HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:40:50 GMT

DS> == Stephenson Daniel A <das9674@usl.edu> 

 DS> On my PC, I can type 'move .txt ..' to move ALL the .txt files up a level.
 DS> FAST, too!

It's real fast, since it doesn't do anything.  Try 'move *.txt ..'
instead.

This is the second time you've gotten this wrong in two postings... what
was that about how wonderful a CLI is?

 DS> How fast is it to move doens of files around like that via GUI/mouse?

Quite.
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
From: djz@cbnews.cb.att.com (danny.zerkel)
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM raw info
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:10:01 GMT

In article <strobl.717856971@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.210550.21394@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>
>>Was rewriting -Mac & IBM CPUs Info- and desided to broaden the subject.
>>Part of this is because the Mac vs IBM thread is getting very messy
>>and that the Mac CPU, hardware, and OS are besigned to work together,
>>so talking about one ONLY is silly. [...]
>
>What do you mean by "the Mac CPU ... and OS are designed to work
>together"? Did the Mac OS development have had any influence
>on the design of the 68000? I really would like to hear
>more about that!
>

Actually, I read something to that effect in the glossies on the 68040.
When Motorola was trying to decide which instructions to speed up (read 
that do in 1 cycle) they profiled the execution of the existing 680X0
implementations to see which instructions were used most.  This means
that Apple has influenced the 68040 design by their choice of instructions
and how frequently they use them, since Apple is they largest user of
680X0 processors.  They probably even had more direct influence because
of their volume, but you see what I mean.

  Apple Rep:  "We want 1 million 68030's."
  Motorola Rep:  "What color would you like them?"

In fact, now that I think about it...  A perfectly good example is the
A-line trap.  Apple uses the instructions in the 0xA000-0xAFFF range
as traps into the Toolbox and OS.  At about the same time, Atari was
using the F-line traps in the ST.  Atari had to rewrite their OS to
NOT use F-line traps when the 68030 came out, because they conflicted
with built in 68030 instructions (for the MMU).  Motorola will not
touch the A-line traps, though.  That's buying power!  Quantity talks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AT&T?!?  I misquoted this information, fair and square!  Me!  Not AT&T!"
Danny J. Zerkel - AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus, OH
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:52:47 GMT

Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>First, I should say I am an avid user of OS/2 2.0.  With that said, I
>should also say that I like the floating menus of the NeXT and Mac. 
>However, I haven't seen any reason why the windowed menus of Windows,
>Motif, X, OS/2, Openlook, Solaris, etc should slow you down.  It's never
>slowed me down.  I don't find accuracy to be a problem at all.

No, you probably don't miss very often, but whether you're aware of it or
not, it requires more precision to hit a windowed menu bar.  It's not that
big of a deal.

>Second, I know there's some app out there which does what you want (ie
>the 3d stuff etc)  It lets you change basically everything, giving stuff
>like proportional scroll bars (a la NeXT and OS/2) 3D windows etc.  My
>roommate had it last year, and it didn't look like a Mac anymore...

Yeah, but I have yet to find a really good one that looks good in both
color and black and white, doesn't conflict with an programs, and actually
improves the Mac windows.  Apple needs to cook something up themselves.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)                    | 
|  "Oh, I should be...a polar bear...but it's impossible." - The Cure        | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@rs6219.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:23:44 GMT

In article <winer.718328858@husc11>, winer@husc11.harvard.edu (Adam Winer) writes:
|> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <CKD.92Oct5132952@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
|> >|> Peter> == Peter da Silva <peter@NeoSoft.com> 
|> >[deletia- type/creator details]
|> >|> 
|> >|>  Peter> How would you repeat (say) a print command, with all options the
|> >|>  Peter> same, on a different file?
|> >|> 
|> >|> A properly-written application should preserve print options as
|> >|> defaults, so that if you set your YakWriter for draft mode with an extra
|> >|> sledge and print "The Khan and I", if you then print out "Khan With The
|> >|> Wind" it should still be in draft mode with an extra sledge, and you can
|> >|> just hit the OK button (or return) to print it.
|> 
|> >This isn't exactly true. the printer settings are stored on a document
|> >basis, not an application basis, or a system wide basis. 
|> 
|> Not true: the application writer decides whether printer settings will
|> be stored on a document basis or an application basis.  A system wide
|> basis, is impossible in an easy way.

Apple's guidelines (in inside Macintosh) say its supposed to be document-
based. This is the way every program I have used works. Its true that
it COULD be done differently, but they you could write a command-line
based app (it would be easier than the graphical sort), too. :)

I wouldn't judge the Macintosh based on what could be done like that.

-- 
			- 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: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Mac
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1686FF389.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
	<celZfi200VRBQ=B5NR@andrew.cmu.edu> <Bv9MGC.As@rice.edu>
	<celbpni00VRBI=YNh_@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:43:16 GMT

Faisal> == Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Jim>    == jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:

 Jim> "likely"? I don't think so.  About 90% of the time an application
 Jim> dies on my Mac, I get an "The application "blah" has unexpectedly
 Jim> quit" dialog and end up in the Finder.  Are your assertions base
 Jim> on anthing resembling actual experience or merely hearsay?

 Faisal> my experience with mac se's, si's, cx's, ci's, quadra 700's,
 Faisal> 900's and 950's with every system from 4.0 to 7.01 (pleeze
 Faisal> don't charge for 7.1 - my personal system is a ci, and I need
 Faisal> worldscript ready system) i get to play with a lot of nice toys

My experience with 7.0{.1} is that I can almost always (90% or more) get
out with Cmd-Opt-Esc.  4.0 didn't even have MultiFinder, so what're you
talking about?
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: tomster@banzai.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:29:03
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: cd248@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 29 Sep 1992 03:22:24 GMT

In article <1a8i5gINNfvm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd248@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Sherman) writes:

   >Can your Mac read/write 5 1/4" diskettes?

   There are drives available for the mac to use 5.25's.  The thing
   is, the only reason a mac needs to do this is to get stuff from
   other file systems such as MS DOS or Prodos.  Everything made for the mac comes
   on 3.5.  And it's usually cheaper to use a machine on the source platform (IBM
   or Apple II GS) with both types of drives to copy files from the 5.25 to the
   3.5 and then
   work with them on the mac.  Now I have a question for you:

   Will your IBM type drives read or write to disks from any other computer?

     No they won't.  As a matter of fact (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I
   think the hardware is incapable of doing this.

The hardware *can* do this.  As long as you don't go through DOS to read the
disk, any format you want to use can be used.  As far as the availability of
the guts of the Macintosh format, I can not say one way or the other.  I
would say that this is the most likely hold-up to software which reads
Mac disks.

   I have another question for you:

   Can your IBM 3.5 drives tell the difference between 720K and 1.4 meg disks and
   format them accordingly?

    NO.  They can't.  If you stick a 720K disk into an HD drive,  the drive will
   try to format it as a 1.4 meg disk.  YOU have to tell the computer to format it
   as 720K.

Wait a minute here.  I seems to me that I have done just what you said can't
be done.  Let me shell out and see...

Yep.  Did it.  I'm afraid your assertion that 'those IBM drives are so dumb...'
is false.  Sounds like maybe a software problem.  I'm running DOS 5.0.
You see, DOS checks the little hole at the bottom of the disk when it begins a
format.  Will wonders never cease.

   A Macintosh can tell what kind of disk you have in it, and what file system
   it's from. You don't have to tell it anything.

Why do I find this hard to believe?

   -- 

		---- 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/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep24.085259.6848@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> <6026.2ac1ab01@hayes.com>
	<1992Sep24.212630.8665@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>
	<1686DA94F.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
	<Bv786v.9q5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:41:33 GMT

Josephine> == Josephine M. Otter <jmo50888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> 
Mark>      == UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:

 Mark> So lets get this straight... an Amiga, running in black and white,
 Mark> is 10% faster than a mac IIci running in color? <snort>

 Josephine> No.  An Amiga >EMULATING< a mac IIci in black and white is
 Josephine> 10% faster than a mac IIci running in color.

No, an Amiga >EMULATING< a Mac *Plus* in black and white is 10% faster
than a Mac IIci running in color.  (And does that take into account the
fact that a new IIci now includes a 32K SRAM cache card?  Probably not.
It probably also includes the use of the motherboard video, which slows
the IIci down disproportionately if you don't spend a little time or
money either tweaking the RAM cache or buying a video card.)

Heck, if I went and got a 25MHz '030 and crammed it into a Mac Plus it
might be faster than my IIci, also, depending on the application mix.
Big deal.  I like color, I like having 32-bit clean ROMs for when I get
enough money to go past the 8M RAM mark, I have a video card so the
machine's not using main RAM for video, I've even got a 128K cache card.

Raw speed isn't everything.  If it were, we'd all have 200MHz 6502s :)
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:40:08 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

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. No other OS has these features.
> 
> MEGA FLAME.  NT is 100% UNICODE (represents ALL languages) internally.  

NT isn't shipping, either. (Technically, System 7.1 isn't, but will certainly
be out sooner.

> Not only that, UNICODE isn't even Micorsoft's brainchild.  They actually 
> followed a standard for once.

Question: Does Windows NT provide support for all scripting systems? That is,
can it support languages such as Arabic, Japanese or Chinese which do not
use conventional Roman, Left to Right, Top to Bottom, phonetic methods?

Further Question: Can Windows NT support several scripting methods in the
same edit window?

System 7.1 can. If Windows NT cannot, I stand by my original statement.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 03:51:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.054554.13210@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu writes:
> Peter da Silva writes
> > The NeXT is a significantly better system than MacOS, OS/2, 
> > AmigaOS, and most X-windows based UNIX boxes. Too bad it's
> > priced like HP calculators used to be.

> 1. NeXT has not yet learnt the lesson that Apple is barely coming to  
> grips with: that its hard to extract a premium for superior quality  
> when you're trying to gain market share. 

Agreed. I think that's implied by my second sentence.

> 2. The NeXT is a very powerful computer, with high quality  
> components.  Try to build up a system of equivalent power and  
> functionality on another platform, and you'll see that the NeXT is  
> quite competitively priced.

I don't want a system of equivalent power. I don't need all that horespower,
and would willingly accept compromises for price, so long as the basic
system design remained consistent. I do *not* believe that this is impossible,
as I can get almost all the features on much smaller systems. I should be
able to get them all without a 68040+DSP+however many megs that is.

> Conclusion:  In terms of value for money, NeXTs are not 'expensive;'   

That depends on whether you count value in MIPS or if you count value
in terms of delivered productivity.

> think they stand to gain significant market share if they can bring  
> their entry-level system below $3000 (street).

They should be able to build an entry-level system that would sell for
well under that, if they'd replace Mach with a real microkernel (one with
real-time capabilities) and move more of the GUI functionality out of the
application and into a server (for example, menu handling still requires
interaction with the application).
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:58:53 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <6090.2ac9ae8c@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
says: >

--- stuff deleted ---

>> OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to workable GUIs.
 >
>Workable, perhaps.  But they aren't as good as the Mac UI.
 > That`s
debatable and mainly a matter of taste.  I`m using the workplace shell and
the finder and I think there are some small features in the finder that
should be added to the workplace shell to improve it.  On the other hand I
thinkyou would have to do some serious replumbing of the finder to get the
functionality of the workplace shell.

>Furthermore, both these systems are missing fundamental features of
>System
7, much less the multilingual capabilies of System 7.1.

Which are ?

(Please don`t tell me about built in sound and/or networking).  If I could
choose I would save money and buy a Mac without sound.  And the only
networking I can use at my place is TCP/IP over Ethernet which is definetely
not built in.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:16:00 GMT

In article <ewright.718053902@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> I wouldn't know.  I don't have a machine that doesn't multitask.
> I have a Macintosh.  Oh, I see, you meant a machine with *preemptive*
> multitasking, where the OS can come along and interrupt the foreground
> task in the middle of some CPU-intesive function, like tracking the mouse
> in a paint program.  I think I'll pass on that. 

Um, the mouse tracking in a preemptive multitasking system is rarely done by
the foreground program. It's more often handled by a separate program that
just manages mouse position and sends messages to programs as requested.

> I suspect that most people who suspect not are people who have
> never had color systems, and therefore have not discovered the
> uses they can make of them and integrated them into their lifestyle/
> workstyle. 

I've had color on my Amiga and the Sparcs at work, and I really don't
think I'd miss it. It certainly doesn't bother me when I switch to the
Mac.

The NeXT is a significantly better system than MacOS, OS/2, AmigaOS, and
most X-windows based UNIX boxes. Too bad it's priced like HP calculators
used to be.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<19qr6iINNcv9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:21:33 GMT

Nan> == Nan Zou <nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> 

 Nan> No, but this is a hardware issue.  But I won't try to weasle out
 Nan> of it by saying no one uses such feature, I concede that Macs are
 Nan> superior in this area.

It's both hardware and software.  That's the point; an environment where
the two are integrated is more powerful than one where they are as
completely divorced as they are in the great wide world of different
nonstandards ({PC,XT,AT,386,486}/{DOS,Windows,OS/2}, mix & match as
appropriate).
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:28:56 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 <92275.135853ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>>Furthermore, both these systems are missing fundamental features of
>>System 7, much less the multilingual capabilies of System 7.1.

>Which are ?
>(Please don`t tell me about built in sound and/or networking).  

Multilingual capabilities have nothing to do with either sound or
networking.  It's the ability to use multiple languages (natural
languages, not computer languages) and multiple alphabets within
a single word processor, spreadsheet, or other application.  And,
starting with System 7.1, a single system software version that
can support all languages.  This contrasts to the Windows/PC world
where you need a German version of Windows and a German word-processor
to write reports in German and a Russian version of Windows and a
Russian word-processor to write reports in Russian. 

>If I could
>choose I would save money and buy a Mac without sound.  And the only
>networking I can use at my place is TCP/IP over Ethernet which is definetely
>not built in.

Well, Apple is working on a machine for you.  It's a new low-cost
version of the LC and, from what I've read in MacWeek, its hardware
will be just as cheap and crappy as the typical PC's.  No builtin
networking.  No SCSI drive or interface, just a clunky IDE drive.
Not even an automatic eject on the floppy disk drive.  I don't 
know about sound, but the list price with a hard disk and a color
monitor is expected to be under $1000.

(Of course, the Mac's builtin networking will work quite well with TCP/IP
if you have a Gatorbox to connect your AppleTalk network to the
Ethernet.)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:00:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.senHPeW00YV_08K_N7
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 2-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by John L. Coolidge@sirius. 
> It's here, it's called A/UX 3.0, and it is indeed an unbeatable
> combination. It's a real pity that more people aren't using it...
How much does that cost?  Sure it's unbeatable.  In fact, somewhere I
read benchmarks placing A/UX on a Quadra above a Sun Sparcstation almost
2 to 1.
It costs alot though (at least compare to System 7, OS/2, Windows(not a
real OS though)) etc.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy