HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:42:13 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <r!y1nsd@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 722096841@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <6dv1j!j@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>>(why do I say its not fast enough? Because the PCheads
>>>here seem to feel that way- otherwise they'd have blown away my comment
>>>about Windows having a slow  GDI by demonstrating that it doens't;
>>>instead they say you can use an accelerated graphics board...)
>>
>>Then let's start to compare lines/second. Your turn. :-)
>
>:) I dont know how many lines per second, nor does it matter terribly.
>(what these things do a lot of its blitting, actually..) I worry more
>about how snappy it feels.
>

Yikes!  This is so idiotic.  Here, Wolfgang is saying "ok, let's use a
tangible metric to judge the speed of the graphical interface" and
Daniel is saying that he prefers a totally subjective view of which one
is "snappier"!

Daniel.  My C64 is Sooooooo much faster than you Macintosh... because it
feels so much snappier.  :)

Seriously, most of the misunderstandings about feelings regarding operating
environments is due to poor definitions--including definitions based
solely on subjective feelings.  I think that if you really DO believe
that the Macintosh is so much faster than the PC (or vice versa), then
a set of quantitative metrics should be run (comp.benchmarks?).

Wolfgang seemed reasonable in suggesting line/second (scrolling a window,
I gather) since a lot of software (spreadsheets, telecommunications, and
wordprocessor--not to mentional terminal emulators) use scrolling a
*lot*.  He also said "let us begin" suggesting that -he- did not consider
the line/second metric all-encompassing.

So, suggest your own metric... but don't say that Wolfgang's methodology
is worse than "which one feels snappy."

Sheesh.

-> Joe <-


>			- 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.
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:11:45 GMT

In article <1eebbpINN2dk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:

>Macintosh. They've gotten bettter, but not THAT much better. Its still a
>machine cippled with a 1970s architecture and MS-DOS. Not to mention a
>processor which has more or less reached its peak with no where left to go.


	How is the mac different, in terms of fundamental architecture,
	from the current PC clone systems?  To be honest, I must be 
	missing domething--I don't see anything fundamentally groundbreaking
	about the mac architecture--the differences are mostly
	cosmetic. 

	As to processor, Intel seems to be getting newer, faster chips
	at a fairly good clip, and most are doing quite well (the i860,
	unless I'm mistaken, is doing better than Motorola's 88k, and
	the i960 is now found in at least three printer models..).  

	In fact, Motorola customers have been waiting on the new, faster
	version of the 88k for almost two years now--and it's _still_ not 
	done.  

	And a >33mhz 68040?  How about the next chip after that one?  

	Motorola makes well designed (read: clean, especially next to
	Intel) chips, but since they got the 25mhz 68040 out the door
	(and later, the 33) they've pretty much been floundering.  With
	Dec and Alpha, that new WISC chip, the R4000 and the Microsparc,
	Motorola is falling way behind and most of their costumers are
	trying to move to a different chipset--I seriously wonder if there
	will _be_ a 68k series chip after the 68060. 

	I like their work.  It's too bad that the 88k has bugs (cache) 
	and that they don't seem to be able to get the 2nd generation
	out the door (even for an entirely new family..).  I hope that
	they'll produce a helluva PowerPC chip, because the way the
	market is heading, they're going to need it.  Even Apple is 
	moving away from the M68k.[Sun already left].  I wonder who'll
	be left--Commodore?  MAybe--they certainly don't have any 
	surprises coming.



	Comments appreciated, flames to alt.flam..



-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 03:02:31 GMT

>5-Mb image.  As far as the AutoCAD tests go, the Compaq Deskpro 50 tied for
>second with an HP-Apollo 9000, behind an IBM RS/6000 Powerstation.  The Mac
>Quadra 900 scored dead last of the seven workstations tested.

One must be VERY careful extrapolating cross-platform AutoCAD speed tests
to general CAD performance.  From all accounts, the AutoCAD Mac port is
a shoddy, non-optimized port.  It is considerably slower than it's
competitors on the Mac as I understand it.

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:20:20 GMT

In <92320.121834MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <Bxr2Br.Fqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra
>Stewart-Cole) says:
>>
>>hmm... can you REALLY create a program in DOS or Windows that demands a 1Mb
>>heap and never be concerned with the odd little boundary problems in memory?
>>Speaking from direct experience, I can assure you that writing a Mac program
>>with such demands really DOES mean transparency for memory. If there is a way
>>to have similar ease (i.e. never notice that you are using so much space) in
>>Windows or especially in DOS, I'd love to know what development package allows
>>it.

>You can in OS/2 2.0, but not in DOS or Windows.

Not true. Just use one of the 32 bit Compilers (Zortech, Watcom)
and a 386 DOS extender. Zortech comes with a royality free one.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2685 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2640
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:28:18 GMT

In <b=w16xf@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 721932965@dhhalden.no, runehh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
>>In article <00t1hlb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>[deletia- metafiles]
>>>>You don't, if you only need simple sounds. There is always the 
>>>>speaker.
>>>
>>>Which can only beep under Windows, no? Or did windows pick up a driver
>>>for the internal speaker that I dont know about?
>>There is a driver for the internal speaker you don't know about. It's OK as 
>>long as you don't need noise-free sound.

>I understand from an email conversation that this driver disables
>interrupts. This would mean you cant use it asyncrhonously (it
>locks up your mouse). Kinda... cheesy.. no wonder MS didn't
>include it.

The Windows 3.1 driver for the internal speaker that I have installed
on my machine (I got it from one of the collections of new or
enhanced drivers which MS distributes via CompuServe or the
networks) can be configured via the control panel. One of the
options is a checkbox labeled "Enable interrupts during playback".
If this box is checked, the sound becomes a bit noisy, but the
mouse dosn't freeze during playback, if interrupts are enabled.

All this is of course a kludge. But, contrary to what you said
earlier, it proves that even on PCs without a soundcard, Windows
*can* replay sounds and isn't restricted to simple beeps. 

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: (Tim Keitt)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 22:28:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM
Reply-To: tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu

In article <-921p5a@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>The Windows UI guidelines contain a similar requirement,
>>>>but applied to the keyboard: a conforming program has to
>>>>be useable on a computer which doesn't have a pointing
>>>>device, i.e. all functionality has to be accessible via
>>>>the keyboard. This doesn't prevent a program from
>>>>havin a decent mouse interface - not at all. But that
>>>>mouse interface may not replace the keyboard interface.
>>
>>>And the Mac UI requires that the keyboard interface may not
>>>replace (or hinder) the mouse interface. I prefer that, myself.
>>>I have no objection to additional keyboard shortcuts on top of that,
>>>so long as they dont interfere with the mouse interface.
>>
>>I have a similar preference, but with keyboard and mouse
>>interchanged.
>
>Then we are not going to get anywhere.
>
>>
>>>I dont consider it a big deal myself.
>>
>>I do. It'ts the main reason why I don't use Macs.
>
>I am surprised you consider it that important.
>

No. This is absolutely important! If you develop code (which I 
suspect you don't) I think you'd consider this important. 
Simply put the keyboard is much more efficient for editing than 
any combination mouse/keyboard/etc. There's been a thread 
recently in some of the Windows lists about vi, the UNIX text 
editor (I noticed no MAC users inquired about getting a copy 
for the MAC OS). Once you learn vi (it takes a couple of weeks 
-- can be done in a few hours though) there is no faster way
to edit text (at least in my experience). I've spent the last 
year or so writing code for Sun workstations, and after getting 
used to the elegance of the UNIX C-shell, I find it awkward going 
back to my PC with windows. I still like my PC for word 
processing. I usually produce compound documents and we don't 
have software to do that on our Suns. I'm quite happy with WFW 
(it does have a decent keyboard interface). In general, I 
despise programs that force me to go to the mouse (I'm not 
saying that there aren't good code editors for the MAC - I 
wouldn't know).

The bigger issue is that the PC interface is being take hostage 
by a headlong rush to eliminate any effort on the part of the 
user. The need to please reviewers who spend a few hours or 
days with a program (at best) is paramount. I recently read 
that despite the fact that millions of computers have been sold 
in the US, there has been no measurable gain in productivity. I 
think this is because most users don't invest the time to learn 
their machines and software. I see people doing repetitive 
tasks manually all the time, when if they'd just crack a manual 
and learn a few programming concepts they'd save tremendous 
amounts of time.

--
Timothy Keitt
tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Competitive Upgrades (Was: Re: Macintosh bigots)
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov17.205915.15902@wam.umd.edu>  
rsrodger@next10csc.wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
> 	IMHO, it's a sleazy thing to do.  If they accept that the
> 	SW will not sell at those prices, they should just drop'em.
> 	The competitive-upgrade pricing is just a way for them to
> 	drop the price for now, so they can raise it again without
> 	causing a stir (i.e. "Microsoft increases price of MS Word  
200%!")..
> 

I disagree.  I think competitive upgrades are a useful way to
try to get someone using a competitor's product to switch.
A user of Word Perfect might be hesitant to spend $350 on 
Word for Windows, since they already have an OK word processor.
They are much more likely to be willing to switch if they can
get Word for a third that price.




--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 06:50:04 GMT

>Both AutoCAD and Quattro Pro use a mouse. And AutoCAD uses digitizers,
>which I haven't seen for the Mac (although I must admit, I wouldn't know).
>_And_ you can use a mouse or digitizer to quickly draw a line if you want.

There are digitizers for the Mac.  AutoCAD's biggest drawback is that you
virtually MUST have a digitizer with a HUGE palette in order to be anywhere
near productive.

>AutoCAD includes the line command for exactitude (which is impossible
>if you actually wanted to do it by hand unless you use the object snap
>mode). Autodesk also makes AutoShade, and Advanced Modelling Extension
>software which _can_ do a lot of the stuff you've talked about. And
>as for 24 bit color, you just need a driver.

Very nice.  Unfortunately, AutoCAD fails for the non-dedicated user, i.e.
he/she who doesn't use it all the time.  It is a lot harder to pick up
AutoCAD and hack a preliminary design out in little time without having 
used it day-in and day-out.  Floating palettes and a smart cursor (auto-
matically flipping into various object snap modes, unless the feature is
turned off [at a single keypress]) would make AutoCAD INFINITELY more 
usable.  So would SINGLE key-press selection of drawing tools, rather 
than the insidious aliasing which still requires l<return> or the like 
just to select the line tool.

By the way, the functionality which I describe here can be had in Claris 
CAD for $171 (educational discount, about $500 mail order).  I've yet
to find a quicker (in terms of interface, not actual screen speed) 
drawing tool for simple, yet precise diagrams.


Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: tom@microsoft.com (Tom McConnell)
Subject: Re: Question on Windows for Workgroups
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:13:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


Yikes!

I'm not sure that what I just said about the workgroup for dos product
being part of windows for workgroups is true.

Internally, we distribute them that way, but packaged product may not
look like that.

The boot off the floppy info is still correct.

Sorry for any confusion.

-Tom

-- 
"Hey COW!"  _____________((     
           /       **     o\    ______     _______________________
          /|      ****      \ _/moo...\    |     Tom McConnell   |
         / |      **    /\__/  \______/    | uunet!microsoft!tom |
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib101.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib101.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:45:19 GMT

In article 722464409@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <5821wza@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>What is the difference, tho? What does copy do if the /b
>>flag is not set?
>
>It stops when it sees the first ^Z (== 0x1a) in the data stream.
>This is a carryover from CP/M. The EOF character was necessary
>there because disk files didn't have an exact length.
>


Oh gad, I didn't realize it was so bad! :(

But I thot MS-DOS ->did<- track the exact logical file length,
so I dont see why the MS-DOS copy should need to retain this. Hmm..
---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: robertk@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Lotus Development Corporation
	<BxJ24A.K5H@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <agr1-_b@rpi.edu>
	<1ec7l2INN1th@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1eebgnINN2nh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1992Nov19.132945.25785@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Nov19.155738.1521@lin.foa.se>
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:00:02

In article <1992Nov19.155738.1521@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

   What I really can't understand is this passion for formating floppys in the 
   background...

   What are you guys doing with all those floppies you formatted in the 
   background?

In the PC world, floppies are a good net substitute. Suppose Windows
crashes due to a network card driver or requestor bug. Suppose a
preliminary CSD version of OS/2 floods your LAN with bogus packet as
it boots. Suppose you're running Windows or DOS, and you and your
friend are running different protocols (Novell, LanMan, &c.). Or,
getting away from wonderful world of PC networks, supposed you'd
rather put a lot of files on a portable SCSI disk. Oh, your PC doesn't
have SCSI ?

Floppies are indispensible to solve these problems.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:43:56 GMT

In <90x1y=d@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

[...]
>>>>>(where accelerated Mac cards are usually 24 bits, as 8 bit accelerated
>>>>>is overkill; this beefs up the price of course)
>>
>>Why is this overkill? Silicon is cheap these days. Why not
>>let a specialized CPU do all the drawing, and have the main
>>CPU free for real work?

>Its unnecessary; you could spend the money on something else.
>Memory, or a plain ticket to <insert favorite spot here>.

I don't buy that. A CPU can do only one thing at a time. If it
is busy redrawing an 1 MPixel bitmap, it can't do anything
else at the same time. Using a general purpose CPU, which 
doesn't perform that well on that special task, while there
is other work to do, is a waste of resources, IMHO.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.223846.6419@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>	One thing I deleted in this argument was that PCs can't
>read Mac disks.  Untrue, there is a PD program that reads mac disks.
>
>> |> 
>> |> Comparing a Q950 w/ a 486DX/50 isn't really good, because a Q950 is set
>> |> up to compete against workstations, while the 486 system is set up
>> |> to do the stuff slower boxes do but faster (you could by the Q950
>> |> for the smaller jobs, but why would you?).  Also, because of the shortage
>> |> of Q950s right now, the price is higher because of demand.
>
>	I have used a Quadra 700, not 950 but I don't see how it was
>so fast.  I couldn't multitask very well and that is quite important in
>the "workstation" market.  No one is going to be very impressed with
>a 10 grand machine that can't even copy disks in the background very well.
>At least my puny 486-33 can do that a lot better than any Quadra can.

copy disks copy disks copy disks copy disks copy disks copy disks

Every time someone bashes Macintosh multitasking, they always start
with copying disks first.

How many disks do you copy a day?  If you want to copy a lot of disks,
get a damn disk-copying machine.  Disk-copying machines are designed
to copy disks.  Workstations are designed to do work.  If your work is
copying disks, then you need a disk-copying machine and not a
workstation.

Note, while I'm not someone who defends Macintosh multitasking, we
don't need stupid benchmarks and comparisons like how well it can copy
disks.

>	But Unix stations have the software that most people who need
>a workstation require.  For doing 3D modeling, one is going to want
>a Sparc, not a Quadra.  If you have a small brain like the people at
>Byte Magazine, then workstations are primarily used for Desk Top Publishing
>(yea right) and Cad.  While the Cad is true, most Workstations i have
>seen are doing modeling, morphing, and other heavy calculating.  If I
>ran a business and was doing desktop publishing then a Mac would be my
>first choice without a doubt but Byte weighed DTP and Cad equally which
>is absurd.

Well, first of all, if you want to do 3D modeling, you'll probably
pick up an SGi box and not a Sun.  SGi's just eat everything else for
breakfast when it comes to 3D graphics.

You can use a workstation for anything you want.  But you can't do a
lot of things on most workstations because there is nothing but
engineering and technical applications available for them except for a
very, very limited amount of productivity or "business" apps.  What is
the difference between a Quadra with AU/X and a SPARCstation?  Or,
what's the difference between a NeXT workstation and a SPARCstation.
Well, I and a lot of people can get a lot of work done on my NeXT or
on a Quadra that you can't do on a Sun.  Because you cant do it on a
Sun, or DEC, or HP, or IBM workstation (due to lack of any software
for that task) you say that it's not part of the workstation
definition.


andrew
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
	<1992Nov13.141945.18628@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>
	<1992Nov14.150215.28192@wam.umd.edu> <BxptLr.DAy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Nov14.191114.19676@athena.mit.edu> <Bxs22G.1EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Nov16.134616.4336@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:03:35


>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel M Silevitch (dmsilev@athena.mit.edu)

Daniel> limit for newer machines is usually 64Meg, and the P5 will be
Daniel> able to access 128 Meg.

The P5 sure can access 128 MByte. It also can access a good deal more,
namely 32 times as much. It won't be enough, but that's another story.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Multitasking
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:53:35 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <10292327.70331.14660@kcbbs.gen.nz>  writes:
>
>WINDOWS MULTITASKING ?
>
>
>
>Now, I've read from all these magazines how great
>
>multitasking can be, and how Windows may be used to achieve
>
>that. The problem is that my windows don't seem to be
>
>multitasking at all! Could there be something wrong with my
>
>setup or is my hardware not good enough?


Well, there's *something* wrong.  It double-spaces everything.  ;-)


--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2718 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2696