HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Subject: Re: Sculley considered for Clinton's Sec. of Commerce
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 16:55:12 CST

In article <FISCHER.92Nov6033134@steinhaus.iesd.auc.dk>
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
 
>
>
>>>>>> "Erno" == Erno Pena (erno@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu)
>
>Erno> I think [Sculley would] be an OK Secretary of Commerce, but I'd
>Erno> rather see Clinton choose Ross Perot instead.
>
>Of course. Perot is a NeXT man, so it's obvious he has a much better
>understanding of what this technology is all about.
>
Nope, Perot is an IBM man... he was an IBM rep before founding EDS,
where they used IBM mainframes. All he has to do with NeXT is as an
investor... Didn't he pull his money out of NeXT? smart man...
;) ;) ;) ;)
 
>/Lars
>--
>Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
>CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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... ;)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rob@hobbes.cuc.ab.CA (Rob Parkhill)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:43:27 GMT

ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>rob@hobbes.cuc.ab.CA (Rob Parkhill) writes:
>
>>ACK! If you want colour, how about a NeXTstation Turbo Color
>>machine?  Even with the 21" Monitor it's less than a Quadra.
>
>I'm not sure about that.  I can get a Quadra 700 for about $3100  
>without a HD, but with 4 MB of RAM.  A 200 Mb HD would run me, what,  
>$500? Add $400 to take it up to $4000.  Add VRAM and a 17" monitor  
>to take it up to $1100.  Now for $5100 you've got a Quadra system  
>with a 200 MB HD and 20 MB of RAM and 24-bit color.  Though the NeXT  
>has some nifty built in features, they don't have the Quadra's slots  
>(except for the Cube), so they're pretty even in that sense.  Can  
>you get a NeXTStation color for $5100?  These are edu prices.  I  
>have MIT's edu prices for the NeXT, and the Quadra still comes out  
>ahead. 


Nononononono! The ONLY Mac equivilant to the NeXTstation Turbo Color
would be a Quadra 950.
These are the latest (Canadian) edu prices for both systems:
Quadra 950, 8MB RAM, No HD, 1 floppy drive      $6 514
Keyboard                                        $  233
Monitor and VRAM (your prices -> Canadian)      $1 300
(Please tell me where I can get a 17" Colour 

monitor and 16MB or RAM for $1100!!!)
(Also: Isn't it necessary to add a display
card to get 24bit colour for a Quadra? If not
please correct me.. I havn't used it in these
prices, though)
200MB Hard Drive                                $  500
Total						$8 547

NeXTstation Turbo Color                         $5 870 				
w/ 16MB RAM, 250 MB Hard Drive
(Comes with keyboard and mouse)
21" Colour Monitor                              $2 940
17" Colour Monitor($500 for 16MB RAM, so)	$  800
17" NeXT Sony Trinitron				$1 930
Total with 21" Monitor				$8 810
Total with 17" Monitor				$6 670
Total with sony 17" Monitor			$7 800

So, if I use your price for the 17" Monitor on the
Mac, then the NeXT with a 21" Monitor is $263 more
(I really don't believe that ANYONE can get a 17"
colout monitor AND 16MB of RAM for $1100 (American))
But, If I use the same price for the 17" monitor for
the NeXT, it comes out to be $1877 less, and even with
the Sony monitor from NeXT, it is still $747 less.
So, if you really can get a monitor and RAM for the
price you quotes, I appologize, and the NeXT with a
21" monitor is $263 more expensive than the Quadra.

As for having the expansion slots on the Quadra, what (realistically)  
are you going to use them for? A faster colour card? A nice sound  
card?(CD-quality stereo perhaps) How about a DSP? ;-)
---
Rob Parkhill
rob@hobbes.cuc.ab.ca
(NeXTmail preferred!) 


							
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:56:00 GMT

  > >
  > >Besides, there are cheaper accelerator boards for the Mac and
  > >good reason to believe that Apple will reduce the price of '040-
  > >class machines early next year.  NeXT seems to have no intention
  > >of reducing the price of entry-level machines ever.  
  > >
TW> There's good reason to believe that Apple will abandon the 040 machines
TW> when PowerPC ships. They've already abandoned the Q900 and had the nerve
TW> to charge people a huge upgrade price to the Q950.

TW> Terry Wilcox

When Apple converted the Mac LC from a '020 to an '030 processor, then renamed the
machine the LC II.  This doesn't mean that the Mac LC has been 'abandoned.'  Nor
does any of the improvements to the Mac line mean that the older machines are
not going to be supported.  

The new Apple hierarchy shows System 7 will be a top layer that will run on
several hardware platforms.  The 680x0 line will be the 'low end' processors,
with the other chip sets representing higher platforms.  Apple will not drop
support for the 680X0 technology for a long time.

In fact, the new high-end platforms (PowerPC, etc.) will allow the direct
execution of 680x0 code without any recompiling.  Developers will be able to
recompile their code without changing the source if they want to make a
faster version for the newer platforms.  

This isn't being 'abandoned.'  Apple is providing an upgrade path that will
allow them to move ahead with technology without having to be stuck with
outdated technology.

BTW:  Even the early users of Mac Plus computers can still take advantage of
Apple's newest OS releases (you will need some extra memory though).  But Apple
doesn't sell the Mac Plus anymore.  Does this mean that the Mac Plus users 
have been abandoned?  Or could we just classify the Performa 200 as a Mac Plus+.

[MGM]
From: andrew@cubetech.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:25:09 GMT
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.

In article <4hg15=g@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <Bx5v1I.EAx@rice.edu>, jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov3.130706.626@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>The thing that amuses me (not that it's actually related to this thread)
>|> >>about all these people touting NeXTstep 486 is that even if you can run
>|> >>the UI and some applications flawlessly, your 486-based DOS box is still
>|> >>not going to be a NeXT.  It's missing far, far too much.
>|> >
>|> >Like what?
>|> >
>|> Like all the hardware that differentiates a NeXT from your run of the mill
>|> DOS machine.
>
>Such as...? :)
>
>[this could go on and on and on and on and on...]

Exactly.  I sit in front of a NeXTstation color during most of my
conscious hours, and I cannot tell the difference between a NSC
running NeXTSTEP and a Dell PC running NeXTSTEP except for two things
(with the exception of things that haven't been finshed in NS486).

	1. The Dell is beige rather than black.
	2. The Dell is noticably faster than a NeXTstation Turbo Color

There really is no reason to get a NSTC over a Dell PC once NS486
comes out unless you do signal processing with the DSP, but few people
do that.

A PC isn't a DOS machine.  DOS sucks, but it's only the software.  The
hardware is OK save the lack of standardization.  There are several
good operating systems you can get for PC's including NetWare (my fave
after NeXTSTEP) and several flavors of unix.  NeXT hardware isn't that
spectacular you know.  There isn't a hell of a lot of difference
between a NeXT and a Quadra.  It's all in the software.


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 Garfinkle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:42:58 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14g 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 <TTN.92Nov5120121@mustarastas.cs.tut.fi> ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen) writes:
>In article <hjh1rpg@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>   You have a choice; you can be unresponcive (0 sleep values- you never
>   waste time, but you dont give enough to the system generally) or more than
>   0 sleep values. In which case you a wasting a little time, but the
>   responce time remains good.
>
>   This is of course dependant on other factors as well. If you call WaitNext
>   Event enough, you could get away with a 0 sleep value. (but this is
>   rather processor-speed dependant)
>
>As far as I understand the way Mac handles application switching, and
>correct me if I'm worong, the Mac goes through the entire list of
>applications every time (exept fot the ones that are still asleep). Ie.
>a program that expires its sleep value, will get the controll next time
>it is in turn going through the application list.

The way things happen on the Mac is: An application gets total control
(except for interrupts) until there are no events in the queue for that
app.  At that point, the Process Manager will give a bg app (that can
background; i.e. has the "CanBackground" bit set in the SIZE resource)
time until it releases control.  Guidelines call for this time to be
negligible, to keep the fg app from seeming unresponsive.

Background apps then take turns until the fg app's sleep time has
expired.  The suggested sleep time is 60 ticks, which is one second.
When that time expires, or when the fg app gets an event, the fg app
becomes the next one in line to get processing.

>-- 
>         Tero Nieminen                      DANGER!
>         ttn@cs.tut.fi                   Computer Bytes!

These views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Southwick
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: Where will NeXT be in 4 years?
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.185745.21030@pellns.alleg.edu> smytonj@quig19.alleg.edu (James Smyton) writes:
>Ok.
>I guess I have learned a few things about the kind of printers and modems  
>the NeXT can work with.  What amazes me is how defensive the NeXT owners  
>are.  One post about the fact that I personally don't like them that much  
>and I have about 20 people on my butt.  Maybe the reason is that they all  
>have sunk some dough in to a company with an uncertain future?
>
>Just an observation!  
>
>--
>J S  (smytonj@alleg.edu)

Every PC user I know says 'Those Mac users sure are defensive. I hear
Apple is in trouble. Blah blah blah.'

You sound just like a 1987 DOS user.

Terry Wilcox
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:21:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Nov11.182151.16948
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Terrance Wilcox 260-8100 writes
> Not too many machines use the Mac Toolbox.

If 9+ million == "not too many" I'd hate to hear your term for the NeXT  
installed base!  There are more machines running the Mac Toolbox than  
there are running BSD-style kernels, much less any Unix-based GUI (Motif,  
Open Look, NeXTSTEP, etc.).  

DOS fans can sneer at the Mac installed base, and Windows fans are  
starting to earn that right -- everyone else should only wish they had it  
so bad.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Where will NeXT be in 4 years?
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:09:21 GMT

James Smyton writes
> What amazes me is how defensive the NeXT owners  
> are.  One post about the fact that I personally don't like them 
> that much and I have about 20 people on my butt.  Maybe the reason
> is that they all have sunk some dough in to a company with an
> uncertain future?
> 

We sunk the dough because we think its a great machine.  We promote  
it for the same reason.

Five years ago, DOS people were making the same kind of comments  
about Macs.

--
-
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: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:07:50 GMT

Ishir Bhan writes
> The NeXTStation
> Turbo may run at the same speed as the Quadra 950, but you can make
> no direct comparison between the two in terms of price when one
> includes lots of expansion and the other - well - very little.
> 
> How many people need DSP? 

The comparison is perfectly appropriate since the systems are so  
similar in terms of power.  Of course, each has its own specific  
advantages and disadvantaged, which people will take into account  
when making their own decisions.  If you'll never use the DSP, you  
won't consider the fact that the NeXT has it as a point in its favor.   
On the other hand, if you don't need to put lots of boards into your  
system, then why pay more for a Quadra to get slots you won't use?   
(keep in mind that you can still do many things via SCSI).

--
-
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: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:36:13 GMT

Inb article <1992Nov6.085209.26824@cs.uow.edu.au> Richard Barry Ling responds:

    > Apple does MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of testing. I suspect Apple spends more on
    > testing then Commodore makes yearly.

RL> If only they spent it on the right things.  It's nigh on ten years since the
RL> Mac was developed and the most powerful 68040 Mac still can't format a
RL> floppy in the background.

Floppies?  You still use floppies? :)

[MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 00:22:45 GMT

Edward V. Wright writes
> A monochrome monitor is useful for perhaps 20% of the things that
> a computer can do today.  That makes the monochrome NeXTstation 1/5 
> of a computer -- a (much) faster version of the Mac Classic with a
> large screen.
> 
EWright is certainly entitled to his opinion, but as usual is  
announcing it as gospel rather than what it is, which is opinion.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that his argument is  
correct.  That mono is useful for only 20% of what a computer _can_  
do (I'd be interested in how you'd measure that).  So what?  BFD.
The question is: is it useful for the things that YOU do?  If so,  
then get color.  If not, save your money and get monochrome.

Once again: its a matter of tradeoffs rather than necessity.  This is  
most starkly illustrated in notebooks and other portables.  You _can_  
get color laptops, for a quite hefty price and usually substantial  
performance penalties.  Yet most notebooks sold are mono.  In fact,  
many are 1-but mono (ie B&W, not even greyscale).  If color was as  
absolutely indispensable as ewright makes it out, few notebooks would  
be sold.

The reality is that for a lot of what people actually use their  
computers for, color adds very little.  This is not true of  
everybody, and many people absolutely need color. And many people are  
in between, needing color for a few things but not for most.   
Depending on how much you need color, you'll be willling to pay  
relatively more or less for it than for other options.  Make your own  
choices; remember, if you're going to let others make these choices  
for you, you may end up with a PC on your desk.
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:36:07 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <FISCHER.92Nov6040856@steinhaus.iesd.auc.dk>, fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
> 
> Do you have any statistics or substantial studies to back this
> assertion? I use computers for quite a number of things, and I really
> do not feel the need for colour. I can see that there are things I do
> not do that need colour, but I really can't see them as 80% of all
> computer use.
> 
> How much of all computer use is accounted for by word processing and
> basic spreadsheets?

Which begs the question -- Why do you need a NeXT if all you are doing
is word processing and basic spreadsheets.

It would appear that a Mac Classic could adequately fulfill those needs.

-- 
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: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:56:08 GMT

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

>When it comes time to trot  
>out the NeXT RISC station, NeXT can chose whichever architecture looks the  
>most promising on the hardware front.

  I don't know whether NeXT realises it, but it was time to trot out
the NeXT RISC station about 6 months ago.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
"...there is only one thing worse than having marketing people on a project,
 and that is having no marketing people on a project."  - Larry Tesler.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: guiyu@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu (The Big Color Wolf)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) 
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:43:19 GMT

The 'SX' in 80486SX system has a DIFFERENT meaning from the 'SX' of a 80386SX.

In 80386, the suffix 'SX' refers to 16-bit external data path
In 80486, "		    "    to the LACK of a internal Math coprocessor

Thus a 80486SX-20 is in fact a working 486 without the FPU, so it should in
theory run as fast as a 486 at 20 MHz for non FP routines.

The LCII is SLOWER than a SE/30 because of IT's 16-bit CRIPPLED external DATA
path. Below are some benchmarks obtained from comp.bench which depicts the
speed of an SE/30(rough estimate of LCII). Obtain the relative speed of a 
486SX-20 by appropriate scaling.

In conclusion, if all you do is programming for simulations/modelling, a 486SX
is faster than an LCII for the same price and is therefore justifiable.
Otherwise, a LCII is much better suited for word processing and other non-CPU
intensive task where the MAC has a much better interface than Windows 3.x.


Relative speeds
===============
NSIEVE.C, Version 1.2, 03 April 1992

Results as of 10 Oct 1992:

Array Size:     8,191 Bytes ---- generally yields the High MIPS Rating.
Array Size: 2,560,000 Bytes ---- generally yields the Low  MIPS Rating.

System           Compiler                    CPU     CPU    High  Low   REF
---------------- ------------------------- -------  (MHz)   MIPS  MIPS ----
Mac SE/30        Think C 4.0                 68030   16.0    2.5   2.5   19
Mac PowerBook170 Think C 5.0                 68030   25.0    5.7   5.7    1

Intel 401        Borland C++ V3.0/small     486DX2   25.0    6.9   6.8   24
Intel 401        Borland C++ V3.0/huge      486DX2   25.0    6.5   6.4   24

Amiga 3000       NOTE 013                    68030   25.0    5.2   4.7    3
Amiga 3000       NOTE 014                    68030   25.0    5.2   4.8   20
Amiga 2000       Aztec C5.0a                 68000    7.16   0.7   0.7    1
 
NOTES
=====
013 SAS/C 5.10a lc -v -cf -l -m3 -f8d -Lmt -O nsieve
014 SAS/C 5.10b, lc -O -d0 -m3 -f8 -Ln+LIB:lcm881.lib
							Sincerely yours,
							Julian CHANG
================================================================================
  _  __                    _ 		ADDRESS: CHANG Kui Yu
  _||__       _|_       | |_|			 2440 Date Street #1002
 |_ |__      __|__     \|/|_|			 Honolulu, HI 96826	
   |+---                | _|_			 U.S.A.	
   ||\/       _|_       / \ /
  \|L \      __|__     / \---		E-mail : guiyu@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu
================================================================================
From: johnsd2@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:58:03 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <TTN.92Nov5095242@mustarastas.cs.tut.fi>, ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen) writes:
|> In article <c!h1_p+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec313.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> 
|>    In article <1992Nov4.044023.819@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com writes:
|> 
|>    |> the function call to cause a
|>    |> context switch and tell the thread scheduler to make a different
|>    |> thread runnable is called cthread_yield().
|> 
|>    Ah, but this will be usefull to me since by Eds (admittedly strange)
|>    definitions, this makes Unix a co-operatively multitasking system,
|>    since tasks (particularly X-windows tasks, I bet) can/probably do
|>    co-operate by calling sleep!
|> 
|> Notice that the routine name refers to threads (light weight processes).
|> Threads are cooperatively multitasked. Since each program has it's own
|> set of threads, it is assumed that the programmer knows what he is doing
|> and cooperates between the threads as he sees fit. It is completely
|> another thing to schedule processes, which still is preemptive.

Ah; so it doens't pre-emptively switch from thread to thread
just process to process.

More ammo! :) Thanx!

-- 
			- 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.