HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:04:51
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<6035.2ac1deca@hayes.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 24 Sep 92 15:29:14 EDT

In article <6035.2ac1deca@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <1992Sep22.224428.7790@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
   > 
   > Quick... what's the name of the program you use to convert a Mac file
   > for transmission via email? 

   Uh, duh. I dunno. But it has the generic application icon. It's in that tools 
   folder over on the right hand side.

   > BINHEX? 

   Is that it? Huh. Let me go look. Gee! You're right. How'd you know that?
   I'll probably forget that tommorrow.

   > That's a cryptic command. 

   It is? I thought commands were something you typed in. I just click on the
   thing.

   > You remembered it because it's useful to you. 

   But, I didn't remember it.

   > If you did a lot of image processing, you'd remember "pnmflip". 

   No way, dude.

Boy, you Mac users ARE dumber than you look ...  :->

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:14:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.718038875

peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <qdkzdx#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>> This conversion, incidentally, is only done when the app is switched
>> into the background.

>Why is there such a thing as the "background"?

Because humans are usually only able to deal with one application at a time.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:35:56 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Sep28.210630.24713@times.aux.apple.com>  writes:
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:


>NeXT wins this one, but barely (I've seen Q700s street for less than
>$4245 with display -- edu should be better). Note that, at least at
>U. of Illinois, the $3851 price did not include a keyboard or
>NeXTStep (at all -- you HAD to buy it separately, or so the computer
>store people and their price sheet claimed).

WHAT?  NeXTs all come with NeXTSTEP free.  And a keyboard.


>Lesse - I've got 12 apps running on my Q700 right now. I'm not sure
>what the processes panel shows on a NeXT -- do you get Unix-daemon
>processes there too? If so, then my Q700 counts as 43 (Unix) plus 12
>(MacOS) process == 55 total. Enough for you?

But only because A/UX supplies true preemptive multitasking.  But, then,  
er, how much *was* that A/UX system?  :)  Did we figure that into the Mac  
price?  But we're really comparing MacOS to NeXTSTEP here.



>I see inconsistencies on the Mac? You're right -- there is some
>(small) benefit to having the same imaging model on the printer as on
>the screen. But very few Mac apps have any actual difference between
>screen and output anyway, and most of those are caused by
>screen-resolution, not by imaging model.

Almost every desktop publishing software in existence on the Mac has  
problems and must use hacks to overcome them.  I know--I've been a Mac  
freelance typesetter.  DPS has more than a few advantages, but they show  
up mostly in high-end stuff.  If you're just into word processing, heck,  
buy a Classic.


>On the other hand, DPS is a PIG! It's amazing that a Mac IIci visably
>outperforms a 25MHz '040 NeXT.

True enough.  Then again, a PC writing directly to the screen kills a Mac  
IIci.  So what?  It's a question of power versus speed.  IMHO, DPS is a  
wonderful advancement over QuickDraw.  I just want to see how fast Apple's  
new QuickDraw will be.

>I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer.

Thank goodness.

--

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: johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: System 7's memory protection, or lack therof
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:58:04 GMT

In article <81201@ut-emx.uucp>, ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
|> 
|>   I have heard a rumor that Apple is going to provide a system
|> extension similar to Tune Up that will provide preemtivitive
|> (yes, I can't spell today) multitasking.

Well, I certainly hope so! :)

The rumours Ive heard said that apple will be adding
a microkernal, pre-empting, multithreading and memory
protection at the same time.

|>   System 7 is the only OS other than a DOS/Win 3.1 combo that
|> does not have some form of memory protection.  OS/2, A/UX,
|> Windows NT (Gag!), NeXTSTEP, Pink, AIX, XENIX and UNIX have
|> memory protection so when one app decides to barf and die
|> a sick death, your system does not go bye-bye.

You forgot AmigaDOS, which doesn't. Also MS-DOS wo/ Windows.

|>   In OS/2, Control-Esc will save you, the NeXT can click
|> out of the offending program, NT (who cares), and UNIX,
|> control-C or Control-Z, or logging on another terminal
|> will take care of the problem.  System 7 TRIES, by
|> the command-option-esc combo, but on my machine,
|> I end up into macsbug or if MB is not installed,
|> I end up with a frozen keyboard.
|>
|> System 7 is very good, but it needs this memory protection
|> for mission critical tasks.  This is probably one of the reasons
|> that the Mac is not used for mission critical stuff.


Just exactly what does "mission critical stuff" mean?

|> PS:  I like the Mac, have done so since 1984, and have
|> written items for it.  I just do not like this weakness
|> in the OS.

Me neither. Im glad you don't think this weakness imples
that the Mac sux.

|> PS#2:  Pnews crashed on me when I was first writing this
|> article (omen, perhaps?), and I recovered by starting
|> a new terminal session.

[insert twilight zone music] Hmmmm....

On what OS is this?

-- 
			- 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: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:05:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

>"System 7's Interapplication Communications are more powerful than
>anything in the UNIX World."  That's not my opinion.  That's from a
>review of System 7 in Byte -- a magazine whose biases hardly run toward 
>the Macintosh.  

BYTE not biased towards the Mac?  Whatever gave you this idea?  I find
BYTE heavily biased towards the Mac.

Please explain how System 7's Interapplication Communications are
better than those found in UNIX.  This should be interesting.

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.035844.20328@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <1acv6sINNa3n@travis.csd.harris.com> jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
|> > A single menu bar at the top of the screen has one big advantage: it provides
|> > a target of "infinite vertical height" for the mouse pointer.
|> 
|> Why should you have to move the mouse pointer at all? The menu *should* pop up
|> right underneath the pointer when you hit the "menu" button.
|> 
|> Neither Windows or the Mac get this all right, but on large screens I find the
|> Windows method less irritating.

Well, I at least find pop up menus a pain because the targets are
really small, vertically. They are wide enough, but one line
of text is a pain to hit accurately. It slows me down.
Maybe the next has done something to solve this, but Im
an ignorant savage type and I dont know about it. :)

|> > Besides, you can only interact with one application at a time,
|> 
|> I can? I drag-and-drop stuff between applications all the time, and switch
|> active applications as often as I shift active windows. Everything becomes a
|> single meta-application called "what I'm working on right now".
|> 
|> I don't think of "OK, now what am I running?" most of the time.

With this I agree. This is the reason why I dont think much of
Apple's menu-bar-at-the-top arragement right now. Perhaps it could
be fixed, but keeping the infinite-vertical-size property.

-- 
			- 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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important wo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:25:46 GMT
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 <1992Oct1.151138.3881@darwin.ntu.edu.au> bob@nutmeg.ntu.edu.au (Robert Watkins) writes:

>> This may be true when someone else is paying....but current sales figures
>> (from someone elses earlier post) show PCs outsell Macs by 5 to 1

>That may be true, but you must remember that many organizations go out and buy
>PCs to maintain continuity. That 5:1 ratio is decreasing each year as Apple
>increases their market share.

Is that 5:1 ratio measured in terms of dollars or machines?

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:44:24 CDT

In article <1671@anagld.analytics.com>
sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
 
>
>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>>Look at what System 7 does have. WorldScript is great for the international
>>marketplace. Here's one computer that is instantly compatable with just
>>about all written human languages. That's going to really open up some
>>markets. No other OS has these features.
>
>MEGA FLAME.  NT is 100% UNICODE (represents ALL languages) internally.  Not
>only that, UNICODE isn't even Micorsoft's brainchild.  They actually followed
>a standard for once.
 
NT *will be* assuming it ever comes out and assuming apps are written using the
international characters...
 
>
>>Don't expect Apple to backpatch Unix functionality into their OS. Unix is
>>the OS technology of the 70's. This is the 90s.
>
>Mac OS is an OS of the 80's while NT is an OS for the 90's.
>
NT *may be* an OS for the 90s. Right now its not much of anything...
 
 
>
>                                                               o
>Sam Blackburn                                                    \
>Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
>Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
>GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
>                                          ||===================\=\===||
>                                          ||                         ||
>                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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... ;)
From: hees@cubic.com (Phil Hees)
Subject: Re: KILLFILE CLUB!
Organization: Cubic Toll Systems
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 00:04:56 GMT

In article <dvan.716859771@crash>, dvan@crash.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
> 
> Most Macintosh users should have bought a blender.  I, as a consultant, have
> answered some stupid questions on the platforms I have supported, but NEVER
> have I seen the level of stupidity which Mac users display.  

Does your grandfather use a computer?  Does your mother?  Does your seven-
year-old niece?

The Mac was designed from the start as the "computer for the rest of us".
The "rest of us" aren't stupid people, just not wireheads.  A computer
ought to be as easy to use as a blender for the average non-hacker.  And
if it's implemented right, it will still be capable of doing everything
that an experienced programmer like myself, or an arrogant, contemptuous,
self-important consultant such as yourself might want it to do.

--
Phil Hees
hees@cubic.com
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:28:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>Look at what System 7 does have. WorldScript is great for the international
>marketplace. Here's one computer that is instantly compatable with just
>about all written human languages. That's going to really open up some
>markets. No other OS has these features.

MEGA FLAME.  NT is 100% UNICODE (represents ALL languages) internally.  Not
only that, UNICODE isn't even Micorsoft's brainchild.  They actually followed
a standard for once.

>Don't expect Apple to backpatch Unix functionality into their OS. Unix is
>the OS technology of the 70's. This is the 90s.

Mac OS is an OS of the 80's while NT is an OS for the 90's.


                                                               o
Sam Blackburn                                                    \
Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
                                          ||===================\=\===||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:15:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.718038931

peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <ibhan.717796628@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>> RE: What the Amiga can't do with a Mac Emulator that a IIci can.
>> A good percentage of the software coming out for the Mac today is color
>> based, which means that your Amiga couldn't run it.

>What, you *can't* run color software on a B&W Mac? I thought Mac had
>this device independence stuff down pat!

Well, even if it could run it, it wouldn't make a difference.  I'm
surprised at you.  This should be pretty obvious to anyone who's used a
computer.  It doesn't matter what platform you are using: if you don't
have a color monitor, you're not going to be able to work very well with
color.  (I know you can argue that you don't need to actually see your
work in color, but let's be realistic here).

ibhan@husc.harvard.edu
From: pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important wo
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:18:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Oct02.051843.16218
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.


>>> This may be true when someone else is paying....but current sales figures
>>> (from someone elses earlier post) show PCs outsell Macs by 5 to 1

>>That may be true, but you must remember that many organizations go out and buy
>>PCs to maintain continuity. That 5:1 ratio is decreasing each year as Apple
>>increases their market share.

>Is that 5:1 ratio measured in terms of dollars or machines?

Actually the increase in Apple market share has not been that great.  In the
October issue of UNIX World they have an article in the Industry News
section on page 16.  A market research firm, Infocorp, surveyed 4,100 
VARs in the US and asked what OSs the sold and supported.  The pie charts
in the article show that in 1988 Apple had 4% of the market and in 1992
Apple has 5% of the market.  MS/PC-DOS had 29% of the market in 1988 and
42% in 1992.  OS/2 did not have enough market share to get a slice of teh
pie in 1988 (the smallest slice is 2%), but had 12% in 1992.  UNIX had 
18% of the market in 1988 and 28% in 1992.  I know these numbers aren't
perfect, but they do tend to show a trend that goes against the theory that
Apple is making huge inroads into the market.

--Carl

-- 
Carl W. Price		 	*      * Work keeps us from three evils:     * 
Computer Engineering Student	*      * boredom, vice, and need.            *
Oregon State University		*      *                                     *
pricec@prism.cs.orst.edu	*      *       ---Voltaire                   *
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: chris1@uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble)
Subject: Re: Mac's Doomsday
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:06:02 GMT

Carl B. Jabido writes
     [...]                         Yes, NT is going to have pre-emptive and
     multi-threaded multitasking.  However, as far as I can see, it's going
     to be sold more as a networking operating system.
     [...] 
     Also, when you boot up for example, it asks you to
     login.  Then you have to logoff etc.  It includes C2 security, which
     basically means that the file system will be able to assign security
     according to the user.  It lets you login as "root" a la Unix.  Etc. 

 Whoa whoa whoa. As far as I've heard and seen (I have seen only the R4000
alpha version of NT), NT is NOT - I repeat NOT a multiuser system like UNIX.
That doesn't mean there can't be a server like Novell has now-a-days, but
more than one person cannot be logged into the same machine. So why then is
there a need for having a login?

--
 Chris Trimble 	      | "Tell me why... don't we try...not to break our hearts
 chris1@uiuc.edu      | and make it so hard for ourselves."    - Pet Shop Boys
 NeXTMail Preferred   | "Ar-oo-gull-ah, it's a vege-et-a-ble"   - Steve Martin
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:26:04 GMT
Organization: MSD software vault #9 @THD

In article <ewright.717701028@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <UelNxiW00VAt4Dqmhc@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>normal meaning of the word, so there is no mental association.
>(BTW, you misspelled "remembered," which is a real word and, therefore,
>"much harder to misspell.")
Desoxyribonukleinsaeure (German) is also a real word and there-
fore much harder to misspell than 'ls' ? How about (instead of pulling
wild theories out of your hat and presenting them as facts) reading
a book on the subject for once (and not one from Apple.).


>>It assumes that users need to go through a
>>relatively long length of time to remember a command, which is true
>>for new users, but not experienced ones
>
>No, it does not.  Every time someone sits down with a stopwatch
>and times someone, they find that this is not true.  Regardless of
>how experienced the user is.
That is complete bullshit!

>> (it takes me a lot less time to type 'ESC x bat-ins TAB' than to 
>>go to the message window, choose select all from the menu, change 
>>to the editting window, and finally select 'paste excerpt' from the 
>>edit menu).  
>
>No, it does not.  You have the *internal perception* that it takes
>less time because your brain does not record the time it took to
>remember the command.  Human-factors engineers have actually *measured* 
>the time and discovered that using the menu is always faster.  Always.
On the whole taken ALL relevant studies together there is NO clear
indication that menues are faster. (really, surprising but true)

Snide remark: The apparent lack of understanding of some  Mac users that
there is something like proceduralization which allows the user to
interact (after exercise) with the system using very little 'attention',
seems to indicate that the Mac GUI is severely lacking in some
respects.

Nat!
P.S.  Stuff a GUI can't do 

Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)
Command name completion (not filename) (possible, but not implemented)



-- 
 -----   Email: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de  -----
                "Bang that bit that doesn't bang"                 
 Album of the month: "Psalm 69" Ministry
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:19:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

terjer@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:

>But what can you do with Windows? Are you saying that if you buy a 
>PC with Windows you don't need to buy applications?

Do you need to buy applications for Mac?  When it all boils down, there are
more choices (software and hardware) for PCs than there are with a Mac.

>Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                             Beautiful place! I'd love to go back.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau)
Subject: comp.sys.mac.advocacy <- Hey! Important word here...
Keywords: fnord
Organization: Fredonian Computer Network
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:03:39 GMT

        Sheesh.  I must kill fifty posts a day on why IBM MS-DOS/Windoze/OS2
is better than the Macintosh.  Really, I don't have any complaints.  If we,
the Mac community, can't honestly prove our platforms and OS to be superior
to those available in the IBM world, then we'll just have to beat them to
a bloody pulp. :)  First off, I'd like to say that I agree with virtually
every comment made about Mac "goodness" here : Assured hardware and software
compatibility (well, almost, but we're a lot closer than the IBM fools),
the wonders of the Mac GUI, and the speed with which the Mac handles this
(especially relative to Windoze.  OS/2 isn't really comparable because of
the extreme hardware required to use it.).  Second, I'd like to agree with
virtually every comment made about IBM "badness" : CLIs (sure, they're nice,
their piping/batching has incredible potential, etc., but they should be an
option for using your computer, not the rule.), wretched compatibility,
and family values. :)
        Finally, I'm now going to select Restart in the Special menu.
Hopefully, this will purge all IBM fools from this newsgroup and allow us
to get back to the real business of mindlessly reveling in our GUI world.
Hey!  Does anyone else realize that with NowMenus you can dump an alias of
your entire _harddrive_ in the apple menu and have it easily accessible
from _anywhere_?  It goes without saying, of course, that an IBM can't do
this...

                - Drau

The first rule, grasshopper, in dealing with the universe, is the realization
that there are absolutely no absolutes.  All opinions are subject to dissent,
all facts are subject to learning.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy