 1% of the BBS's were
either Amigas or Apple II's. 

 So my point is not that Macintosh's are better, if you think that was my
point then go to hell, but my point is that the computer we buy and
protect when somebody says "Your computer sucks" is decided in the area we
live in and the practical purposes we need it for. Because, if a town uses
only PC's then chances are that one is going to buy a PC in that town.
(I know most of you bought it for performance reasons, but with those of
us who are just getting to know the computer industry..it's kind of hard
to look at performance).


Flame away!

Chris.
From: tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:19:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Drexel University, Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
: 
: If I am not mistaking the gist of your long drawn out post, T. Wilcox,
: you seem to be denigrating the IRIS Indigo as compared to the NeXT.
: 
: For any graphically intense work, the IRIS machines are unparalled
: IMHO.  They have a simple Graphics Language which allows 3D animation
: at real time speeds with no programming effort.  It can do curves and
: surfaces with Gourard shading effortlessly.  I could go on, but.....
: 
: The NeXT, SUN, Mac, PC, and Amiga all do not compare in this regard
: by even the furthest stretch of the imagination.
: 
: 
: Jess Holle

The gist of his argument is that the Byte article was a hose job, with
little logic involved in its planning or execution.

The IRIS's are excellent machines, and definitely the premier graphics 
workstations.

However, the NeXT also includes a graphics programming facility. NeXTSTEP
3.0 has Renderman built in, for photorealistically and interactively 
rendering, as well as for programming (very, very easy programming).

The speed definitely is not up to the IRIS machines, but that's hardware. The
HP port should bring things considerably closer, albeit without the dedicated
graphics hardware.

--
Jonathan W. Hendry
Drexel University College Of Information Studies
Anderson Financial Systems
jon@afs.com (No NEXTMail :( )
<set loose the marmosets!>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:16:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.135746.5669@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>Yes, the on-board video on the IIci can only handle up to 8 bits per pixel.
>

YES!  Thank you.  

>One can add up to two additional monitors, however, which can be of any bit
>depth up to 24 bpp.
>

Most definantly.  It's a good idea to get another video card, since
the apple 8 bit video isn't as fast as it could be, which is the only
flaw I see in the ci.  It's overall an excellent machine.  My favorite
mac, in fact, even if it's showing a little age.

>The next can't handle multiple monitors, can it?

Yes, one way I know of to do it is to have a cube with a
nextdimension.  The ND video goes out to the 32 bit monitor, and the
standard video output of the cube runs the other (2 bit) monitor.  I
believe the cube runs at the same speed regardless of whether or not
the 2nd monitor is attached, and since all NeXT's come with monitors
anyway, I would think this is the std. setup for a NeXTDimension
system. 

Anyone know any other ways?  I've never considered this (and I don't
own a NeXT...yet.)

>
>
>Jess Holle

-Howard
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                                   	   howard@netcom.com
		  You will not find excess in the jungle
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:49:41 GMT
Distribution: na

In <1993Jan21.020519.5649@nimno.wpa.com> john@wpa.com (John Bartley) writes:

>$709 for A/UX??? If that is what it costs, then why does NeXT get so  
>much grief for _daring_ to suggest that NS486 _might_ (it remains to be  
>seen) list for $995? I never read any posts here complaining that A/UX  
>costs too much, but lots of folks here have been very vocal about how  
>outrageous NS486 pricing is, and how ignorant NeXT is for charging so  
>much. Last time I checked, it didn't seem to me that A/UX was 70% of  
>NeXTSTEP. If it IS, then why aren't all high-end Mac users running it?

First of all, you need a CD-ROM drive.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, you
need to spend $2,500 for the dev. edition of NeXTStep '486.  I'm not sure
what Apple's CD comes with, but I think it has some development tools. 
It's also only $650 from the Apple Catalog, so I expect you can get it for
less from elsewhere.
-- 
******************************************************************************
Ishir Bhan               * "Every day they take one more set away...."
ibhan@husc.harvard.edu   *                   -The Cure, "Forever"
******************************************************************************
From: rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert Alexander Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Taligent and PowerPC
Date: 21 Jan 1993 01:36:07 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu


First, a disclaimer...I do not want to start a flame war with *anybody*...
these are legit questions and I hope someone will respond...I do not want
to flame over who has the better computer...

About one year ago I sold my Mac (after five years of use) and switched to 
NeXT...right as the PowerPC/Taligent hype was picking up momentum...I let
my Mac mag subscriptions run out and have basically been in NeXT isolation...
(not necassarily a good place to be given NeXT's inability to keep key
executive positions filled...but that's another discussion)

Anyway, I was just wondering what the state of the Apple/IBM venture is today?
How close are we to seeing the first PowerPC system running under "Pink" (or
whatever it is called today)?  Have any specs been released on the chips, the
OS, the development tools?

This may be old news to everyone on the net...if so, I'm sorry...This is my
first time browsing through comp.sys.mac.advocacy...actually, I needed an 
escape from the bitter comp.sys.next.advocacy flame wars :)

Seriously, I am very interested in what Apple is up to...I still respect them a
great deal and would like to see the PowerPC take off...especially if it is 
running NeXTstep (oh no...did I open a can of worms...)

Any email/discussion would be great!
Thanks!
Take care!

Best,
Rob

rawyatt@scf.usc.edu
(NeXTmail accepted...plain old boring ASCII mail prefered)

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 14:28:37 GMT

In article <hbl3vh+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 1jq628INN545@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
>>In article <f-k39qq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>
>>>They do if they want to change the login tiff. If the preferences
>>>panels can do this, then I will withdraw my objection.
>>>
>>Oh, fer crying out loud.  Somebody write a friggin applet to do this.
>>Should take an hour or two.  Would have full NeXTSTEP compliance, a
>>correct open panel, correct mouse button behavior, and probably
>>drag and drop.
>>
>>(My NeXT is getting packed up this weekend or i'd do it myself.)
>>
>
>If you can get NeXT to include it with the system, that would do it.
>
>If not, it's not really very relevant- if they haven't got it, they
>can't use it.

They wouldn't do that because it is unsupported.  It is unsupported
because they want to reserve the right to fiddle with it, replace 
it, or delete it all together.  Perhaps it is unsupported because
they don't want users to screw it up, until they can flesh it
out more?  Or do you want them to remove it altogether?
>
>---
>			- 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: zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson)
Subject: Re: NeXT vs Mac (Again) was "Need to convince boss..."
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:25:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.005131.5865@pellns.alleg.edu> smytonj@murr11.alleg.edu (Jim Smyton) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.183914.8363@athena.mit.edu> zmonster@athena.mit.edu  
>(Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>> It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because  
>Mac
>> uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can  
>spool
>> its output to a NeXT laser printer.
>> Eric
>
>I should have known you would respond Eric.
>
>Right...It's nice knowing that QuickDroop is out dated. Tell me the news.   
>QuickDraw GX should be interesting tho...
>
>The longevity of NeXT monitors disturbs me.  They have a sad tendancy to  
>get muddy and fade. I would rather have "QuickDroop" 1.x than a half-rate  
>monitor!
>--
>Jim Smyton  (smytonj@alleg.edu)      

Ever since 4th quarter 1992, NeXT has been shipping Sony Trinitron monitors
(same brand as Mac, I believe).

Eric


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:34:49 GMT

zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>Argh!  A Quadra server system configured properly will cost near $10,000.
>You can get a NeXT, with all bundled software necessary for networking,
>file serving, and the like for under $6000 (list).  NeXTSTEP 486 will also
>run on the new Pentium chips (586), so if you really really need speed,
>buy a Pentium chip and get NeXTSTEP to run on it.  If you need things now,
>Settle for a 66Mhz 486/DX2 running NeXTSTEP 486.  This configuration is 
>even faster than the current NeXT systems (unless of course you take advantage
>of NeXT's multi-processing capabilities and add on extra CPU's).
Define 'configured properly' especially when a Quadra 950 8MB/230MB
street costs ~$7000.  What is the remaining $3000 going to?
The Pentium is on hold for the moment and the PowerPC chip and a version 
of PowerOpen {A/UX 4.0} are out to the developers.  IBM is planning to reliece
its 601 machine using A/UX 4.0 as an OS in first to second quarter 1993
{9 to 6 months a head of Apple's 601.}  
My advice. WAIT until later in the year and then deside.  Right now the
industry is a mess with rumors of Pentium heat problems and the P5 dieing
in favor of the P6 and a IBM PowerPC machine coming out in early 1993.
Question:  Is the Pentium a CISC, CRISC, or RISC chip?
{CRISC is an intermediate stage between CISC and RISC; as such it is faster
then a CISC but not as fast as a true RISC. Its main advantage is that
is allows CISC instructions to be used without as much rewriting as a RISC
chip requires.}
From: davids@cats.ucsc.edu (Dave Schreiber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC, MAC or Amiga?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 22:09:08 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: as215-ws-15.ucsc.edu


In article <6683.2b651e17@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <gel212.727799334@rigaud>, gel212@gel.ulaval.ca (gif19268 Systemes numeriques avances) writes:
>
>>     - Lack of direct contact with the system. When will the MAC have
>>     a shell? 
>
>If you want a command line shell, buy MPW. 
>
>>     Every DOS or Amiga enthusiast knows how important a shell is
>>     for a programmer. It lets you examine your system closely and do
>>     things the GUI never thought of. 
>
>FAUGH! We've been over and over this here in the .advocacy group. There's
>nothing that a command line interface offers that a good visual user interface
>couldn't do without.

FAUGH yourself.  As someone who owns an Amiga, has worked with PC clones (w/
Windows), MACs, and Sun workstations on numerous occassions, I can say two things:

1.  I _need_ a shell.  The fact that you don't need one doesn't prove that nobody
    needs one.  When will the rest of the world realize that there is no such thing
    as the perfect, universal user interface?  You choose your interface depending
    on what task you need to perform.  Just because you can do everything with 
    a GUI doesn't mean you should, any more than the fact that you can do anything
    you want with a shell means you should.  Remember, UIs exist for the sake of
    the user, not the other way around;  if the user has worked with both interfaces
    and believes that she can do some task faster and easier with a shell, she's
    right.

2.  I hate MPW.  I mean, is it a text editor or a shell?  Or a floor wax?  The last
    thing I need is system software with multiple personalities.

>Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958

-- 
Dave Schreiber  "Look.  Don't touch."  davids@cats.ucsc.edu (until 6/20/93)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy