HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjhendry@mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigots)
Summary: The NeXT alternative
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:11:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University

In article <BxtvwI.BAq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>CLI's are useful, and allow more flexibility than GUI's, but GUI's are
>usually easier to use for commands that they do support.  I maintain,
>therefore, that both arguments are wrong, and that an integrated environment
>is best.  At the moment, neither the Mac nor Windows offers this as
>standard.
>
>Yes, Windows lets you run DOS in a window, but how much can DOS affect
>your Windows environment?  You can run A/UX, but it doesn't really give 
>command line control over native applications.
>
>Now, X (or NeXTSTEP, to some degree) running on top of UNIX _does_ offer
>this flexibility, and most window managers allow one customize menus, etc.
>to automate frequent commands.  An ideal environment would allow the user
>to do everyday work with a GUI, but drop down to a command line to do 
>something unusual.  If he/she needed to do something not allowed for in
>the graphic interface frequently, he/she should be able to add it to the
>interface.
>
>We (the computer using population) need an interface like this, except 
>without the complication and administrative hassles of UNIX that many of
>us don't want to deal with.  Perhaps, a sort of "personal UNIX".

I thought you said "or NeXTSTEP, to some degree." It sounds to me like you are describing NeXTSTEP.New items are added to the interface via the "Services" 
menu. Whenever a new program is run, if it offers a service, it adds itself to
the menu. I've got services for looking up area codes, searching for the 
selected item in Digital Librarian, and about eight other things. It's not too
difficult (note: I haven't done it) to create programs that offer services. 
(I have written programs--happy happy joy joy) 

Also, scripts can be executed by double-clicking on them. Just write a script
and drag its icon onto the shelf, where it's available for easy access.

>-- 
>Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
>  "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and 
>   child." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

Jonathan Hendry
Former mac-bigot who has reached a happy medium with a terminal virtually
always open on my NeXT's screen.

(Yes, I often use the command line when there is a graphical alternative, even
when they are on the same screen. Sometimes I do the opposite.)
-- 
Jonathan W. Hendry
Drexel University College Of Information Studies
Anderson Financial Systems "Programmer-in-Exile" :)
hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (No NEXTMail :( )
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 11:09:31 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
 <1992Nov14.112238.23214@kvamdata.no>

Eirik:

I dispute that NT's APIs are "better structured" than OS/2's because NT
came after OS/2. Please, take into account that NT was originally targeted
as being the portable version of OS/2. After MS-IBM split, IBM restructured
OS/2 2.0 (the 32bit version) such, that it became portable too. Of course,
the restructuring took into account all the reasonings both MS and IBM
did while they were designing and talking about NT (previously known as
OS/2 3.0), so these results became part of NT *and* 32bit OS/2.

It simply boils down to the fact that the base of both NT and OS/2 are
probably on par, in respect to the window- and graphic-interface OS/2 is
cleaner and better structured.

By the time NT hits the market, you can expect OS/2 to have all the features
presently missing in comparison with NT (e.g. C2-security will become part
of OS/2 with the expected December release which contains Windows 3.1, SOM
goes DCE and CORBA, no plans yet from MS except of Cairo, etc.).

---rony
From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: For all you Mac users...
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:17:22 GMT

In article 1171@yvax.byu.edu, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.164103.10573@engr.LaTech.edu>  writes:
>>I guess my primary statement is that the Macs are hurting pretty
>>bad and need to get on the ball.  
>
>If you mean by this that Apple's not doing well, I'd advise you to change  
>stockbrokers.  Macs are gaining marketshare rapidly.

I know, and yet every now and then some PChead will imply that
Apple is failing, or that Apple will not succeed. And yet
they already have. Strange. But I rather  suspect this is a minorty
of PCheads we're hearing, and most know what's going on.

>If you mean by this that Macs can't do things that PCs with Windows *can*  
>do, I'd quite frankly like to know what.

I would too, but...

>  No flames intended, but I can  
>honestly not think of anything significant that can't be done on a Mac as  
>easily as on Windows, though I *can* think of some things that can be done  
>on a Mac but not a PC.

I wish you'd come out with WHAT you can do on a Mac but _not_ do on
a PC. If I could come up with something like that Id do better
in these .advocacy flamewars.

>  And quite a few things that can be done on Macs  
>but require high-end-PCs because of the PC's antiquated I/O subsystem.

Ditto for this (Although it strikes me as more believable)

---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2722 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2707
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:00:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Nov17180007
 <1992Nov13.141945.18628@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> 
 <1992Nov14.150215.28192@wam.umd.edu> <BxptLr.DAy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
 <1992Nov14.191114.19676@athena.mit.edu> <Bxs22G.1EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov16.134
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

Mac zealots, like mmunson for exmaple, remind me of xian
fundementalists.  No matter what evidence you shove in front of their
face, they simply ignore it.  Go ahead Mark, enjoy your Mac.  It's a
toy computer, but hey, if you like it, then fine.  Just don't try to
change the world so that I have to suffer with your religion.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The vanity and presumption of governing
Field Robotics Center,          | beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous
Carnegie Mellon University      | and insolent of all tyrannies.  Man has no
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | property in man; neither has any generation
(412) 268-3856                  | property in the generations that are to
                                | follow.  Thomas Paine
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: tjhendry@mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:45:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University

In article <bfw1!+k@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article BAq@news.cso.uiuc.edu, tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:
>>CLI's are useful, and allow more flexibility than GUI's, but GUI's are
>>usually easier to use for commands that they do support.

<Stuff chomped>

>NeXT apps do not use the CLI very well (I _think_, better ask a NeXT guru
>to be sure, but I dont have one handy. :( ); X apps DO use the CLI
>very well but are truely pitiful with the GUI- many (trivial) things MUST
>be done with a CLI. Say putting a window on a second screen; or even
>just setting up your prefs. (Well, thats not a CLI exactly but its
>obnoxious nonetheless)

Speaking as a NeXT guru-in-training, I agree that most NeXT apps don't 
allow use of a CLI. However, because NeXT apps are now really bundles, some
apps use command line apps as part of their operation. These are normally
hidden inside the app's directory, but users can get at them. Of course, 
documentation is a problem. I know of one program that includes 
a cli equivalent (ImageViewer, a graphics viewer translator). Other programs
have these cli programs in them, but no documentation on how to use it.

Jon Hendry
-- 
Jonathan W. Hendry
Drexel University College Of Information Studies
Anderson Financial Systems "Programmer-in-Exile" :)
hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (No NEXTMail :( )
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2713 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2683
From: cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:42:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxvAB4.2AB
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


>Both AutoCAD and Quattro Pro use a mouse. And AutoCAD uses digitizers,
>which I haven't seen for the Mac (although I must admit, I wouldn't know).


There is a plethora of digitizers for the Mac. There is also the advantage that
given a standard input device and a single driver, it makes no difference what
program you use it for, they ALL work with it. Application software doesn't 
care if it is a stock Apple mouse, a trackball, a digitizing tablet, or a 
headset that senses where you are looking onscreen with a jaw activated 
clicker, it just sees an ADB device providing a cursor position. Neat huh?
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:43:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov16.074306.13791
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <92320.192140MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) writes:
>In article <strobl.721855220@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) says:
>>
>>In <92320.121834MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish
>><MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>In article <Bxr2Br.Fqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra
>>>Stewart-Cole) says:
>>>>
>>>>hmm... can you REALLY create a program in DOS or Windows that demands a 1Mb
>>>>heap...
>>
>>>You can in OS/2 2.0, but not in DOS or Windows.
>>
>>Not true. Just use one of the 32 bit Compilers (Zortech, Watcom)
>>and a 386 DOS extender. Zortech comes with a royality free one.
>
>Then you're not really running DOS, are you?
>----

Actually you are. Remember that expanded and extended memory
specification have been in existence since DOS 3.x. Access to this
type of memory and now XMS are contained in DOS itself through
system function calls, and supported by various drivers, such as
HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE that come with DOS as part of the standard
offering. DOS extender take advantage of what is already there.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:44:45 GMT

garym@runx.oz.au (Gary Makin) writes:
> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> 1) Know that the information in Volume 1 has been entirely obsoleted.
>> 2) Read the 94 page chapter in Volume 4.
>> 3) Read the 25 page chapter in Volume 5, [...]
>> 4) Read the 54 page chapter in Volume 6,  [...]
>> 5) Now check the 200+ technical notes to see if there is more information.

> Me? I would prefer just to read the 69 pages in "Inside Macintosh: Files"
> that described pretty well all that most programmers would need to know
> about working with files on the Mac. (Note that this 69 pages contains
> about 13 pages of sample code.)

Sure ... when the new Inside Mac: Files has only been out a few months.  And
there are only three volumes so far: Files, Processes and Memory (wouldn't
*you* consider "Toolbox Essentials" an essential volume -- and yet it's not
out yet!).  I'd love to toss these first-generation Inside Mac manuals in
the incinerator (where they rightfully belong), but the new ones are still
far from complete.  And the new ones cost more money again ... I'm spending
more money on Inside Mac books than on a Microsoft C++ and Windows SDK!

> Okay, I must admit that IM:Files is only fairly new, but it's the best damned
> technical reference I've ever seen.

You probably haven't seen very many.  It's an order of magnitude better than
the old ones (which are crap), but it's still unorganized, especially in
the way it arranges the 57 different types of File Manager calls, and the
index isn't so hot, either.  I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10; not as good as
the Win32 manuals (8.5) but much better than Inside Mac I-VI (3.0).

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:25:52 GMT

gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>For the record:  ATI has a new graphics card, the ATI Ultra Pro,
>available for ISA, EISA, MCA and Local BUs that is capable of
>1280x1024x256 colors at 76 hz non-interlaced.  Of ciurse, at lower
>reoslutins, it can do true 24 bit color.  The reason I mention thjis
>card is that its cheap, < $900 US.  Other companies have been making
>true color, i.e., 24 or 32 bit color cards for PCs for many years, its
>just that these puppies have been quite pricey, say >$1500.

Sounds great.  When does the 32-bit version come out?


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:01:22 GMT

In article 1163@yvax.byu.edu, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>In article <sft1#hr@rpi.edu>  writes:
>>NeXTStep does impress me, also, although it could use a better file  
>>manager, and a more efficient display system.
>
>To be honest, I've been quite impressed with the NeXT's file manager,  
>especially when compared to the Finder (okay, *especially* when compared  
>to Windows' setup :).  What in particular are you referring to?
>

It makes it too inconvinient to see 2 or more directories at once;
its a fundamental flaw of the "list of files in a window, which
can be made to "view" multiple directories" approach the NeXT does.
Certainly the NeXT does it well, but I still find it clumsy+obnoxious.

Just spoiled on the Finder I guess. :) Id rather use it that the Windows
File Manager. The multi-pane  trick is neat.

>>>  I've used all three, and have yet to
>>>see a NeXT crash!
>>
>>I understnad that when a NeXT crash, its hard to recover,
>>but I have no direct experience.
>
>Well, NeXTs are UNIX machines, so deep down they're still grungy.  But  
>honestly they're not that bad to bring up when they go down.  

Yech. Me no like Unix. :/

>Nonetheless, to really *crash* a NeXT to the point where it'd take a bit  
>to bring it back up, you'd have to mess it up pretty seriously.  Unless  
>your system operator has done something weirdo with your NeXT at work, 
                                                                  ^^^^
Who me? I suggest you read my site name. :)
 
>etc., this is very very uncommon.  An equivalent crash on a Mac or a PC  
>would likewise mean...time to re-install.

That's a vicious crash. Nonetheless Ive seen demos of the NeXT where
the thing would lock up (not exactly crash, but close enough). They
just rebooted it tho.

>
>--
>
>Sean Luke
>Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
>sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
>NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome

Like your quote, btw. ;) Strange but true.

---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2756 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2732
From: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:08:09 GMT
Reply-To: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez) says:

>In article <1ec7l2INN1th@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
>|> 
>|> In a previous article, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) says:
>|> 
>|> >Mac zealots, like mmunson for exmaple, remind me of xian
>|> >fundementalists.  No matter what evidence you shove in front of their
>|> >face, they simply ignore it.  Go ahead Mark, enjoy your Mac.  It's a
>|> >toy computer, but hey, if you like it, then fine.  Just don't try to
>|> >change the world so that I have to suffer with your religion.
>|> >
>    I agree with the above :-)
>
>|>  Well maybe I joined this game a bit late and I don't know what you're
>|> talking about (and maybe Mr. Roston is correct, I don't know what the
>|> discussion is about), but the Macintosh is FAR superior especially if
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    Er, I wouldn't say that.  PC's have gotten better with time.
>
 Must be like wine then- sure some say it gets better with time, but then
again, many say wine is an "Acquired taste". PCs have gotten better, but
its only been recently they've gotten into the technology arena with
Macintosh. They've gotten bettter, but not THAT much better. Its still a
machine cippled with a 1970s architecture and MS-DOS. Not to mention a
processor which has more or less reached its peak with no where left to go.

>
>|> you're talking PeeCees vs. Macs. If the Mac is a "toy" computer, why the
>|> hell is everyone in PC-ville trying to copy its OS eh? As far as suffering
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   Yep, I agree there.
>
  It just makes sense! <grin>
>|> with religions, we're already suffering the PC religion. Had Apple cloned
>|> the Macintosh in 1984, we'd see 1 zillion Macs instead of PCs just becase
>|> the Macintosh makes so much more sense. To quote Lee Iacoca: 
>|> "Just because it makes SENSE."
>|> -- 
>|> Travis Grundke	 	    |  For More information about MacGames Digest,
>|> Contributing Editor-        |  The First Publication Dedicated to Macintosh
>|> MacGames Digest		    |  Gaming, Please contact us at the previous 
>|> an780@cleveland.freenet.Edu |  E-mail address. (c) 1992 Travis Grundke/MGD
>
>- Raist
>
-- 
Travis Grundke	 	    |  For More information about MacGames Digest,
Contributing Editor-        |  The First Publication Dedicated to Macintosh
MacGames Digest		    |  Gaming, Please contact us at the previous 
an780@cleveland.freenet.Edu |  E-mail address. (c) 1992 Travis Grundke/MGD
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:40:46 GMT

In article <d_t1mym@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>give me a break!  How can you say that when my 386 runs MUCH faster than
>a macIIci, which has a comparible processor, and costs about twice as much.
>It also hangs a lot less than the IIci.  Also, neither windows 3.1 nor 
>MacOS can hold a stick to NeXTSTEP.  I've used all three, and have yet to
>see a NeXT crash!  I think that you should reevaluate your opinions, 
>and you method of grouping things 


	I've managerd to crash the nexts at school a number of times
	in normal operation.  True, we're still using NS2.1, but 
	it's still fairly easy to do.  One, repeatable, method I 
	discovered was to minimize the terminal window as it was
	comine up--i.e. when the term program hasn't put the prompt out,
	but has _loaded_ and displayed it's menu.  In this small period
	of time, clicking on the minimize gadget in the upper left corner 
	will either lock up the machine (permanent spin-disk "wait" 
	pointer, nothing can be done) or bring it down completely (i.e. 
	machine must be powered down through a hard reset or unplug, 
	sing the "power" button isn't working at that point).

	One other interesting thing about the NeXT is that, while the
	multitasking is fantastic and the display is top rate (Yes,
	NeXT's are my favorite machines), there is no "safeguard" 
	to prevent the user from doing something really, really stupid--
	i.e. a friend of mine wanted to show some .jpg's so he ran them
	through Imageviewer by clicking on each one in the file viewer--
	in fact, he double clicked on some 60+ images before the first one
	came up... 

	and sat there for almost two hours waiting for the other 59, because
	the machine was so stretched out handling all of them that it had
	too little time to even let him get around to killing IV...


-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:48:14 GMT

In <1ly1r_q@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 722126636@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <90x1y=d@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>>>>>>(where accelerated Mac cards are usually 24 bits, as 8 bit accelerated
>>>>>>>is overkill; this beefs up the price of course)
>>>>
>>>>Why is this overkill? Silicon is cheap these days. Why not
>>>>let a specialized CPU do all the drawing, and have the main
>>>>CPU free for real work?
>>
>>>Its unnecessary; you could spend the money on something else.
>>>Memory, or a plain ticket to <insert favorite spot here>.
>>
>>I don't buy that. A CPU can do only one thing at a time. If it
>>is busy redrawing an 1 MPixel bitmap, it can't do anything
>>else at the same time. Using a general purpose CPU, which 
>>doesn't perform that well on that special task, while there
>>is other work to do, is a waste of resources, IMHO.

>Really? Isn't ANY processor doing ANYTHING a waste of resources
>by this argument, since it could hand off the job to specialized
>circuits and do something else?

No. But having an expensive, general purpose CPU slowly perform 
something a cheap, specialized CPU can do much faster, is a waste.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy