HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stiv@stat.rice.edu (david n stivers)
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info-Version .90
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:52:06 GMT

In article <wf_i1Bi00VpAIS1cdP@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>This list still has major bugs that I can see...
>
>bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>
>> Mac:  Built in AppleTalk functionality (Includes LocalTalk).  For
>> most present machines Ethernet requires a card (PDS or Nubus) and
>> the hardware support for each machine runs about $250-$300.
>
>If you want to connect two machines with Appletalk, it takes a serial
>cable.  Connecting more requires some hardware, the cost of which I
>recall as being something like $30 per mac, plus $100 for the box...
>

Focus sells Phonenet boxes (1 per Mac needed) for $15 each. Plus you have to
buy telephone wire.



-- 
david n stivers stiv@rice.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:27:37 GMT

In article 16157@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>In article <lyk2gy+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article 5904@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>>Mach is plenty object-oriented.  Mach provides most of it's services
>>>through user-level programs accessible by a consistent system of
>>>message passing.  That's as object-oriented as you need or want your
>>>kernel to be.
>>
>>Doesn't sound terribly object-oriented.
>>
>>>>I think to say that the NeXT was "designed from the ground up" is pretty
>>>>silly, even if NeXT went ahead and payed for the entirety of the development
>>>>of Mach; I rather doubt they did, tho. If so, why not make it object
>>>>oriented like everything else?
>>>
>>>It is object-oriented, see above.
>>
>>Perhaps I don't quite follow what you mean by "object oriented"; in
>>what way is Mach object oriented?
>
>The kernel is as single object.  Following me so far?  You request
>services by sending messages containing other objects (mainly mach
>ports and threads).  When you request something from mach, say create
>a new thread, you aren't just invoking a function call.  You are
>creating a mach message and sending it to the kernel along with your
>task object and the thread object you want to represent the new
>thread.  The kernel creates the new thread and puts it into the thread
>object.

This doesn't look like it is object oriented, it looks like you
are sticking objecty names on it. But see below...

>This isn't like objects in the AppKit.  Objective-C objects are very
>different from mach objects, and Objective-C messages are very
>different from mach messages.

How bout this: Mac applications are object oriented. They sit there
and respond to messages sent to them from teh OS (or other apps);
such as "mouse down" or "update window".

Is that a valid characterization? If not, why not?

>Additionally, you can augment the kernel with "loadable kernel
>servers" that provide additional kernel services.  Again, you access
>the services by sending messages to the kernel object.

Hmmm.. how is this substatially different from saying that the MacOS
recieves messages (in the form of trap calls); you can load packages
which will do the same thing with added functionality.

>mach really kicks ass.

Quite possibly.

---
			- 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.sys.mac.advocacy
From: terjer@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland)
Subject: Re: Mac Flaws
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: IfI, UNIT-AVH
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 08:19:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.172102.266@physc1.byu.edu>, goblec@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:
> 
> Flaws in the Mac
> ----------------
> 
> When you consider that in large measure System 7.0 is really
> a set of patches to the operating design of the original
> Mac 128k the MacOS is very impressive.  It has aged much
> better than DOS.  There are many new features that need to
> be included on the Mac.  Some of these would work better in
> an object oriented approach to OS.  Perhaps some will be in
> Pink.  Many could be included within the Mac right now.
> 
> 1) OBJECT COMMUNICATIONS
> 
>    This is rumored to be part of AppleScript.  AppleScript
>    is supposed to be an objected oriented script language
>    controlling communication between applications on the 
>    Mac.  Ideally all Mac programs will now be written with
>    a complete even structure driven by apple events.  This
>    will make programs easy to customize.

This is what IAC and AppleEvents do. It's been there since System 7.0
was introduced.
AppleScript uses IAC and AppleEvents send messages to applications, and
will only work with applications that uses IAC and AppleEvents.

    
> 8) MULTI-PROCESSING
> 
>    The technology is now coming into place where PC's will
>    have multiple CPU's in the system.  It would make sense
>    to expand the system so that multiple programs can
>    run simultaneously.  Right now the only solution is the
>    Radius Serve which basically has full multiple systems
>    running.  It would make more sense to have the foreground
>    task run on one CPU and background tasks on an other.
>    Standard libraries for DSP (for math, Quicktime, and 
>    perhaps Quickdraw and compressions) would be nice also.

This also exists (but not from Apple). Buy a Radius Rocket and
RocketShare, and you have what you ask for. It's a logical step for
Apple to do this when the PowerPC Macs arrive. I'm sure it is in the works!


> 10) DOCUMENT BASED COMPUTING
> 
>    This final item really couldn't be done under the MacOS.
>    It may be done under some other OS.  Here the basic
>    element of work is not the application, but rather the
>    document.  You could have paper documents ala page-
>    layout and word processing.  You could have cards,
>    spreadsheets and lists.  There would be different
>    tools to apply to the document.  A text tool would 
>    have many word-processing functions.  A graph tool
>    would do graphs.  A math tool could do equations,
>    spreadsheet function and other such functions.  A paint
>    tool would draw pictures

Wasn't this the main idea behind the Xerox Star? With IAC and AppleEvents
at least part of this could be done today. 




Terje Rydland
Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
Internet : terjer@ifi.unit.no
AppleLink: NOR0103
Tlf : +47-7-591845
Fax : +47-7-591733
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: scott@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Captain Obvious)
Subject: Not Here!
Summary: Not Here!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:39:45 GMT
Keywords: Not, Here!


Please don't this here!
--

You can observe a lot just by watching.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Distribution: world
From: asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel)
Organization: Odyssey Ultraware, Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:35:08  CDT
Subject: Re: MAC percentage of the Market

Title gives the question which this note addresses.

About 2 weeks ago the WSJ had an update of PC sales. Apple was third, having
just lost second place back to IBM. My recollection is that Compaq was first.
Anyhow, the answer isabout 17%. That is; Apple gets about 17% of the market
of microcomputers.
From: ak520@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lucas Wagner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Definitions
Date: 16 Dec 1992 06:07:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


As a Mac User for almost 9 years, I find the NeXT superior to the
NeXT.  Although I still like my Macs, and still support the
"Mac cause", I still think that Apple has to work on quite a
few things.

Here's something I suggest to everyone out there: just take a
look at the NeXT.  Buy NeXTWorld, call NeXTConnection, just 
examine the machine.  Before, when I was pro-Mac-shut-up-everyone-else,
just looking at a NeXT made me want to gag.  But, I was curious,
and purchased a NeXTWorld magazine.  This opened my mind a bit
more towards other machines.  

As for becoming obsolete, the NeXT is far.  As NeXTConnection
has put it "we've been down this road before."  

I'm just waiting for a good Mac emulator to come out for it-
there is one out, which lets you run Word, Excel, and quite a few other
apps.  But the Mac's OS< as we all know is not SoftPC'able, exactly. 
But, the OS, NeXTStep 3.0, has built-in support for Mac and DOS
disks, and is able to read them.  It also has support for AppleTalk,
which is also a plus.

But, I urge everyone to expand a bit.  I won't hurt, and it
truly does help to understand more about other computers, AND the Mac.

I agree with the person who said that NeXT's marketing is lousy.
Steve (Jobs) is working on that, though.  The real work is 
getting the message out to others- oncethat is accomplished,
it'll be a lot easier for the company.

If anyone has any questions on the NeXT or tries out the NeXT, let
me know what you think about it via e-mail.  I hate to start
any types of flame wars, so just send me e-mail....  I suppose,
in a sense, that I could assimilate certain common features
the OSs have alike.  I like 'em both...

Lucas

-- 
Lucas C. Wagner  --  ak520@po.CWRU.edu  --  lucas@hernix.org
IRC:  Predat0r, XCalibur, Mr_Bungle  UUCP:  hernix!lucas
"What would the world be like without Diet Coke?"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:07:12 GMT

In article <168BD8E6D.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu> UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.050708.1488@cubetech.com>
>andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <168BBDAAD.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu> UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:
>>>Hmm. I guess the combined resources of Apple and IBM won't be any
>>>help to Taligent? Yeah, NeXT could easily stay ahead of two giants,
>>>especially now that they'll be supporting two platforms. Don't
>>>expect NS 3.0 for awhile now that they'll be worrying over NS486.
>>
>>Hello??
>>
>>First, NS 3.0 has been out on NeXT computers for over three months now.
> 
>Sorry. I guess I meant 4.0. In any case, the next NextStep for Nexts,
>but I bet you knew what I meant. ;)

NeXTSTEP for NeXT Computers and NeXTSTEP for the 80x86 and NeXTSTEP
for god knows what else uses the same code for everything except the
device drivers and certain discrete parts of the window-server.  The
AppKit team is distinct from the people doing device drivers for 486.
Many of the people doing device drivers do not work at NeXT.  They
work for PC OEMs and use DriverKit (an object-oriented device-driver
toolkit.  what a neat idea, eh?).

>Yeah, sure. Apple and IBM may not got along, they may even split off,
>but the point is, Apple already had a significant amount of work done
>on an OOP OS. If the taligent thing breaks apart, apple can still bring
>out Pink sans IBM, and run it on PowerPC, or any other processor.

Why waste your time trying to work with someone if you are capable of doing
it by yourself?  It would certainly avoid the multitude of legal
hassels that will arise should IBM and Apple have a falling out.
Perhaps that's what Apple really wants - a mega lawsuit with IBM.
Heck, it's almost the same thing they did with Microsoft.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dbourass@scott.skidmore.edu (darlene bourassa)
Subject: Re: Mac & NeXT camp
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:54:49 GMT


I'd just like to follow up with mgm's list...

I'm sure you showed ML all of the manuals that come standard with
next's unix? How about the ones with the next.


how about all of the multiple monitors you can put onto a next...

And all the wonderful colors that you can get for a next for under
7000? 16.7 million of them?

Maybe even the low price of Next programs, especially framemaker for
under 1000 bucks, and Wingz for under 1500...

I'm sorry, but mac is just a better deal for a student. I can do so
much more with my IIci and Plaze NT than I have seen done on a next
for the price I paid(4200 bucks)

db
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib111.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up?
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib111.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:16:40 GMT

In article IDNy00iV387Coc8@andrew.cmu.edu, Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> () writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 14-Dec-92 Re: Will the real
>Taligent .. by Andrew Loewenstern@cubet 
>> Look at what's happening.  This is obvoiusly not a "joint venture"
>> this is "lets put our guys together and see if we can steal a lot of
>> technology from the other."  IBM talks about folding OOP bullshit into
>> OS/2, and Apple talks about doing the same thing with System 7.  Where
>> is the joint product.
>
>You can't just abandon the rest of the world and start something new! 
>(Look at NeXT, which is floundering in comparison to Mac and PC)  You
>have to take small steps.  Companies don't take well to quick changes
>(ie, entire computer systems (hardware and software) changing
>overnight).  Like I said, Jobs did it, and while they have the best OS
>around, no one's using it.

I must disagree here.

You can either takes steps so small as to keep you compatible
(what PCs are doing) or takes steps so BIG you just make everything
else look absolutely putrid (what the Mac did a long while ago);
if you try to go in between (what the NeXT did- better than the Mac
(debatable, I think it is in many ways better, in other ways not) and
PC but not nearly enough so to leapfrog. But incompatible with what
went before. Flop.

Taligent MIGHT do this right, but it remains to be seen. Very
probably they wont go far enough ahead, and thus backward compatability
will be necessary. (I hope the do that well)

That's all pure opinion tho. So there! :)

[deletia- PowerPC speculation]
---
			- 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: flash@austin.lockheed.com (James W. Melton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: My "Create a system that a fool can use" posting
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:13:56 GMT
Organization: "Lockheed Austin Division, 6800 Burleson Rd, Austin, TX 78744

In article <1992Dec11.042030.18988@squid9.cuc.ab.ca> terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca writes:
>
>In article <1g398qINN8mj@almaak.usc.edu>  
>ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu  
>(Ajay Shah) writes:
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, all GUI systems are alike --  
>easy to start
>> using, hard to get real work done; roughly pitched at the  
>intellectual
>> level of high school graduates, not even faintly adequate  
>for me.
>
>So don't use one. GUI's are meant for people that don't  
>need to use a  
>computer continually. They're for those people who use the  
>computer  
>as a tool.

[...]

>>It boils down to investing in superior skills over a long
>> horizon, and not settling for a quick fix.  GUIs are a  
>quick fix,
>> which barely scratch the power of computers.  I crave for  
>more.
>> 
>
>Most people don't need more power. They use a computer to  
>get a job  
>done, not as a phallic symbol.
>
>> IMHO the real contendor to reckon with when we talk about Power, or
>> work done per unit keystroke, is Unix.

For what it is worth, I work with Unix boxes (SGI, Sun) building
GUIs for high school graduates to use. I use a Mac at home. You
cannot compare the two.

The GUI vs CLI argument has as a basic assumption that all GUIs are
the same in quality, ease of use, and features available. I think
that assumption is made by people who are used to seeing a GUI on
top of a CLI (like your average Unix user).

I do not want a CLI on my Mac (usually; I would like to see
scripting developed, but then I would invoke the scripts with the
mouse). However, on my Unix machine I am unwilling to give up the
CLI.

You see, there is nothing on the Mac that I need or want to do that
I cannot do easily and straightforwardly with the Mac interface.
The graphical interactions with the system were well thought out in
the beginning and rigidly enforced (in the beginning); the result
being a very consistent, easy to use, and yes, POWERFUL interface.

Most other GUIs (Windows, Motif, Open Look, etc.) were developed by
committee, with no tools for consistency, some guidance through
style guides, and a lot of independent developers using their own
imagination to interpret how a user wants to interact with an
object.

Simply put, the Mac GUI is superior to the run-of-the-mill GUI on
the street. The Mac would not benefit from a CLI (IMHO).

Unix is an unnecessary complication to your average word processor,
spreadsheet, contact management or game user. It is great for
writing program (that run on Unix machines), but USERS don't want
to _have_ to know the details.

To echo the previous poster, the computer (particularly the home or
business PERSONAL computer) is a tool, not a symbol of virility.

$0.02
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.031844.28459@watson.ibm.com> arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick) writes:
>In <1992Dec14.050708.1488@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>The PowerPC is being based on technology developed for IBM's RS/6000 line,
>considered an extremely advanced and powerful architecture.  Even people 
>I knew who hated everything IBM had done before the RS/6000 were impressed
>with its sophistication.  What makes you think that the PowerPC would be a 
>flop?

I never said, nor believed PowerPC would be a flop.  IBM's POWER
architecture is very nice.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: 098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802)
Subject: MAC percentage of the Market
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory, EMVAX
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:41:00 GMT

Does anyone have a good recent cite (something I can quote from) about what the 
MAC percentage of the Micro-Computer Market is?
From: ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:02:44 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <1g0ooeINN86o@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
>> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> 
>> [lots deleted]
>> 
>>>Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. Having the mouse in the right area to
>>>use the menu system is trivial -- you can see it with your eyes. 
>> 
>> Okay, you don't understand. I'll try again:
>> 
>> BC:Having the mouse in the right area to use the menu system is trivial --
>> BC:you can see it with your eyes.
>> 
>> ME:Using the right mouse button is trivial --
>> ME:its right in front of your eyes.

>The action that results from the pressing of the right mouse button is not.
>(At least, it isn't before you press the button) 

The action that results from the moving of the mouse is not.
(At least, it isn't before you move the mouse)

By the way, dont you thing that it places a rather large cognitive load
on someone when they actually have to look at a computer screen? Maybe
we should reduce the screen to one pixel, and thereby reduce the cognitive
load further. Or maybe we should all sit around like zombies, and have
no cognitive load at all!

-----------------------------------
ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:23:02 GMT

Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 7-Dec-92 Re: CLI advantages
>(was Re:.. by Roger Tang@byron.u.washi 
>> >-- Create a system that even a fool can use, 
>> >   and only a fool will want to use it.
>>  
>>         Lot of fools using VCR-Plus, then.
>
>Actually, I don't think programming a VCR is that hard.  But then I know
>assembly language.

[The following is not directed at the above posters.  Their postings
 simply provide a good lauch point for this posting.]

The funny thing about people who complain about how only fools would
use something like a VCR-Plus is that they never discover the advantages
of it.  Just because I know how to program my VCR, doesn't mean that
I don't find a VCR-Plus useful.

Here are some of the advantages it has:

1. It remembers the program even if there is a power failure.  My VCR
does not.

2. It can remember more events than my VCR.

3. It can be taken into the bathroom and operated while I'm sitting on
the toilet.

4. It's faster: to do it by hand, I've got to open the TV doors, turn on
the receiver, find the TV remote to turn on the TV, find the VCR remote
to bring up the programming menu, and then finally program the VCR.

5. It knows how to change the channels on the cable box, so I can mix
recordings of premium scrambled channels and regular channels in one
recording session.

6. To set it up for most VCRs, you only need to know the brand.  This
raises amusing possiblilities for practical jokes, if you can plant one
in a friend's house.

The fact that it also helps morons does not negate its use for
non-morons.  People who overlook this are the true morons.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:14:31 GMT

>>The action that results from the pressing of the right mouse button is not.
>>(At least, it isn't before you press the button) 

A VERY good point.  You have no clue what will happen until it is TOO late.

>The action that results from the moving of the mouse is not.
>(At least, it isn't before you move the mouse)

On EVERY GUI that I have used, moving the mouse (without dragging) will
in all but the most unusual circumstances (certain games, etc) simply
move the mouse cursor.  This is standard, therefore, you do KNOW for all
practical purposes what will happen.

When pressing mouse button #n, the result could be ANYTHING, depending
on application and platform.  This makes things difficult.


Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy