HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terjer@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: IfI, UNIT-AVH
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 12:01:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.225848.114240@watson.ibm.com>, arsouth@watson.ibm.com
(Andrew R. Southwick) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Nov11.192028.22300@news.Hawaii.Edu> guiyu@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu (The Big Color Wolf) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov9.132256.1127@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
> >>In article <4fl1rfh@rpi.edu>  writes:
> >
> >In             OS/2
> >               Windows 2/3.x
> >               OpenWin
> >               NeXT
> >                       etc.
> >The scroll bars scrolls the window REAL-TIME! i.e. When you HOLD the scroll bar
> >WHILE moving, the contents of the window MOVE at the SAME time.
> >
> >This is a feature which EVEN a 80286 running windows 3.0 has. I wonder WHY this 
> >CANNOT be incoporated into the MAC OS? 

It is not a question of doing it, but how you do it. I wonder how this
"feature" will
feel on a '286 running Windows. I cannot imagine real-time scrolling in
documents
heavily loaded with graphics (or digital video for that matter). You
need some heavy hardware for this. Looks OK on my Quadra 950 though, (using
XPress)
                                                   
> 
> Just for those people out there who summarily decide that Mac's are a piece of
> because the scroll-bars don't scroll the window in real-time:
> 
> You see the note re: NeXT above.
> OS/2 scroll bars do not scroll the window in real time.  It will for some
> applications, but not for all. It depends on the application, and how it wants
> to respond to the controls.
> 
> It is also possible for an application to respond in real-time to scroll bars.
> POSSIBLE.  Please, no flames from Mac-haters who insist on insulting the OS and
> our intelligences at the slightest provocation.  Julian Chang has normally been
> a reasonable poster, but the shouts about this feature not being possibly
> implemented in the Mac OS are misleading.

Of course it is possible to do.
In Quark XPress 3.1: Hold down the Option-key while dragging, et voil!

Terje Rydland
Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
Internet : terjer@ifi.unit.no
AppleLink: NOR0103
Tlf : +47-7-591845
Fax : +47-7-591733
From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Emplant - Why it is not feasible as a workstation
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:15:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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

>The Emplant as a WORKSTATION is a totally different bird.  To
>my knowledge, it does not have any TCP/IP, token ring, 
>LocalTalk, or SLIP software so that precludes using it as
>a workstation for high-end use.

EMPLANT isn't a workstation.  EMPLANT is a card developed by some third
party vendor, which claims to be able to emulate a color Mac on an 
accelerator Amiga.  It has zippo, nada, nothing to do with Commodore.  

EMPLANT does have LocalTalk.  It doesn't matter if EMPLANT (the card)
doesn't come with SLIP, TCP/IP and token ring, because the Amiga supports
them all. 

>Amiga's sw base is too small to find the items you need to
>care and feed a workstation.  The NeXT can use all unix
>stuff.  The Mac and PC have excellent sw bases.  (I am
>not knocking the NeXT's sw base either, 600 MB freebies
>are not bad with a system release :-).

If using UNIX stuff is a concerned, Amiga UNIX (AMIX) should be sufficient,
as long as you have an Amiga capable of running it.  (AMIX is a 
derivate of AT&T Sys V)

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

Quite frankly, I doubt C= is marketing the Amiga as a workstation.  That,
however, doesn't prevent the Amiga from being a professional machine.

>PS:  When you post, make sense and do not talk gibberish.  This
>     goes to the Amiga sysop who was flopping out about the
>     Emplant.

I agree.  After all, EMPLANT is still in a very primitive stage right now,
people shouldn't be spreading too much rumor.  I have no problem with 
people telling the truths.  However, I don't think we should exaggerate too
much.

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

Yours Sincerely,
Kelvin
e-mail: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: James D. Baeder <baeder@nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72FF977A901DCBA@nas-mac-186.nas.nasa.gov>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:45:27 GMT
Organization: U. S. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:37:15 GMT

Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS

In article <1992Nov17.202640.3774@news.Hawaii.Edu> The Big Color Wolf, 
guiyu@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu writes:

>2nd	I know that OS/2, Windows do not have _real-time_ scroll-bars in
_all_
>	applications. However, I do find that OS/2 and Windows 3.1 have
>	_real-time_ scroll_bars for desktop windows and file dialog windows.
>	(It would be a real CPU hog to have _real-time_ scroll-bars for
>	graphics-intensive applications, I concede) 
>		Since normally the desktop icons are not too complicated, it
>	might be possible to have _real-time_ scroll bars for the mac, this
>	does help not too little as it gives you precise control over when or
>	where to stop when you are, say, searching over a long list of
>	filenames or icons.

Do you realize that if you press on the up and down arrows 
in any window on the mac it will move in real time.  I realize
that this is not the same as scrolling in real time, but it 
should suffice for the case mentioned above.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jbailey@world.std.com (james d bailey)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:00:31 GMT

dtiberio@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

>>Don't you need Mac II ROMs for the Eggplant?  To buy a used Mac II to
>>get the ROMs will raise the cost a bit won't it?

>	Some people already own Mac II's. Some people will buy the ROMs
>separately (believe it or not, dealers will sell them to you if they
>really want to make a sale)

I believe that Apple will take away dealer status if the dealer is caught
doing this.  Most dealers will not sell ROMs for this reason.
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PostScript Costs (Was:  EGGPLANT, IMPLANT...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:44:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Stefano Pagiola writes
>  But I was trying to compare roughly comparable  
> printers (even though the IIf is only 300dpi to the NeXT Laser  
> Printer's 400).  

The IIf also has FinePrint (which is comparable to 400 dpi) and PhotoGrade  
(which is unavailable from NeXT at any price).

>The NTR is a lot slower (4 ppm vs 8 ppm).

If you're printing interesting Postscript the engine speed is almost  
irrelevant -- it's the rendering speed you care about.  And the NTR has a  
nice RISC chip to offload that processing from your workstation.

>  If you don't need PostScript, you'd  
> be silly to pay for it.

By that reasoning most NeXT owners are silly, since most of them don't use  
the features of Postscript that aren't available more cheaply on Macs and  
PCs.  NeXTs use Postscript in order to provide a certain  
least-common-denominator, even if that means making people pay for  
capabilities they don't need.  The argument for this decision is that it  
provides nicer software, an easier life for developers, etc. -- not that  
it saves users money.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:20:59 GMT

In article <ewright.722201334@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>I have yet to see you guys quote the REAL price of a NeXTstation
>rather than the "edu" price.  
>
What is a REAL price? The MSRP? Mail order price? Used price? The price
at store X? 

Seems to me the REAL price is the price you pay. This price varies for
each purchase. Some people pay the REAL educational price, some pay the
REAL retail price, some pay a REALly high price. There is no one REAL price.

What's the REAL price of a Quadra 950? What's the REAL price of Corvette?
It depends doesn't it?

Move into the REAL world. There are no REAL prices. Just the price you pay.
If you can't get educational pricing, tough. I did and I wasn't even a
student (of course I didn't actually own the machine for a year).

Terry Wilcox



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:28:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Nov17.203228.9305@cuug.ab.ca> wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100) writes:

>Exactly. You Mac advocates should stop quoting edu prices.

Yeah.  We're the ones going on and on and on and on about how
"you can get a computer more powerful than the Quadra for much
less at any campus bookstore" aren't we?

I have yet to see you guys quote the REAL price of a NeXTstation
rather than the "edu" price.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: MIDI:  Please convince me!
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:49:34 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Nov22.173437.9056@ultb.isc.rit.edu>  writes:
>I would appreciate someone out there with Mac MIDI experience and perhaps
>IBM pc MIDI background to compare the two systems.  Please explain to me
>IF and WHY the Mac is truly a superior way to go.

The Mac is a better way to go chiefly because the software base available  
on the Mac is much much much bigger and of higher quality than the PC.   
That's it.  

This is the case for three reasons:

	1)  Early-on, musicians gravitated toward the Mac because it was
	    "cozier".  Warm and fuzzy.  And because the Mac was easily
	    portable, an important consideration early on, since there
	    weren't any portable PCs back then.

	2)  The Mac has continued its dominance because its architecture
	    is better designed for multimedia (in particular, sound), 
	    because the Mac is still very popular in educational circles
	    (an BIG part of the music market), and because Apple's
	    control of its OS has allowed it to create a single
	    standardized format for MIDI and sound manipulation on the
	    machine.  The PC *still* doesn't have this, and this
	    collection of standards is very important for making a true
	    "music workstation". 

	3)  Even on a 486, Windows slows everything down so much that it's
	    tough to do real-time stuff like complex MIDI sequencing.
	    Hence, even a small Mac allows for more sophistication,
	    MIDI-wise, within a graphical environment, whereas a PC
	    really does not right now.

The PC is gaining, though, especially with the introduction of sound  
cards.  But it'll be a while, especially considering that the PC's  
software isn't great right now.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 22:54:17 GMT

Daniel Norman Johnson writes
>>The NeXT *does* allow you to see two directories at one time:
>>pull down two file viewers.  They work like the Mac's Finder
>>windows in this regard.
> 
> Uh, no. The Mac does *not* work like that. I know if you start
> a second file viewer you can have them view different thigns, but
> that's a pain. I find it more convinient to double-click on a
> folder and have it open in its own window. This is how the Mac
> works. As far as I can tell, this is the thing the NeXT does
> not do.

Sure it does.  Select a folder and hit Command-O.  The folder will  
open in its own viewer window.  Not as instantaneous as  
double-clicking, perhaps, but just as effectiva. And any speed  
advantage you might gain by the Mac approach is negated by the need  
to go back and close all those folder windows later; if you're just  
browsing, you often don't need them open.

> ...  I never have to open more
> than 4 [finder windows]. Generally this doesn't happen tho
> as I can just hold down the option key and then whenever I
> open a folder, the window I double-clicked in to do it closes.

So how do you trace your steps back?  I find the NeXT viewer's  
graphical path a very useful tool.

> Or I can use list views to put more than one level in one window.

Sounds like the NeXT viewer in browser mode.

> I also use aliases to shortcut through what is there, so most
> of the time I can get to the file I want by opening one window,
> either from the Desktop of my Apple Menu.
> 

The NeXT viewer's shelf lets you do this.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:23:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.722103797
 <ewright.722020368@convex.convex.com> <1992Nov17.203228.9305@cuug.ab.ca>
Distribution: na

wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100) writes:

>In article <ewright.722020368@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>
>>>The original user quoted Mac edu prices, Stefano compared NeXT 
>>>edu prices, and you insist the comparison is unfair.
>>
>>Not unfair.  Irrelevent.  The "Net" may think that educational
>>prices are a Big Hairy Deal, but the real world, whose purchases
>>can make or break a computer company, doesn't really care.  It's
>>real-world prices that count.

>Exactly. You Mac advocates should stop quoting edu prices.

>If the Net isn't the real world, what are you doing here? I thought
>you were from the real world.

I don't see what the big deal is about edu prices.  I was considering a
NeXT (I'm a student) but they're just way too expensive, even with the
discount.  I wouldn't look at them at all without the discount.


-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:45:47 GMT

In article <bmccnnll.722514592@unix1.tcd.ie>, bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry
McConnell) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.224855.27377@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess
>M Holle) writes:
>
>>It is much easier to REMIND yourself quickly without any annoying
>possible 
>>effects.  By seeing the new cursor produced by pressing a modifier key, 
>>the user knows immediately whether it is going to do what he wants before
>>>he/she actually does it.
>
>That is assuming the application changes the pointer/cursor to a new
>image
>when the user holds down a modifier key. In my experience of working with
>Macs,
>they don't! Can anyone give me a few examples of applications that do
>this, or
>are we just talking about an ideal world here?
>
>Barry.

Run Photoshop. Hold down the caps lock key. See the cursor change to
crosshairs.
Now hold down the option key. See the cursor change to the eyedropper. For
a real thrill, hold down both the option and caps lock keys.

Maynard
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: The future of Apple
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:01:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.721944096
 <ibhan.721678175@husc10> <1992Nov14.155226.6538@cuug.ab.ca>

wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100) writes:

>OK, what does/will Newton do? Nobody wants to say.

Well, since it's not out yet, it's hard to be definitive, but most
articles I've read describe it as a personal organization manager.  It'll
be used to keep appointments, to leave small messages, etc..
-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
From: don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Emplant - Why it is not feasible as a workstation
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:37:30 GMT

In <83769@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>
>First and foremost, let me apologize for the rabidness of the previous
>posts about the Emplant.
>
>The Emplant is a great idea - if you are running a video lab and
>need the Video Toaster and advanced video and sound.

     Eh?  What does Mac emulation have to do with the Toaster?  I can see it
now... buy one of NewTek's "Mac Toaster" workstations, slap in Emplant,
hook a cable between Emplant's SCSI port and that of the Amiga it's running on,
and control the Toaster from and emulated Mac-in-a-Window...


>The Emplant as a WORKSTATION is a totally different bird.  To
>my knowledge, it does not have any TCP/IP, token ring, 
>LocalTalk, or SLIP software so that precludes using it as
>a workstation for high-end use.

     Of course Emplant can't be a workstation.  It's just a card and a bit
of (currently non-working :-( ) software.  You seem to be confusing Emplant
with the Amiga (for which, by the way, all of the above with the possible
exception of Token Ring have been available for some time).

>Amiga's sw base is too small to find the items you need to
>care and feed a workstation.

     Depends what you need the workstation to do.  

>  The NeXT can use all unix
>stuff. 

     As can the Amiga.  Just run UNIX.  Of course, lots of UX-like utilities
are already out there for the Amiga.

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

     Again, what kind of workstation are you talking about?  What kind of
work do you want to do on it.  For scientific/business related work I'll agree;
there's currently not much of a software base in those areas.  But for many
types of graphics/video work, it can be ideal.

>PS:  When you post, make sense and do not talk gibberish.  This
>     goes to the Amiga sysop who was flopping out about the
>     Emplant.

     Well, as my .sig used to say:    

      -----------
      |Gibberish|
      |is spoken|
      |  here.  |
      -----------



-- 
Don Lloyd                / "No, I just think that a computer grafted on top of \
don@chopin.udel.edu      | another computer is a kludge.  It has nothing to do |
GeNIE: D.LLOYD7          \ with the Intel CPU"  - Jerry Shekhel                /
BIX: DRL  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:45:48 GMT

Edward Crawford writes
> Youve been saying that back ground apps on the mac dont do anything
> until they are brought into the foreground?! What gave you that  
idea?
> I run First Class in the back ground all the time while im using
> my computer. I print files in the background while i use my  
computer,
> and uncompress and compress stuff in the background while i use my
> computer. And no, none of these applications are in the foreground.
> I even have a program that empties my trash in the background.
> And now you are telling me that my computer cant do that? Well
> dont tell that to my computer because it doesnt know that.

That's all very nice, and a great improvement over the likes of DOS,  
which doesn't even let you do such minimal multitasking.  But can you  
run a Mathematica job in the background while you're working in your  
word processor?  Can you have your data base program executing a  
search while you're using your spreadsheet?  Can you compile a  
program while reading mail and playing a game?  There's more to  
multitasking than being able to do a few minor household chores in  
the background.

--
-
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: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:38:22 GMT

By the way, for those of you gritching about this, check out CMaster, the
Think C editor extension (from some other company whose name I forget).  It
has real-time scroll bars that work quite well on all machines that I've
used it on (granted, the slowest was a Mac IIx).

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dtiberio@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:53:14 GMT

In article <ibhan.722276462@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:

>With the Mac, you don't need a SCSI card, just plug the devices in.  Like
>all SCSI, you can have 7 devices on the Mac.

	You don't need a SCSI card, but you need a SCSI controller, which
every A3000 has. And who is to say that the Mac SCSI controller is fast 
enough? Or good enough? It is nice to have lots of vendors to choose from. We
once had two SCSI controllers in my A3000; the CBM controller on the
motherboard was noticeably slower than the $330 one.

>>Multiple keyboards? Gee, I can see where THAT might be useful... 8)
>
>More than you think.  It's already been useful for PowerBook users, who
>can hook up a numeric keypad to their computers.  It's also possible to
>hook up multiple input devices, like a mouse and a trackball.

	Oh, how intelligently stupid. Remember how I touted the Amigas
joystick ports (jokingly)? Guess what plugs in there? Mice, keypads, and
joysticks or trackballs. Multiple input devices.


>You can get a Toaster for the Mac (though any Amiga owner knows that it's
>just a Mac-controlled Amiga).

	You can't get a Toaster for the Mac, but you can get an Amiga with
a Toaster plugged into the video slot and a sticker put over the word Amiga.

>>The Toaster killers are coming... they will most likely be for the PC first,
>>and will probably cost $4000-$10,000. That's all rumour, of course...
>
>I wonder if  Radius' VideoVision for the Mac is one of these?

	Most of these Toaster killers are not that threatening. Many were
advertised over the summer, but none were ever released because none were
ever made. And none are due, but I am sure someone is working on them. And
I am not afraid, because they will not be as cheap as the Toaster. In fact,
if any cheap Toaster killer comes, it will only run on the Amiga. :)


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy