werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (01/02/90)
I do this a lot.
Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type.
On a Mac, you can't.
A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you
double click it, it gives you an error message.
Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially
trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in
background, and:
1. Switch to the word-processor.
2. Go to the file menu, choose open
3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what
it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.)
4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of
text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman,
so:
4a. Select the entire text
5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes
wrapping of some sort, so
5a. Lower the point size.
6. Now, you're there.
(This can be partially made into a macro, but the font/ps
conversion step in much slower within the macro, than outside.
I don't know why.)
Yet another reason to hate the Mac.
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."gaynor@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) (01/02/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. I agree that this is somewhat of a pain. I usually keep one of the many shareware text editors (NotePad+, MockWrite, etc.) as a desk accessory in my System file (or with Suitcase II). But it'd be nice if Apple gave users such a basic text editor with the system, and cobbled the system such that any file of type TEXT for which there is no application gets opened by this "default" text editor. > Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially >trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in >background, and: > 1. Switch to the word-processor. > 2. Go to the file menu, choose open > 3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what >it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.) > 4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of >text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman, >so: > 4a. Select the entire text > 5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes >wrapping of some sort, so > 5a. Lower the point size. > 6. Now, you're there. > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. Actually, I find this another reason to hate IBMs, and the users who have no concept of proportional fonts. I can't count the number of times that I've downloaded a file to find that the person who wrote it used spaces rather than tabs to line things up, or hit a <cr> at the end of each -line- rather than at the end of each paragraph. At least, if you're going to use <cr>s to designate an eol, then use 2 <cr>s for end-of-paragraph. <sigh> DISCLAIMER: I don't think that just one computer can solve all a user's woes. There are things that each of the "mainstream" computers does better than its competitors, and things that each does worse. I just find, that for me, the Mac does more of what -I- want to do, and does it that way I want it done. -=- | Jim Gaynor..."The Vampire Lestat" UseNet: gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu | | The Ohio State University - Instructional and Research Computer Center | >> "Could I interest you, sir, in dominion over half the world?" << >> -Nigel Frobisher, Excalibur #15 <<
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (01/02/90)
" I do this a lot. " Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. "On a Mac, you can't. " " A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you "double click it, it gives you an error message. " I don't share your problem. I use the comms program White Knight (formerly Red Ryder), the most popular Mac comms program. It (and maybe your comms program, too) allows you to set the file type of a downloaded file. After a download, I simply double-click on the file to view it, or if it is small enough (<32Kb) and I do not wish to use Word, I use a DA, such as NotePad+, which is always instantly available. [Complaints that many ASCII files are formatted with tabs and spaces for monospaced fonts, and hence look bad in the fonts that most Mac wordprocessors come up in...] Well, I use MS Word, and it is not difficult to add a style to the default style sheet to make the ASCII file nicely readable. Do this once, and forevermore you have only two steps to perform: One, select the whole document with one click; and Two select the stupid ASCII format style you created. In a sense, you are complaining that people create documents with the most primitive formatting possible (ASCII with spaces and tabs), and that civilized formatting (variable-width fonts, word-wrapping, etc.) is not totally compatible with this. ;-). But as I said in a previous posting, a graphical interface, obviously being a different paradigm from a CLI, uses different steps to accomplish the same goal. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
barry@playfair.STANFORD.EDU (barry) (01/02/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. Only if you're clueless. > A downloaded text file has no associated application. Any good Mac terminal program (Versaterm, CIS Navigator, etc. ) has an option to define a default creator for downloaded text files, which can specify any application you desire. Or you are downloading from Unix systems and use the mcvert program to convert .hqx files to .bin files, you can also use it to make a .bin file from the text file, with any creator you desire, and then just download the file as a MacBinary file. >If you double click it, it gives you an error message. If for some reason neither of the above suffice, you could get the HandOff utility, which allows default remappings of file types (and even file name extensions, if you like) to any applications you desire. > Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially >trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in >background, and: > 1. Switch to the word-processor. > 2. Go to the file menu, choose open > 3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what >it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.) Excuse me? I always thought you had to remember the file name for the "type" command under MS-DOS, and in fact had to type it out yourself, too. And if you have the file type set properly, you can just double-click on the icon, even if your program is already running, and the file will open in the application. > 4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of >text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman, >so: > 4a. Select the entire text > 5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes >wrapping of some sort, so > 5a. Lower the point size. > 6. Now, you're there. Trying to use a word processor application to work with text files is using the wrong tool for the job. There are many good text editors on the Mac, including public domain implementations of emacs, vi, etc. and the excellent commercial programs QUED/M and Vantage. With any of these a file will open in your choice of font and size, and have much more powerful tools built in for manipulating text than any word processor (except Nisus, which is a word processor essentially built on top of QUED/M). It may be that you eventually import your text file into a word processor for further work. But it is just as likely you might import it into a spreadsheet or a database, or just use it as a text file. > (This can be partially made into a macro, but the font/ps >conversion step in much slower within the macro, than outside. >I don't know why.) Because you're using the wrong programs. > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. As usual, hate is the result of ignorance. Please attempt to cure yours before displaying it to us further. Barry Eynon barry@playfair.stanford.edu -ARPA ...!decwrl!shasta!playfair!barry -USENET
jspear@gryphon.COM (Jon Spear) (01/02/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. > >[messy approach using a word processor and multifinder omitted] I do this a lot also, but I don't see the problem. There are several good Desk Accessory text editors that let you examine or edit a text file that has been downloaded, without leaving your terminal emulator. I like Vantage from Preferred Publishers (the commercial version of McSink). I normally use it with a monospaced font and tabs set every 8 characters. It is also handy for tab- or de-tabbifying files, add/strip prefixes, wrapping paragraphs and much much more. For dealing with text files, a word processor (with the possible exception of Nissus) is a very poor tool for the job. MicroEmacs, Jove, QUED, Preditor, or even Edit will do much better. With Versaterm (and presumably other terminal emulators) you can configure it (see Settings/Extras... dialog) to create text files with any creator ID you want (I use McSk to trigger the Vantager opener) so that an appropriate icon will be displayed by the finder, and an appropriate application can be launched when you double-click. > > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. >-- > Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." Alas, your hate is due to ignorance. You are either failing to use your tools very effectively, or you are using the wrong tools. Is this a problem with the Macintosh? -Jon -- ----- [The following address is soon to evaporate. New address sought.] Jon L Spear: jspear@gryphon.COM <routing site>!gryphon!jspear gryphon!jspear@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov "With computers we can make billions of mistakes every second!"
ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (01/02/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. [deleted discussion of awkward ways to view a text file] > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. Either you're exaggerating a bit, or haven't seriously looked at the situation. There are a number of nice text editors (*not* word processors) available on the Mac. There's the widely-available "Edit" program originally distributed with the MDS assembler, and also with most Mac languages (got mine with Aztec C several years ago). It defaults to Monaco-9 when you fire it up and easily shows a standard 80 column screen. I've also seen a similar one called QED, and I'm sure there are others out there. Probably most handy, though are a variety of desk-accessory editors. These work with any Mac and are always available with or without MultiFinder. MockWrite, MiniWriter and McSink come to mind in this category... Hey, I find lots of shortcomings with the Mac interface and philosophy (I'm quite happy hacking away on UNIX systems) but I really think the above- mentioned programs beat "type" hands down.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boyd Ostroff, Technical Director ||||||| System Administrator, "The CallBoard" Theatre Department, SUNY Oswego ||||||| Serving the performing arts since 1986 (315) 341-2987 ||||||| (315) 947-6414 300/1200/2400 baud 8N1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!gizzmo!cboard!ostroff
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (01/02/90)
From article <2702@aecom.yu.edu>, by werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner): > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. > On a Mac, you can't. Oh? Since when? Keep a copy of Edit around, (available from Apple or any reasonably repuatble BBS) and double-click on the DL'ed text file. It'll appear on the screen within seconds, formatting information intact (tabs, etc.) and in Monaco 9, a very readable font. Using type ion a PC makes you fiddle with CNTL-S and CNTL-Q so you can read the file. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you > double click it, it gives you an error message. Wrong. Any downloaded text file has the file type TEXT, which *any* Mac Word Processor can read. Furthermore, most terminal programs (Red Ryder, Microphone, and many others) allow you to set the Creator and file type of downloaded text file automatically upon downloading, allowing you to double-click directly into that application from teh Finder ort Multi-Finder. > Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially > trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in > background, and: > 1. Switch to the word-processor. [section on how not to read a Mac text file deleted] > 6. Now, you're there. Wrong again, see above. > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. Yet another reason to hate an IBM'er who hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about when it comes to *anything* Macintosh. > -- > Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine Hey Craig, it may be a good idea to spend a little of that 'to go' time reading about the Mac. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: ....complains about procedures to read a downloaded text file: > 1. Switch to the word-processor. > 2. Go to the file menu, choose open > 3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what >it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.) > > 4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of >text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman, >so: > 4a. Select the entire text > 5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes >wrapping of some sort, so > 5a. Lower the point size. > 6. Now, you're there. .... > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. I'm tired of seeing this "blame the computer" approach to a problem of someone's own making. Did it ever occur to you that you might be using the wrong tools for the purpose? A minimal programmer's text editor is the thing to use for viewing a text file the way you seem to want. There are any number of such things which would serve your purpose, the Edit program sponsored by Apple and shipped with many compilers comes immediately to mind. There are also some shareware desk accessories like McSink or PowerEdit, and some free programs, all of which can be gotten off Compuserve or the internet archives. John Doner
jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. ZTerm has the option to give a default creator file downloaded text files (i.e. MACA for MacWrite or MSWD for Word). I'm sure that other term emultors have this option, too. >[....] >text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman, >so: > 4a. Select the entire text > 5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes >wrapping of some sort, so > 5a. Lower the point size. > 6. Now, you're there. > If you do this alot, get ApFont, a shareware cdev that will change the default font for the system. This way, your word processor will by default open with Courier. Jeff -- | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. |
d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. [Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on the document etc....] Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are as they should be. No problems at all. 2. A binhex file from the net. Now I have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. I should hate the Mac too if I have to go thru all that you describe, but I do love It. - Martin Carlberg - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
kenk@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Ken Konecki) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. Most communications software allow you to set the creator of a text file that has been downloaded - mine is set to Write Now. I double click on the new file and voila, I can view it and edit it. On a DOS machine, using type only gets you the last screen's worth of the file, you have to pipe it through more or use one of the many text viewing programs to view the file in its entirety. Cheers, -Ken K -- Ken Konecki "Eat well, stay fit, and die anyway" e-mail:kenk@tellabs.com -or- ...!uunet!tellab5!kenk U.S. Mail: 1271 Portchester Circle, Carol Stream, IL 60188
tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. Really? Funny, when I download text files, I have the option of using any wordprocessor/editor I want as the file creator. If you use Smartcom II, this is as simple as going into the preferences menu item and telling it what program you want to use to read these files. Other people use Red Ryder (ick!) and have the same capability. It isn't the computer, it's your taste in software. > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. Craig, Craig, Criag, as a med student you should know that this sort of suppressed anger is bad for you. Take a valium and relax. This is just not that important. >-- > Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." Terry Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (01/03/90)
In the spirit of the New Year (as good an excuse as any) I would like to push this thread back in the direction of PC's. I love Macs, but I also use my '386, and I read this group for news and information related to these sorts of computers. So, I'm redirecting followups to comp.sys.mac. I hope many of you will continue to follow this conversation there, as I feel it brings out a lot of stuff that many of us would never have found out otherwise. I for one have learned a couple of things I didn't know about Macs, and about unix (I'm still working on awk, thanks). Anyway, back into the breach... In article <24107@gryphon.COM> jspear@gryphon.COM (Jon Spear) writes: >In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >> I do this a lot. >> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >>On a Mac, you can't. I wanted to take this opportunity to point out that type is not the only text viewer on the PC, and in fact is quite probably the poorest choice for the job. What do you do if want to read and edit more than one screenful at a time? Several possibilities lept immediately to mind and I wanted to see what other people came up with as well. 1) Pipe the output of type through more. This may or may not work depending on you particular version of DOS (I don't think it works on mine, but then I'm running a test-version of 4.01). As an alternative, I downloaded a unix-like more from somewhere (I forget) that will view the text by itself. I like that for viewing but not editing. 2) My prefered method - use an old version of PCWrite (comes up as 'ed.exe') for reading and editing. It is small and fast and has a tolerable interface. I use it from within ProComm Plus. 3) Use the PC vi program. It feels sort of like beating your toes with a hammer before putting on tight shoes, but there are other people who are much happier with vi than I am, and far more proficient. More power to them. 4) Use a full-blown word-processor. My last resort, same problems as pointed out with using the Macs word-processors - wrong tool for the job. 5) Hey, this one just occured to me. XTreePro has a file viewer/editor. I've even use it from time to time, and though it is kind of like WordStar, I like having it there. Very nice touch. 6) DOS 4.0 has it's own file viewer. I'm not nearly as happy with this one. Anyone else have some suggestions? Particularly as they compare and contrast with various Macintosh methods? I would like to hear them, I think most of us can use either machine, though we all have biases and probably use one machine much more than the other. Here is an opportunity to see what is available. Terry Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (01/03/90)
> > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Just use any of the innumerable DA/TEXT editors to display/edit it while you continue to download in the background. really, some people... Redirection? What would you want to re-direct? The only real reason to use re-direction is if you're using crippled, Unix/DOS style programs that are running under a shell such as MPW or Aztec; of which at least Aztec supports re-direction. (MPW probably does, i dunno) Activateing out of sight things? Simple. Use OnQue. Batch files?? They're you've got me. You'll just have to run MPW, Aztec shell, or Unix on your Mac if you really want true botching. Disclaimer: I don't work for Manx Software Systems or Apple COmputer or whoever makes OnCue. I only use Manx/Apple products. -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) (01/03/90)
In article <75208@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) writes: > Actually, I find this another reason to hate IBMs, and the users who > have no concept of proportional fonts. I can't count the number of times that > I've downloaded a file to find that the person who wrote it used spaces > rather than tabs to line things up, or hit a <cr> at the end of each -line- > rather than at the end of each paragraph. We are, naturally, of different worlds, here, but it seems that someone should have mentioned this before... The ASCII _standard_ for textfiles is to end each _line_ with an <eol>. For a PC, this is defined as a <cr>/<lf>. I might complain of the reverse, were I to download a MacWrite file. In fact, I would face much harder problems, since MacWrite files are hardly unadorned text. > At least, if you're going to use > <cr>s to designate an eol, then use 2 <cr>s for end-of-paragraph. <sigh> <sigh>, indeed! In view of your disclaimer (shown below) that there is no one universal machine, I hardly expected this expression of melancholy. As a MacUser, you are doubtless aware that there are more similarities between a Mac and DesktopPublishing than there are between other architectures and a Mac. Why, then, do you bemoan that the rest of the world does not format its documents to your specifications? Proportional fonts plain don't exist in a _text_ document. In my work, I have occasion to communicate with a large number of differing platforms. Because of their diversity, I have learned how to translate between them (in terms of text files). Translator programs abound. (one such was posted to comp.sources this week) Tolerance and cooperation are what make the computerists of the world strong. Don't complain that the rest of the world treats you badly... learn to work _with_ other systems. After all, few users are going to change their platform simply to ease _your_ text-translation woes. > DISCLAIMER: I don't think that just one computer can solve all a user's woes. > There are things that each of the "mainstream" computers does better than its > competitors, and things that each does worse. I just find, that for me, the > Mac does more of what -I- want to do, and does it that way I want it done. My point, precisely. And my PC does what -I- want to do, the way -I- want it done. Including translate MacTextFiles to real ASCII. The difference is that I don't ask you to format it _for_ me. -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. | <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (01/03/90)
CW> I do this a lot. Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use
CW> type.
CW> On a Mac, you can't.
CW> A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you
CW> double click it, it gives you an error message.
(deleted completely unnecessary steps)
If you do this a lot (which obviously he DOES NOT use a mac that much) you
simply open the text file with a DA like MockWrite (which is shareware).
Then do whatever editing or printing you want. It comes in Monocco font so
it wont be proportionally spaced.
But if you decide that you want to convert this into a document where you have
proportional spacing, different types, fonts, and graphics, THEN bring it into
a word processor.
--
==============================================================================
(.) (.) | Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 | BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A
u | USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu | 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725
\___/ | BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet | Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBSatreides@caladan.UUCP (System Administrator) (01/03/90)
In a recent article werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: | I do this a lot. Download a text file. Now try to display it. | On a PC, use type. On a Mac, you can't. A downloaded text file | has no associated application. If you double click it, it gives you | an error message. Without overstating the obvious, you obviously do NOT do a lot of downloading to the Mac, dispite what you say.. or you are using far less than the state of the art communications software on the Mac. | Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially | trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in | background, and: [Six totally unneeded steps, only a neophyte would perform, deleted] | Yet another reason to hate the Mac. | Craig Werner | (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a continual state of nirvana! I'm glad this garbage has finally been punted into a newsgroup I do not read. -- Stuart Burden root@caladan.uucp root@caladan.wa.com
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (01/03/90)
> >On a DOS machine, using type only gets you the last screen's worth of >the file, you have to pipe it through more or use one of the many text >viewing programs to view the file in its entirety. i wasn't aware of this restriction... i have no difficulty in viewing the entire file using TYPE... just out of curiousity, do you have any idea what ^S and ^Q do? /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
dkelly@npiatl.UUCP (Dwight Kelly) (01/03/90)
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >if you are going to make comparisons... there is no longer a 32MB size >limit on the disk, a 640kB limit on RAM, or only 16 bit processors... Tell how DOS uses more than 640k for programs, device drivers, and TSRs? There are 'hicards' for the 286 and virtual-86 programs for the 386. These are hacks and still only give you ~704k DOS memory. EMS is not an answer! Try this: DOS 3.2, EMS driver, Novell IPX & Net3 leaves about 420k free. Dwight Kelly Network Publications, Inc. Atlanta, GA
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) (01/03/90)
In article <110@lad.scs.com> lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >From article <2702@aecom.yu.edu>, by werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner): >> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >> On a Mac, you can't. > >Oh? Since when? Keep a copy of Edit around, (available from Apple or any >reasonably repuatble BBS) and double-click on the DL'ed text file. It'll >appear on the screen within seconds, formatting information intact (tabs, >etc.) and in Monaco 9, a very readable font. > >Using type ion a PC makes you fiddle with CNTL-S and CNTL-Q so you can read >the file. Download this, use this utility, call up this DA, convert the file to this format... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How about 'type filename | more'. Or how about 'more < filename'. Hmmm...... What bulliten board do you have to goto to get this? NONE!!!!. I have installed naked DOS for numberous people, and when I want to look at an README file for a package that I have never seen before, (a new spreadsheet for example), type works just fine for me. Ok, ok, say it: "type sucks!!!!, my utility/DA has text search ability, page up/down, scroll sideways, printing, etc. etc." Well so does LIST.COM. When I run the Norton Commander, all I have to do is double click on a .TXT .ME .1ST or a .<nothing> and LIST gets called up. I can then configure the colors as I want them, and hit alt-C to save my configuration. My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you can do it at any time you want from DOS. If you want to get fancier, well do what Mac users have to do to read a text file at all in the first place, get a nice utility from you favorite BBS. Don't compare a Mac to a PC when talking about stupid, fast, simple, convinient tasks; as Ivan Drago said to Apollo Creed in Rocky IV: "You will lose!". Stick to what you are good at: consistent user interface, good graphics, and virtual monitors. The Mac is not better than PC in every thing, its just better some things. +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton mit-eddie | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | bu sunne}!polygen!bill | | | | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/04/90)
From article <652@fred.UUCP>, by bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras): > Download this, use this utility, call up this DA, convert the file to this > format... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How about 'type filename | more'. > Or how about 'more < filename'. Hmmm...... What bulliten board do you have to > goto to get this? NONE!!!!. Same with the Mac. Use TeachText. Comes with every copy of the Mac System disks. Free. With the OS. Without downloading. Without converting formats. Without using utilities. (And your crack about calling up DA's is silly; you're doing the same thing by using TYPE _or_ MORE under DOS.) TeachText will even let you look at embedded graphics in files that are otherwise TEXT, and EVERYbody can do it with the OS right out of the box. > My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you > can do it at any time you want from DOS. Hmmm. The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. To quote a recent article, "Hmmm......" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (01/04/90)
d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) writes: <In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: <> <> I do this a lot. <> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. <>On a Mac, you can't. <> <> A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you <>double click it, it gives you an error message. <[Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on <the document etc....] <Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as <painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A <WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or <some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I <only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are <as they should be. No problems at all. These are *not* "textfiles"!! As you say they are WORDPROCESSOR DOCUMENTS. <2. A binhex file from the net. Now I <have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, <but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit <the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one <in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have <to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can <setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) Also not a textfile. <sigh> What he was talking about were such things as capturing a sesion on a BBS, or downloading some news articles from the net. Those give ASCII *text*. Part of the problem is that people are assuming that what they do is the only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. Me, I don't do any of the things the Mac is reportedly good at. The few that I might want to do in the future aren't *nearly* enough to invest *double* the amount I have currently invested in my PC system for something that won't suit *my* needs as well. If the Mac works best for you, fine just don't insist that it "must" be better for me too! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
news@blackbird.afit.af.mil (News System Account) (01/04/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. > (A crude work-around deleted) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." Some Mac telecomm applications let you assign a "CREATOR" value to text files, which does associate a given application with it. Also, there are a multitude of Desk Accessory text editors which will let you open and edit the file while you are still in the telecomm program. Multifinder is not needed. Try "typing" the DOS text file while still in your DOS telecomm program. Take it from a reformed Big Blue hacker who still has to use MeSsyDOS at work, the more you know both systems, the better off you are choosing the right tool for the job. Maurice lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.2)
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (01/04/90)
"" My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you "" can do it at any time you want from DOS. " "Hmmm. The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. "To quote a recent article, "Hmmm......" I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) (Of course, I am very DOS-ignorant, so maybe DOS 4.0 allows a MultiFinder-like multi-tasking ability.) -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (01/05/90)
In article <732@npiatl.UUCP>, dkelly@npiatl.UUCP (Dwight Kelly) writes: >Tell how DOS uses more than 640k for programs, device drivers, and TSRs? >There are 'hicards' for the 286 and virtual-86 programs for the 386. These >are hacks and still only give you ~704k DOS memory. EMS is not an >answer! Why isn't EMS the answer? If I had a 386 and a copy of DESQview/386, I could: a) Load my device drivers, TSRs, etc. into unused spaces in the PC's address space (above 640K). It takes a bit of work to find these spaces, but I understand that QEMM does a pretty good job of sniffing them out. b) Run as many programs as I wanted to, multitask as many as would fit into memory (640K base + however much LIM 4.0 you have), and the only restriction is that each window has to be smaller than 600K. That isn't too bad. >Try this: DOS 3.2, EMS driver, Novell IPX & Net3 leaves about 420k free. Of course it does, because Novell IPX and NET3 don't "load high" by themselves. Using a 386 and QEMM.SYS, it is possible (depending on your system config) to load IPX and NET3 into unused spaces in the address space above the 640K mark. There is usually at least 64K or so available up there, 128K or more in some machines. You can then load DESQview/386 high, and get 600K or more DOS windows. Try this: I have a lowly 8088 (8MHz) machine with 640K of base memory and 1MB of expanded (LIM EMS 4.0) memory. I can run WordPerfect, my communications program, and a 256K DOS window all at the same time. This is true multitasking, which means I can be downloading a file in my communications program, printing a file in WordPerfect, and doing other various and sundry things in the DOS window. The only stuff that doesn't work right under DESQview are misbehaved programs that do things like taking direct control of the hardware (except for communications software), or expect to have the whole machine to themselves. This catagory of software mostly includes games; I have never found a "real" program that will run under normal DOS but won't run under DESQview. -- Marc Unangst | "The only limit to our realization of Internet: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | tomorrow will be our doubts of today." UUCP : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju | - Franklin D. Roosevelt Fidonet : Marc Unangst of 1:120/129.0 +--------------------------------------- BBS : The Starship Enterprise, 1200/2400 bps, +1 313 665-2832
dkelly@npiatl.UUCP (Dwight Kelly) (01/05/90)
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) writes: > [ Writes: It great to have a shell command called type ] Well, every Mac comes with a file viewer called TeachText. Let's not compare Apples to "IBM"s. Please. Dwight Kelly Network Publications, Inc.
