meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) (12/18/89)
I usually try to avoid these kind of things, but this time I just couldn't. In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> you write: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I didn't originally post this, but it is in my book. > I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. Why? How? You give no method for evaluation. SCSI is very fast in my book. When originally conceived it could transfer a meg in a second. It's faster now. How's that compare to an interface on an IBM? For more specs on the SCSI interface, I would refer you to an article in MacUser, mid 1988. I can give you the specifics (date, page numbers) if you want. I think proof of the SCSI is the fact it has been adopted by other computer makers. >The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 any day of the week. Why? My 68020 runs at 16MHz. I can buy a 68030 that runs at 32 for under a thousand, and if I had the money I could buy one that runs at 50 MHz. Such a product is available today. Does anything approach this on an IBM machine. By the way, the 68040 will run faster that the '486, although I will admit it's not out yet, but since I can get a '30 that runs faster, I guess you've already lost. >My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. I don't think the SE/30 is the greatest myself. Could you elaborate on how how your Compaq eats it for lunch? Give me specifics so we can really debate instead of listen to unsupported claims. >Can you say "upgradable?" Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note will follow). >That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. OK, I will. I hopefully will put in a 68030 accelerator, which plugs into the board, no replacement needed. Maybe if I wanted to lower my standards I could buy a NuBus '386 board. Then I could do everything you can do. Can you plug in a Mac 68030 board and run all my programs? >Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? Yes. I plan to upgrade to 256 colors over Christmas. Price is $49. I'd like to plug in a 24 bit board, but I don't have $800 or so. Can an IBM support 24 bit color? 19" Sony monitors with 24 bit color? Does the IBM support the latest in video technology? What is the lastest. Nothing I've seen on the IBM is the lastest. 32 bit Quickdraw on a Sony 19" might be. > No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! Actually, I open mine with a screwdrive, phillips I think. After removing the screw which is only a safety precaution, I hold two latches and viola! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM customization follows below. >That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics. >I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's >all junk. You give absolutely no explanation here. I guess you'll die a life that could have been so much better. How can yoy make comparisons with a machine you've never used or plan to use? >What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. >You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip >off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone >else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right... If you believe this, then you have to believe MicroSoft and HP stole it as well, from whom we'll let the courts decide. I've written enough for now and will let the lawyers have this one. > >> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? > >What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one >of the most powerful and widely used operating systems... Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? > >-- >>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * >University of Rochester * will screw it up." * >Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." >ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system because there isn't such a thing. Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines, two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the IBM platform. Pagemaker was slooww. You give no benchmarks of basis of comparison. I've used the same program on both machines and I can tell you it was slower on the IBM. Pagemaker isn't the fastest on any machine (I think Quark Xpress is better - Can you get that for an IBM?), but simply changing pages was tedious onthe IBMs. Features from the program were missing on the IBM version. What happened to image control on imported graphics? We could do some things, but nothing like on the Mac (i.e. adjust contrast, give an arbitray grey-map, solarize). You might say there are other programs that can do these things. You might not. I don't now if they exist for the IBM. I know they do for the Mac. My point is Pagemaker for the Mac has these feature, PM for the IBM doesn't. What happened to removing styles from the palette? We kept getting errors. When we called tech support, they said once it was created, it couldn't be removed. Aauggh. What about not using a mouse? When we got out third machine, we didn't get a mouse for a few days. PM was useless. On a Mac you can use Easy Access (I think you hit the shift key five times) to let you use the arrow keys instead of a mouse. On the IBM, nothing. We called Aldus tech support on this one as well. "What can we do?" "GET A MOUSE!" was their reply. So much for customization. Printing was a pain. We couldn't network the machines easily like Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If we wanted to change on the IBM, we had to maually change the printer mode on the printer. When this wasn't done (and this did happen, especially in the morning after the boss had it in Diablo mode for printing out things late the night before (he had his own computer in another room but couldn't network it to our laser printer - you could with Macs)) we got pages of raw PostScript. We began to joke about "Oh, how I love raw PostScript in the morning." Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7 million. I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you can do this same, I will continue this discussion. Paul Eric Menchen meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu I am solely responsible for everything I've said, although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) who will agree with me.
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/18/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Can you say "upgradable?" >Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note >will follow). >>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. >Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can >customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM >compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile >makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by >presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM >customization follows below. You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them, but that's about the limit of customization. >>That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. >I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring >Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse >types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and >makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics. A necessary consequence of having so much freedom in assembling an 80x86 system is that the software needs to be told what all the different pieces are. When you limit yourself to the "any color you want as long as it's black" design parameters of the Mac, you don't need the customization. < text deleted > >Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but >out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7 >million. Correction. The _Mac II_ gives you a choice of 16.7 million colors. A _Mac Plus_ gives you any color you want to use from the set [white black]. With IBM's architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color graphics requires that you buy a new video card and monitor. With the Macintosh architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color requires that you sell your Mac Plus and buy a Mac II. An amazing cost differential. >I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and >available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you >can do this same, I will continue this discussion. By basing all of your counterexamples on the fact that _you_ own a Mac II and ignoring all of the 'toaster' Macs that are out there, you are essentially putting yourself in the same group as the twits who tell people "Of course it won't run on an 8088. Buy a 386 machine." If _everybody_ who owned a Mac had a Mac II, your arguments would be valid; all of the people who don't own the top-of-the-line Mac systems are obviously dust under your feet and their opinions are unimportant. >I am solely responsible for everything I've said, >although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) >of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) >who will agree with me. Ha. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
smith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) (12/19/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, >including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? Yep. If I had a 386. Will all Macs run UNIX? > We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on >the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect >deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the >IBM platform. Pagemaker on the PC is a dog. Desktop publishing of any sort shouldn't be done on a PC. It isn't a good comparison - try Excel, which runs with approximately the same interface on both the PC and Mac. >We couldn't network the machines easily like >Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box >and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a >lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough >either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print >text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or >PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If Sure, they can be networked easily, but they are as slow as molasses running uphill in January when the system's loaded. I know - I work in an area where we have networks of both PC's and Macs. And the Macs are slower by a long shot. Want to bring up Excel? Double click in the icon and wait 1 minute (literally - when the system's loaded down). On the PC network? Type in EXCEL and wait about 20 seconds, if that. No matter if the system's near full or what. Which brings me to another point - GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em. Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI for a command line environment*. That is one of my big gripes about the Mac - it's nearly impossible to get a command line environment like DOS for a *reasonable* price. Sean -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Sean Smith - Damage Inc. "Let me tell you what you're trying | | Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada to say..." 01SSMITH@AC.DAL.CA too | | These ideas are mine...ALL MINE!!! *maniacal laughter* |
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec18.174644.24333@ug.cs.dal.ca>, smith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) writes: > GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em. > Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI > for a command line environment*. One thing about Windows, or PM, or even X is that there's a command line interface sitting down there somewhere underneath everything (at least conceptually). There isn't on a Mac. When you're using menus & windows, you *are* talking to the OS. The reason command-line evironments like MPW are add-ons is that they are sitting on top of the GUI, not the other way around. To each their own, I guess. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/19/89)
In article <5107@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>>Can you say "upgradable?" >>Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note >>will follow). > >>>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. >>Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can >>customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM >>compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile >>makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by >>presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM >>customization follows below. > >You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original >poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac >II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to >cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them, >but that's about the limit of customization. The current standard for the "toaster Mac" is a Macintosh SE. An SE has an internal slot, and there are several products available which will add more expansion slots. But you know what? I've never, EVER seen an SE which had even that slot filled! Almost every peripheral I've ever seen on an SE has been quite adequately handled by the serial port. If you should ever actually WANT an ethernet connection or perhaps an accelerator board or more serial ports or something, you just plug it in or have your dealer do so. But so few SE owners take advantage of even this that I suspect there is not much demand for the type of expansion which you're talking about. Also, the only example the original poster mentioned was the DaynaFile system for reading IBM disks, which works just as well on a Plus as on a II, I believe. And even if not, I have seen competing products which serve the same function. -- Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (12/19/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: > >I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system >about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM >system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system >because there isn't such a thing. > you mean you spent *ALOT* more than for an IBM. >Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a >lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never >plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for >more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my >Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together >a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines, >two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript >printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on >the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect >deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the >IBM platform. > [ bunch of user garbage deleted ] >I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and >available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you >can do this same, I will continue this discussion. > >Paul Eric Menchen >meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu > >I am solely responsible for everything I've said, >although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) >of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) >who will agree with me. well, let me pick up the thread here... i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a port, or read a file, i don't want to have to wade through cartoons to get to it. i don't want the machine to tell me i can't access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the goddamn file! i don't normally put up with that behavior from humans and i'll be damned if i'll put up with it from a machine! it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! the mac does do things well, but as a programming environment it sucks. i transferred away from the job that required me to use the FRANKINTOSH and now i get to program on a computer... i hope to never have to work on one of those bastard mutant offspring of an etch-a-sketch [tm] and a typewriter again. remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! /*** 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 ******/
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/19/89)
by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): > Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so > damned proud of is a nuisance. If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (12/20/89)
>I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. >Jeff d'Arcy Damn straight. I think if Jobs made *any* contribution to the computing world, the concept of the "toaster" computer was it. "The computer for the rest of us." Granted, he built in some technical limitations (small memory, no slots, etc.) that were suboptimal, but what the heck: a Porsche with a plastic dashboard instead of a wooden one is still a Porsche. I'm a case in point. I majored in liberal arts (English, Philosophy, Psychology, Education) all the way through 250+ hours of college/graduate school. I don't know SH*T about computers *or* programming. Then along came the Mac, which provided me with a productivity tool of staggering technical sophistication, and I didn't have to spend a month memorizing commands like "CP/:D1.whoopee.%\\kipperedherring" just to start something up. No, just point at the little icon and <click> and presto, an entire document was left/right justified in 3 seconds, or a font was changed, or a picture pasted into the middle of a page. I remember using a PC-AT for a project about 3 years ago. I eagerly booted the thing up, then spent an entire afternoon poring through an 8 inch stack of manuals. My prof asked how I was doing, and I said, "gee, I think I'll be able to get started by tomorrow!" In contrast, I've seen secretaries who have NEVER used a computer before take a Mac out of the box, boot up MacWrite, and start cranking out beautifully formatted correspondence in less than an hour. Try THAT with your typical "mess-dos" machine. I was amused when, in a local bookstore, I saw a HUGE book on "Using Micro- soft Windows." It must have been 3 inches thick. Imagine a 1200-page book on "using Macintosh windows." Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... I'm on my second Mac now, an SE with 4 megs RAM and a 40meg external HD. By carefully setting up a work environment with tools like OnCue, Multi- Finder, and Macromaker, I've created a personal workstation with power that existed only in science fiction novels a few years ago. By God, I'm PROUD of this thing! (pats Mac, tear rolls down cheek) And yes, after all this time, let's have some dialogue on IBM vs. Mac, as long as it's sensible and realistic, and not meaningless jaw-wagging like Woody's (sorry, Woody). I'm sorry if it bothers all you "engineers" that want to sit here and talk about nubuses and stack heaps (whatever those are). I've learned some interesting things, and have been exposed to some valid viewpoints, while reading this discussion. If you don't like it, you know where the "K" key is. Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu
kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) (12/20/89)
In article <5842@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM system, but you can't say I spent >>more than an equivalent IBM system because there isn't such a thing. > >you mean you spent *ALOT* more than for an IBM. Read it again. He spent infinitely less than for an *equivalent* IBM (since there is no such thing). >i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors >of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. >Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? You mean IBM, right? Dunno about Paul, but I did program on IBMs and hope never to have to do it again ... >That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a >port, or read a file (...) i don't want the machine to tell me i can't >access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the >goddamn file! Obviously, you're confused ... just goes to show your ignorance in the subject. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that it is no big deal to write a program that will open and read any file ... >it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! Meadow muffins. Any time I have to write a standalone application that does not require UNIX-specific system calls and lex/yacc, I'd do it on a Macintosh precisely for the reasons of productivity. Think C compiles on a Mac II in half the time of a VAX 8650 - I am talking CPU time here - the real time can be 1/10 of a moderately loaded 8650 ... Where I used to work, the command-line based applications for IBM would be written on a Mac Plus, then transferred and compiled on an IBM AT (it was a couple of years ago). I remember it used to take 20 minutes on an AT with a hard disk to compile a program that took 2 minutes on a Plus with floppies. KK -- Kris Kozminski kk@mcnc.org "The party was a masquerade; the guests were all wearing their faces."
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/20/89)
Think of what a peaceful world we would have if all the comp.sys.mac rn users typed /IBM/Ka:j and all the comp.sys.ibm.pc users typed /Mac/Ka:j. Think of it. -- Mark Wilkins
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (12/21/89)
From article <5842@eos.UUCP>, by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): [tons 'o mindless bullshit deleted] > remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! > > /***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 This man is obviously insane. The Mac *is* idiot-proof, and I offer as evidence his dislike of the Mac. I admit a Mac isn't the easiest thing in the world to program, but it's a helluva lot better than the segmented 80x86 IBM machines. Woody, take a pill. -- 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
jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) (12/21/89)
In article <5842@eos.UUCP>, woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: > ***%!?*&%$#^*****!!!$%++@#!@#$*****!!!! ... Come on Wayne, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but clean up the language a little.
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (12/23/89)
In article <1989Dec18.174644.24333@ug.cs.dal.ca> smith@ug.cs.dal.ca.UUCP (Sean Smith) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, >>including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? > > Yep. If I had a 386. Will all Macs run UNIX? > >I know - I work in an >area where we have networks of both PC's and Macs. And the Macs are slower >by a long shot. Want to bring up Excel? Double click in the icon and wait >1 minute (literally - when the system's loaded down). On the PC network? >Type in EXCEL and wait about 20 seconds, if that. No matter if the system's >near full or what. I also work in a lab with IBMs and MACs. Both are running on the same network, and use the same drives and printers. Both run similar software, both have similar interfaces, and the MACs cost twice as much. The Mac side of the network is USUALLY broken, with print queues stacking up, and the printers silent, or there are problems launching applications from the servers. One day I had this problem (47 jobs in the queue on the Image Writer, and ... silence). I called upstairs about the problem and down came a test print which worked perfectly . . . I call back to find out what they did, and I am told that the test print came from the IBM side of the net! We NEVER have problems with the IBM side of the net, unless the problems are NETWORK-WIDE. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >well, let me pick up the thread here... > >i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors >of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. > >Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so >damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a port, or read a file, >i don't want to have to wade through cartoons to get to it. i don't want >the machine to tell me i can't access a file because it wasn't created by the >application... i want the goddamn file! i don't normally put up with that >behavior from humans and i'll be damned if i'll put up with it from a machine! > >it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! > >the mac does do things well, but as a programming environment it sucks. > >i transferred away from the job that required me to use the FRANKINTOSH >and now i get to program on a computer... i hope to never have to work >on one of those bastard mutant offspring of an etch-a-sketch [tm] and >a typewriter again. > >remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm glad I only support the Macs and don't develop software for the damn things. If you want graphics interface, get a Sun Workstation. Unfortunately...the Mac doesn't follow the "ok, but it's your funernal" philosophy when it comes to programming and developing software. At that level, I draw the line, I will probably never use a Mac to develop software. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): >> Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so >> damned proud of is a nuisance. > >If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a >little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy >engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. > >Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin. There are easier graphics environments to program around than the Mac. The moral of the story is that the Mac is hell on the software developer, but heaven on the novice user. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes: >In article <5842@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >>That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a >>port, or read a file (...) i don't want the machine to tell me i can't >>access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the >>goddamn file! > >Obviously, you're confused ... just goes to show your ignorance in the >subject. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that it is no >big deal to write a program that will open and read any file ... > >>it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >>me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! > >Meadow muffins. Any time I have to write a standalone application that does >not require UNIX-specific system calls and lex/yacc, I'd do it on a Macintosh >precisely for the reasons of productivity. Think C compiles on a Mac II in >half the time of a VAX 8650 - I am talking CPU time here - the real time can >be 1/10 of a moderately loaded 8650 ... > >Where I used to work, the command-line based applications for IBM would >be written on a Mac Plus, then transferred and compiled on an IBM AT >(it was a couple of years ago). I remember it used to take 20 minutes on >an AT with a hard disk to compile a program that took 2 minutes on a >Plus with floppies. One thing that's a bloody nuisance in developing PORTABLE applications, and I emphasize PORTABLE is the damn graphics interface. Quite a few of the C compilers out there do NOT support environment variables (i.e. getenv, putenv) unless they 'fake' a command interpreter that supports environment variables. Then you have the annoyance of creating the menus that have no use in the Unix environment (unless there's a graphics interface such as X-Windows or SunView). // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/26/89)
Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers References: <1989Dec22.183926.27643@ntvax.uucp> From article <1989Dec22.183926.27643@ntvax.uucp>, by jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley): > I also work in a lab with IBMs and MACs. Both are running on the same > network, and use the same drives and printers. Both run similar software, > both have similar interfaces, and the MACs cost twice as much. Are you going to call Windows a useful piece of software? Come on, the thing is such a horrible kludge of a Mac clone it makes me mad just to watch the mouse pointer galumph across the screen. > The Mac side of the network is USUALLY broken, with print queues stacking up, > and the printers silent, or there are problems launching applications from the > servers. Hmmm. Sounds like a support problem to me. Either that or somebody who thinks the Mac is simpler than it is "reconfigures" your network for you without checking upstairs first. I've administrated a Mac network with over 200 machines on it, and never had problem one with the net itself. (Of course, setting file permissions is always a pain, but then again it is on all network systems...) > One day I had this problem (47 jobs in the queue on the Image Writer, and > .... silence). I called upstairs about the problem and down came a test print > which worked perfectly . . . I call back to find out what they did, and I am > told that the test print came from the IBM side of the net! Which tells me that your support people are still using antique architecture and refuse to change, which explains the difficulties you have with your Mac net. Some problems with computers, especially those in an institutional setting, stem from something other than the computers themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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