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (01/05/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. > Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially >trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in >background, and: > 1. Switch to the word-processor. > 2. Go to the file menu, choose open > 3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what >it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.) > 4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of >text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman, >so: > 4a. Select the entire text > 5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes >wrapping of some sort, so > 5a. Lower the point size. > 6. Now, you're there. > (This can be partially made into a macro, but the font/ps >conversion step in much slower within the macro, than outside. >I don't know why.) > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. > Per usual the Mac Hater instead of looking for the simple solution to the problem merely flames the Mac without even thinking that there is probably an easier way. Which of course there is. Most good terminal programs allow you to select the file creator for downloaded text files, which would allows you to merely double-click the file into your favorite word processor. (which in this case there probably isn't a favorite) Course if you use some cheapy terminal, you will always get a default file type and creator of TEXT/MACA, which means that you need MacWrite to open the text file directly. And yes once you get into the Word Processor, the text will not be formatted all that great depending on font and size. Select all and selecting an apropriate font and size can't be all that painful. The PC's type command just spews forth text at a good rate of speed, and usually without stopping short of ^S & ^Q, and in whatever formatting, good or bad that the file was received in. Is this a reason to hate the PC?? While no amount of feedback is going to change Craig's mind, his attitude prevents any amount of that from making his use of the mac anything but a painful experience. Which is to bad....I don't care for DOS, or PC's but at least I can see where there are some situations where one might prefer the other. Its just that I've never found one... fodder for news... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (01/05/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. Most terminal programs have a default creator for TEXT files. Set the creator to your favorite text editor or even Teach Text and then you can double-click on your documents. Simple solution... Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | DISCLAIMER: I'm graduating and looking for Consultant | a job, so I'll stand by my words. Computer Resource Center |============================================== Dartmouth College | EMAIL: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/05/90)
From article <21628@mimsy.umd.edu>, by folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta): >>>My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you >>>can do it at any time you want from DOS. >> The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. > I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I > think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac > user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another > program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with > another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) You're probably right; he probably meant from the command prompt. Which makes DAs even more powerful than TYPE. But his point was also that DAs like that aren't shipped with the OS. TeachText is. So while DAs are a more powerful concept, you don't get one with a vanilla Mac. Yo do get TeachText. And MultiFinder, by the way. Have your terminal create text files of creator 'ttxt' and you can even double click them. > (Of course, I am very DOS-ignorant, so maybe DOS 4.0 allows a MultiFinder-like > multi-tasking ability.) I keep hearing things about DOS 4.01 on '386 machines, but I haven't had the "privelege" of seeing it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (01/05/90)
>> I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I >> think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac >> user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another >> program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with >> another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) > >You're probably right; he probably meant from the command prompt. Which makes >DAs even more powerful than TYPE. But his point was also that DAs like that >aren't shipped with the OS. TeachText is. So while DAs are a more powerful >concept, you don't get one with a vanilla Mac. Yo do get TeachText. And >MultiFinder, by the way. A "more" or "page" DA is clearly the way to go, however to make it even SIMPLER the finder could do the following: You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called "document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular applications for the user to select from and then opens up the document with the selected application. Or the finder could be programmed to open "documents" with a default application like Teachtext. It really isn't helpful to the user to display alerts that say things like "oh... I can't open that." A beteter philosophy is to have the computer propose solutions(i.e. "what would you like me to open this unknown document with?"). -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (01/05/90)
In article <10287@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > >A "more" or "page" DA is clearly the way to go, however to make it >even SIMPLER the finder could do the following: > >You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click >on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called >"document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular >applications for the user to select from and then opens up the >document with the selected application. Or the finder could be >programmed to open "documents" with a default application like >Teachtext. > >It really isn't helpful to the user to display alerts that say things >like "oh... I can't open that." A beteter philosophy is to have the >computer propose solutions(i.e. "what would you like me to open this >unknown document with?"). Well, I disagree (obviously). If I'm trying to open a MacDraw II file and don't have MacDraw II around, having TeachText open it up "by default" is a horrible solution. All I'll see is garbage. Same with an Excel document, etc. This would REALLY confuse nonHacker users. Fact is, my machine at home (where I don't do programming) doesn't have a single TEXT file in all it's 40 meg of files! Neither does my Mom or Dad's machines. TEXT files just aren't that common on Mac unless the user is a programmer or comm hacker - and these people are a small minority of Mac users. Again I think we're just seeing the difference here in expectations. TEXT files are not really the Mac way to do things and lots of support for them would work against the basic metaphor of the machine - Applications and Documents go together and you (mostly) need the original program to read a document file in (unless of course there is a conversion facility build into the program). Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce -------------+-------------------------------------- | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 | Box 58168 | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 | (408) 987-7319 | AppleLink: peirce1 | Internet: peirce@claris.com | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
pepke@loligo (Eric Pepke) (01/05/90)
In article <10785@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes: >In article <10287@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: >>You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click >>on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called >>"document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular >>applications for the user to select from and then opens up the >>document with the selected application. Or the finder could be >>programmed to open "documents" with a default application like >>Teachtext. >> >Well, I disagree (obviously). If I'm trying to open a MacDraw II file and >don't have MacDraw II around, having TeachText open it up "by default" is >a horrible solution. All I'll see is garbage. Same with an Excel document, >etc. This would REALLY confuse nonHacker users. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! You only do this for files of a certain type, in this case TEXT. It's when the creator doesn't correspond with anything that a default of TeachText or QUED or whatever is appropriate. This can be generalized to any file type. Let's say you have a PICT file, of type FMBR. There is no application with signature FMBR on your disk. However, you do have MacDraw and PixelPaint, both of which can deal with PICT files. The finder knows that they can because both applications publish FREFs for PICT files created by them. Forget the idea of the one to one correspondence between documents and applications. The type of a file describes its contents, and any application which knows how to deal with that type of file can open it. Files with a creator that corresponds to a real application specify a default application to use. Double-clicking these files should open the default application (it currently does). Files with a creator of ' ' or ???? proclaim that there is no default application. Double-clicking these files should either give the user a choice of applications or open a user- specified global default for that file type. Currently, the Mac just whines. Files with a creator that corresponds to a missing application are a problem. They can be handled either like ???? applications should be or by whining. I consider the former preferable. Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions. Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
news@vice2.utc.chalmers.se (News System) (01/06/90)
>d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) writes: ><In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: ><> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. ><>On a Mac, you can't. ><[Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on ><the document etc....] ><Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as ><painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A ><WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or ><some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I ><only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are ><as they should be. No problems at all. From: d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) Path: hacke8!d6maca >These are *not* "textfiles"!! As you say they are WORDPROCESSOR DOCUMENTS. They can be textfiles too. If I download a file from a Mac or a machine that supports Mac format, I will always get right icon as long as I have the application the file was made by. And don't say that people don't have the right application. We are talking about textfiles and most textfiles I download are made by this little textapplication that comes with the MacOS (I don't know that it is called on the US system). If the file is made by a application not owned by me, I have to use my favorite textapplication and load the file from it. That is probably faster on a PC if I don't type slow. ><2. A binhex file from the net. Now I ><have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, ><but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit ><the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one ><in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have ><to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can ><setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) >Also not a textfile. <sigh> A binhex file is a textfile. I didn't say this clear enough. Also I download files like this article or other documentation files (textfiles) from many places and what I said under 2. is true for this too. I'm running Multifinder and after my textfile is downloaded, the file appears in a background window (in the finder) with its icon. I do a doubleclick and my texteditor starts and opens the file. The text is in Monaco 9. >What he was talking about were such things as capturing a sesion on a BBS, or >downloading some news articles from the net. Those give ASCII *text*. Yes, I know. That is what I was talking about too (under 2.). >Part of the problem is that people are assuming that what they do is the >only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. Yes, that is correct. I'm saying what I do, not what everybody has to do. When I hear someone say that they can't do this, then if I can do it, I say that. - Martin Carlberg - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (01/07/90)
dkelly@npiatl.UUCP (Dwight Kelly) writes: >Tell how DOS uses more than 640k for programs, device drivers, and TSRs? >There are 'hicards' for the 286 and virtual-86 programs for the 386. These >are hacks and still only give you ~704k DOS memory. EMS is not an answer! >Try this: DOS 3.2, EMS driver, Novell IPX & Net3 leaves about 420k free. Funny, with DOS 3.31, EMM.SYS, Novell IPX and Net3, plus a bunch of other stuff I have 517k free. Of course we are cheating a little bit. A program called LANSPACE loads NET3 up into the first 64k of extended memory. But that only saves 30 or 40k. You must have some *huge* number of buffers defined or some other such memory waster. If you are using one of those pieces of junk like AboveDisc, to *simulate* EMS memory using extended memory or diskswapping, then you've lost 64k right there! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
sdawalt@wright.EDU (Shane Dawalt) (01/07/90)
I can't stand it anymore ... I just gotta voice my opinion before I explode! (This has been brewing for a week or so ... pardon the length.) Everyone keeps screaming how you always have to dump to DOS to "type" a file from a comm program. First, why would you want to download a file then read it while you are on-line? I presume you are on-line since you keep reiterating the point that you are unwilling to exit your comm program. If you do want to read the file in DOS, most comm programs allow you to shell up to DOS. You don't have to exit the comm program. Now I'll admit that I have found myself wanting to do _something_ while my modem is busy downloading/uploading stuff, but certainly not at a frequency which warrants a new machine purchase. Three of four times over a period of 2 years does not qualify as a "pressing need" in my case. Now, about the Mac; I agree with most people that IBMs are IBMs and Macs are Macs AND each machine is good for different problems. My personal feelings towards the Mac is that it is too "padded" for my liking. Mice (mouses, whatever) are dandy instruments to use. I have one on my AT system for use with GEM and, when I'm really desperate, Windows. The mouse, in my mind, is only good for, perhaps, 40% of total data input. Desktop publishing, filename selection from a list (not icons) and games are the extent of my mouse usage. Other times it sets collecting dust. Icons are fine if you prefer looking at drawings. I prefer text over drawing in most cases. I just find that I like a nice command line staring me in the face. (The command line should be part of the OS and, therefore, FREE. It was implied in earlier postings that to obtain a command line on the Mac required _buying_ a program.) In conclusion (if anyone is still reading), the Mac's screen is too small. My personal minimum is 13". My IBM system has a 14" which is "ok". I would much prefer a 19" because it appears to be more "roomy" on the screen. Perhaps the newer Mac's have larger screens. I do not know since I haven't been looking at them lately. One thing I would like is multi-tasking ability -- something the 80286 seems not to do all that well. :-( Yeah, yeah, I could purchase the new Windows upgrade, but Mickeysoft products are near the bottom of my reliability list (DOS included). (Do I dare claim this verbose message as my own???) Shane Email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu or 71076.511@compuserve.com
ez000453@deneb (01/08/90)
In article <1891@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > ><> >only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. >Me, I don't do any of the things the Mac is reportedly good at. The few >that I might want to do in the future aren't *nearly* enough to invest >*double* the amount I have currently invested in my PC system for something >that won't suit *my* needs as well. If the Mac works best for you, fine >just don't insist that it "must" be better for me too! >-- >Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard >CIS: [70465,203] The chief reason anyone buys a PC these days is because it's cheaper. I don't include the 286 and higher machines because they cost quite a bit more...even the clones. Anyway, suppose we compare the Mac Plus to a PC/XT clone...so one might save up to $500 (or 50%) these days. BUT, I know that the person with the Mac system is going to blow away the PC system in 99% of the cases. I firmly believe that this is a generality that applies to all kinds of users (i.e., those whose needs are satisfied by this level of computers). That's my viewpoint and I do use PCs and Macs (mainly because I have to at work). Anyway, on the issue of reading captured text or ASCII files. IF (and a big IF) you have something like the SideKick accessory to read your TEXT file, then we have the equivalent of reading with a DA on the Mac. And yes, there is a free DA along with the shareware DAs. In general then, I would say that the machines have about equal capabilities in examining the captured TEXT files. Using type from the DOS prompt is primitive to say the least and not useful though is better than nothing. The Mac comes with Teach Text which will read your TEXT files too (plus I don't have to set directory paths on the Mac!) The only ones I know who have purchased XTs against my recommendations are those who cannot afford even the Mac Plus. No problem. I just allow them a little more time when assignments are given to them. Now, does someone want a discussion of the PC/ATs and 386 machines versus the MacII. My support for MacIIs is less solid because it's impossible for me to recommend such an expensive machine when the power is matched by MS-DOS mchines and the capabilities are not much greater than the Plus/SEs. OK, flame away! oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o COLIN ONG Dept. Land, Air & Water Resources o o cgong@ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis CA 95616 o o ez000453@deneb.ucdavis.edu FULLY DISCLAIMED! o
ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) (01/08/90)
Look at it this way: If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet the need, or replacing both with something that works. If you try to make System and Finder meet your needs, it may or may not work. If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to a multi-user level. The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. ***************************************************************************** Erik Ohrnberger "Be nice to me, I'm still a Net Virgin!" *****************************************************************************
jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (01/09/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: >If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. >If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: >DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs >change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, >and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet >the need, or replacing both with something that works. Uh, yeah. Apple sells two operating systems for the Mac: the Mac OS and a UNIX. You can buy an emulator that will run DOS in software, in a window, under the Mac OS. If you don't like A/UX, I understand someone has ported Minix. Also, even if you restrict yourself to the Mac OS, the Finder is not the only shell out there. I can think offhand of four alternatives, none of them expensive, two that operate as desk accessories. >If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by >some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to >a multi-user level. You can run A/UX multiuser, of course. >The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that >I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. Look. I know we all have our preferences, and I've learned a great deal about how some people prefer to work from this flame wa-- er, discussion. But please, before you sound off on the evils, inefficiencies, or demerits of the Mac, inform yourself. Ignorant slams do nothing to convince or inform anyone and only make the speaker look like a fool. -- ====== jeanne a. e. devoto ======================================== jdevoto@apple.com | You may not distribute this article under a jdevoto@well.UUCP | compilation copyright without my permission. ___________________________________________________________________ Apple Computer and I are not authorized | CI$: 72411,165 to speak for each other. | AppleLink: SQA.TEST
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (01/09/90)
From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): > If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. Oh? Read on. > If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: > DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs > change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, Ahem. Ok, if we can agree that Xenix and Unix are the same (well, almost), and DOS is to the PC what the Finder is to the Mac, (I know, it's a stretch), then you're dead wrong. First, who cares about Pick? And PC-MOS, give me a break. I'd like to hear from ONE PC person running PC-MOS. The Mac runs the Finder, of course, and A/UX. So what's the problem? > > If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by > some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to > a multi-user level. A/UX is indeed 'multi-user'. So what's the problem? > The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that > I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. You're obviously unaware of the alternatives, that's all. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/09/90)
Gee, on the Amiga you can download files, print files, edit a file,
and compile programs all at the same time. In fact with its custom
hardware none of these things get in the way of each other at all.
The only CPU intensive program is the compiler. You can even type
files to the screen at the same time if you want. Since each application
has its own virtual screen, there is no conflict there either.
I like the mac a lot, but using a true multitasking, multiscreen OS
cannot be beat, IMHO.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comrht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (01/10/90)
From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): > Look at it this way: > If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. > If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: > DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs > change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, > and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet > the need, or replacing both with something that works. If you try to > make System and Finder meet your needs, it may or may not work. > > If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by > some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to > a multi-user level. > > The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that > I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. [Sigh] You are quite incorrect. Currently available on the mac are, of course the standard system/finder/multifinder, System V Unix in the form of A/UX, a unix like shell that runs under the MacOS called MacIDRIS (I think), the all powerful and blessed DOS (ACK!!! Just say no! - Bill the Cat) in the form of SoftPC (or, if you feel the need for more hardware, the Orange Micro Mac286 (Mac86 for the SE)). If I need multiuser, I go A/UX, which, by the way, also allows me to execute native MacOS binaries. DOS even runs UNDER the MacOS, so I can have a DOS and a Mac application running at the same time. No flame intended, but I had to reply, some neophite might have believed you. I suggest that you research your stuff more fully for this will surely flood your inbox with flames. > > ***************************************************************************** > Erik Ohrnberger > "Be nice to me, I'm still a Net Virgin!" > ***************************************************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <rofl! (rolling on floor laughing)> _________________________________________________________________________ Its a good thing that reality is NOT a matter of some peoples perception! _________________________________________________________________________ Randy Thompson | uunet!smsdpg!rht -- Office SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | uunet!smsdpg!tailchasr!rht -- Mac@home 703/648-9400 | _________________________________________________________________________ * Constructive criticism is always appreciated * Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP _________________________________________________________________________
bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com (Michael Hunter) (01/10/90)
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): >The Mac runs the Finder, of course, and A/UX. So what's the problem? > and in the early days somebody produced a CPM for the mac :) A/UX has problems as a unix one nice point for the IBM PC type of machines is that many different versions of unix have been ported to them in various forms...all the way from xenix (which is a hack) to some really nice unixs' on 386.... and of course there is the Amiga which is just a nice machine with some cool hardware and not enough software.... Michael Mike Hunter - Box's and CPU's from HELL: iapx80[012]86, PR1ME 50 Series, 1750a UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com
mgodwin@rpp386.cactus.org (Mike Godwin) (01/10/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: >Look at it this way: >If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. >If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: >DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs >change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. Heh. I knew there was a reason I'm dissatisfied with my Mac, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Then you pointed it out for me-- I can't run the Pick system! >If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by >some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to >a multi-user level. I'm on a Mac right now, Erik. It talks well enough with the big UNIX machines over at the nearby university as well as with the desktop Xenix machine run by a friend of mine. If I need to do access to nifty UNIX features, they're only a phone call away. More seriously, I don't know many people, whether Mac users or PC users (or users of any other kind of machine, for that matter) who suddenly find themselves confronted with the need to change their OSs. For users, the functionality of applications is more relevant than the functionality of any OS--of course, I'm distinguishing ordinary users from programmers in this. Sometimes, of course, extra functionality may derive directly from a particular OS. (Not that this is the kind of thing that drives people in the direction of MS-DOS.) But in my experience, with lots of users on lots of different machines, that's rarely the critical consideration. --Mike -- Mike Godwin UT Law School | "... and first I put my arms around him yes mgodwin@rpp386.cactus.org | and drew him down to me so he could feel my (512) 346-4190 | breasts all perfume yes and his heart was cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!mgodwin | going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (01/11/90)
From article <24523@gryphon.COM>,by bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com(Michael Hunter):
> A/UX has problems as a unix
I just love substantiated comments like this. One could make the same
statement about _ANY_ *nix available for machine provided he/she didn't
happen to like the implementation. What _specific_ problems do *you*
have in calling A/UX a Unix implementation?
I have yet to meet a *nix that didnt have at least some problems or
bugs.
Get real.
_________________________________________________________________________
Randy Thompson | uunet!smsdpg!rht -- Office
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | uunet!smsdpg!tailchasr!rht -- Mac@home
703/648-9400 |
_________________________________________________________________________
* Constructive criticism is always appreciated *
Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP
_________________________________________________________________________vallon@sboslab2.cs.sunysb.edu (Justin Vallon) (01/12/90)
In article <10785@claris.com>, peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes: > In article <10287@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > >You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click > >on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called > >"document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular > >applications for the user to select from and then opens up the > >document with the selected application. Or the finder could be > >programmed to open "documents" with a default application like > >Teachtext. > > > >It really isn't helpful to the user to display alerts that say things > >like "oh... I can't open that." A beteter philosophy is to have the > >computer propose solutions(i.e. "what would you like me to open this > >unknown document with?"). > > Well, I disagree (obviously). If I'm trying to open a MacDraw II file and > don't have MacDraw II around, having TeachText open it up "by default" is > a horrible solution. All I'll see is garbage. Same with an Excel document, > etc. This would REALLY confuse nonHacker users. > > [He doesn't have any TEXT files anywhere] First of all, John's suggestion was a suggestion, not a solution. First of all, you wouldn't want a default list of applications to popup, regardless of the type of file. Remember that the Mac has a FileType field. Here is my solution: The finder maintains, in addition to application sig's, a list of file-type sig's (they are specified in the BNDL resource). Instead of displaying the "Application not found..." message, provide the user with a list of those applications that can open the file (ie: have the same file-type in their BNDL resource). So, let's say I have a text file from Word Perfect, but I don't have WP. The finder searches for all TEXT FREF's, and displays the corresponding applications. I choose MS Word. Bingo. Or, I have a PICT file (created by MacDraw), but I don't have MacDraw (sorry Michael). Again, the finder searches for a PICT FREF, and displays the list. If the finder can't even find any FREF's, then you can say "No application can be found to open this file..." In fact, this could even be extended to support overriding the "default" application. In other word, I really HATE waiting for MacWrite to open text files (it's really, really slow). Instead, I want to open the file with MS Word. So, just Option-Double-Click (or whatever) on the file, and the Finder gives you a list of (1) the creator application, and (2..) all other applications that can open the file. Two problems. First, I think applications are only supposed to open files returned from _GetAppFiles (?) that have their creator, and ignore the rest. Second, some applications might be able to read a file that they don't have an FREF for, since they can't write it. The second problem is just an inconvienence, the first probably kills the idea. > Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce > -------------+-------------------------------------- > | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 > | Box 58168 > | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 > | (408) 987-7319 > | AppleLink: peirce1 > | Internet: peirce@claris.com > | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce -Justin vallon@sbcs.sunysb.edu
dwb@archer.apple.com (David W. Berry) (01/16/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: > >The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that >I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. Braappp!!!!! You seem to be forgetting that Apple has a Unix implementation (based on System V, with most BSD extensions) available. If Unix is what you want, Unix is what you can get.