jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (02/11/88)
From Feb 88 issue of Micro-Mini Systems: Apple Finally Gets its UNIX act together - All on a disk Apple Computer Inc, Curpertino Calif., chose the Uniforum show in Dallas this month to introduce A/UX, its version of AT&T Co.'s UNIX System V.2 operating system. A/UX is designed for Apple's high-end Macintosh II and comes preconfigured on either an internal ($4,879) or an external ($5,549) 80M-byte rigid-disk drive upgrade packge for current users [Ouch! jdw]. ... A/UX contains Berkeley UNIX extensions, Network File SYstem, Streams and the Macintosh Toolbox, plus functions for automatic booting and recovery. That leaves users with 10 M-bytes of free disk space [Ouch again! jdw]. By preconfiguring the disk, Apple hopes to spare users from hiring UNIX gurus. From Feb 8, 1988 issue of MacintoshToday Ashton-Tate reportedly buys Ann Arbor, hot WP program Ashton-Tate of Torrance Calif. reportedly has acquired Ann Arbor Softworks, INc. of Newbury Park, Calif. and will soon publish the company's FullWrite Professional... Sources said Ashton-Tate bought Ann Arbor and a number of its assets after months of negotiations between the two firms. Ann Arbor's graphics program FullPaint is included in the aggreement, but FullCalc, the company's unpublished spreadsheet, is not. Ann Arbor's deal with Ashton-Tate could be worth up to $30 million including royalties, sources said. [Everyone who knows anything :-)] declined to comment. For those who are interested in C Compilers, see also Dennis Cohen's article comparing C compilers in MacintoshToday. Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
martin@uhccux.UUCP (Brian Martin) (02/16/88)
In article <1406@csib.csi.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: >From Feb 88 issue of Micro-Mini Systems: > >Apple Finally Gets its UNIX act together - All on a disk > >Apple Computer Inc, Curpertino Calif., chose the Uniforum show in Dallas this >month to introduce A/UX, its version of AT&T Co.'s UNIX System V.2 >operating system. A/UX is designed for Apple's high-end Macintosh II and >comes preconfigured on either an internal ($4,879) or an external ($5,549) >80M-byte rigid-disk drive upgrade packge for current users [Ouch! jdw]. ... >A/UX contains Berkeley UNIX extensions, Network File SYstem, Streams and the >Macintosh Toolbox, plus functions for automatic booting and recovery. >That leaves users with 10 M-bytes of free disk space [Ouch again! jdw]. >By preconfiguring the disk, Apple hopes to spare users from hiring UNIX gurus. I've heard rumors of a 68030 workstation from Apollo priced under $5,000, due out some time this year. Considering that Apollo supports BSD4.3, System V.3, X windows, NFS, a sophisticated user interface management system that you can use to build mac-like interfaces, network computing (an implementation of course-grained parallel computing using workstations on the network as parallel processors), and that Apollo supports an AT bus (so that you can add cheap peripherals) and bundles in your choice of an Ethernet or token ring board, I wonder if Apple will be forced to drop their Mac II prices. Or would people be willing to pay a premium just because it's a Macintosh? Brian ====== Brian K. Martin, M.D. 3420-A Hinahina Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 PHONE: (808) 735-5661 ARPA: uhccux!medix!martin@nosc.MIL UUCP: { ihnp4,ucbvax,dcdwest,uunet }!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!medix!martin
wrp@biochsn.acc.virginia.edu (William R. Pearson) (02/17/88)
The thing to remember about a MacII, as opposed to a Sun 3/50 or Sun 3/60, is that it is an expandable machine with a bus. (One should also consider that the cost of a Sun 3/60 with a 144 Mbyte drive and 8 Meg memory + tape is around $19,000 list, let's not compare Apple list prices with Sun discounted prices). If you want to get a Sun with any kind of expansion capability, you have to buy a $25,000 (list) machine. While Apple is going to have to come up with some way to let people buy A/UX without purchasing an 80 Mbyte disk (since people are using 300 Mbyte Wren IVs which cost around $3K), Apple's list prices are NOT out of line with other 68020 offerings, especially for machines with busses. The prices are farther out of line compared to an IBM PS/2-80 or a Compaq 386/20 with Xenix/Unix/AIS, but again, not so far out of line compared to those manufacturer's list prices. The problem(?) is that no manufacturer can compete with a $5000 no-name 386 clone with a 100 Mbyte drive and Xenix/Unix. But those machines do not offer a standard graphics interface, the potential to run Mac programs, or the support of a major manufacturer. I wonder how many of the net-readers pay list price for any of these products? Comparing Apple list to Sun/IBM/clone discount is a bit unfair. Bill Pearson wrp@virginia.EDU
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/17/88)
>I've heard rumors of a 68030 workstation from Apollo priced under $5,000, due >out some time this year. >Considering that Apollo supports BSD4.3, System V.3, >X windows, >NFS, well, sort of. >a sophisticated user interface management system that you can >use to build mac-like interfaces, network computing (an implementation of >course-grained parallel computing using workstations on the network as parallel >processors), and that Apollo supports an AT bus (so that you can add cheap >peripherals) and bundles in your choice of an Ethernet or token ring board, >I wonder if Apple will be forced to drop their Mac II prices. Or would people >be willing to pay a premium just because it's a Macintosh? I very much doubt it. Two reasons. One, Apollo's don't run Mac software. A/UX runs a good number of them (I've seen, for instance, Pixel Paint run on A/UX on Unix files. Wait until you see SFGetFile on a Unix filesystem!). Second, considering the cost of the 030's, it'd be hard to believe that a company could come out with an 030 based system that's be cheaper initially than their 020 based system. The basic problem with a low end Unix box is that, except for A/UX, they don't have the caliber of office software available that the mac does. Lots of people are going to buy Mac's because they can run Unix AND Excel/Word/PageMaker/etc... it allows them to get rid of one of their machines. It used to be you had a Unix box for company work, and the Pc/Mac to do the management stuff. That isn't necessary any more. Until the low end boxes have mac caliber software, it's going to be VERY hard for them to go in after Mac environments. The low end unix box is good for low end unix. It isn't terribly good for spreadsheets, word processing, etc. The Mac2/AUX is probably more likely to suck out sales from the low end of the other manufacturers simply because it can run both Unix AND Mac stuff, not the other way around. I'd LOVE to have sun's at home. I use Mac's because I can't do what I want to do on Sun's -- write and publish words. They're great workstations, but vi/emacs/etc don't cut it. So I love my Sun at work, I love my Macs at home. And I don't expect that to change any time soon, except maybe I'll get lucky and go to Mac2's and A/UX at home.... chuq (and some folks would happily pay a premium to avoid Apollos....) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ What do you mean 'You don't really want to hurt her?' I'm a Super-Villain! That's my Schtick!
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (02/18/88)
In article <42143@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Until the low end boxes have mac caliber software, it's going to be VERY >hard for them to go in after Mac environments. The low end unix box is good >for low end unix. It isn't terribly good for spreadsheets, word processing, >etc. The Mac2/AUX is probably more likely to suck out sales from the low end >of the other manufacturers simply because it can run both Unix AND Mac >stuff, not the other way around. I'd LOVE to have sun's at home. I use Mac's >because I can't do what I want to do on Sun's -- write and publish words. >They're great workstations, but vi/emacs/etc don't cut it. So I love my Sun >at work, I love my Macs at home. And I don't expect that to change any time >soon, except maybe I'll get lucky and go to Mac2's and A/UX at home.... > It's odd that Chuck would think this way. My feeling is that A/UX will not be popular with either Mac or Unix people. If I wanted a Unix, I would buy a Sun. I would not buy A/UX for my MacII. AU/X is not as good a Unix as a Sun and it is not as good a Macintosh as a Macintosh running its own OS. I would get LESS of Unix and Macintosh than I wanted. I wish Apple (or better yet, Sun) had developed a Unix add-in card with really good file system integration, so that I could have both systems without having to buy two boxes, and without having to deal with an Frankensteinian stitched-together combination of Unix and the Mac OS. With Sun's recent accord with AT&T I see no reason to settle for less than what is the acknowledged standard in Unix OSs, and I see no reason to ask for compatibility woes for my Macintosh software. Lastly, I don't have a need to apply Macintosh software to Unix files by running that software on a Unix system. I would prefer to use a network and take advantage of the really very good provisions for foreign file systems built into both Unix and the Mac OS. I would also bet that A/UX will be at least one step behind both the Mac OS and SunOS in acquiring the latest and best features of both those systems. And what will happen when Apple's next-generation OS debuts? Will they fold that into Unix as well? It all seems like much more hassle than the it is worth. So when can I order the SPARC board for my Mac II? -Zigurd -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Zigurd Mednieks MURSU Corporation (617)424-0146 25 Exeter Street Boston, MA 02116
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (02/18/88)
In article <1575@uhccux.UUCP>, martin@uhccux.UUCP (Brian Martin) writes: > I've heard rumors of a 68030 workstation from Apollo priced under $5,000, due > out some time this year. Considering that Apollo supports BSD4.3, System V.3, > X windows, NFS, a sophisticated user interface management system that you can > use to build mac-like interfaces, network computing (an implementation of I use Apollos. I am not impressed *at* *all* with their BSD and SYS 5 implementations, in fact I am extremely disappointed in their implementation. I use SR 9.6 and it is full of problems...a normal user can kill a root owned process(!!), tcp/ip is fraught with problems, cron requires a kluge to make it work, Unix/Aegis permission conflict ... as a person who tries not to get fooled twice...I will pass on any 68030 Apollo...besides what are you going to do when (RUMOR IN PROGRESS) Sun releases their SPARC PC :) . (Sparc can continue to be scaled upwards...it now runs between 7-10 MIPS, while the 68030 will remain the 68030). > course-grained parallel computing using workstations on the network as parallel > processors), and that Apollo supports an AT bus (so that you can add cheap > peripherals) and bundles in your choice of an Ethernet or token ring board, Since tcp/ip is great at locking up your pttys your ethernet board may be of short term use. > I wonder if Apple will be forced to drop their Mac II prices. Or would people > be willing to pay a premium just because it's a Macintosh? I bought sun...but i would take a Mac II with A/UX over an Apollo any day to save me the grief.
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (02/18/88)
In article <1575@uhccux.UUCP> uhccux!medix!martin (Brian K. Martin, M.D.) writes: >I've heard rumors of a 68030 workstation from Apollo priced under $5,000, due >out some time this year. Considering that Apollo supports BSD4.3, System V.3, >X windows, NFS, a sophisticated user interface management system that you can >use to build mac-like interfaces, network computing (an implementation of >course-grained parallel computing using workstations on the network as parallel >processors), and that Apollo supports an AT bus (so that you can add cheap >peripherals) and bundles in your choice of an Ethernet or token ring board, >I wonder if Apple will be forced to drop their Mac II prices. Or would people >be willing to pay a premium just because it's a Macintosh? That's exactly it. Remember, your Mac II running A/UX can also run real live useful applications as well (not that Unix isn't useful, but...). The Apollo, on the other hand, runs what in the way of software? I don't know, but it sure ain't as good as Illustrator, PageMaker, etc., etc. And please, no flames from the TeX/troff junkies... :-) To paraphrase Mr. Oster, "A Mac II makes a poor Apollo, and an Apollo makes a poor Mac II." By the way, the only "sophisticated user interface management system" I've seen running on an Apollo (or a Sun for that matter) looks suspiciously like multiple color windows with lots of scrolling text in them. Whoopee! :-) -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (02/19/88)
In article <250@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, wrp@biochsn.acc.virginia.edu (William R. Pearson) writes: > The thing to remember about a MacII, as opposed to a Sun 3/50 > or Sun 3/60, is that it is an expandable machine with a bus. (One True. Although the Sun 3/60 is expandable to 24 megabytes of memory. I bought my Sun because I wanted a Unix machine...I like Macs but I would never invest in a Mac II ... it's a machine looking for a niche. I would probably pick up an SE. I am impressed with Plus and SE. There relativily cheap and would do the things I would need. The Mac II is no Unix workstation. On the low end the 3/50 with 141 meg is also a decent machine...a 3/50 + 141 meg disk + Mac Plus < Mac II. > should also consider that the cost of a Sun 3/60 with a 144 Mbyte > drive and 8 Meg memory + tape is around $19,000 list, let's not whoa! i don't have my sun price list handy but...for $14,900+450=$15,350 gets you : --------------------- (I forget but for an additional 1-2K you can get the 141 mbyte disk. Subtract $1-2K for monochrome.) Hardware : A Sun 3/60 *20 Mhz 68020 *16" color (1152x900), (monochrome is cheaper - still 1152x900) 1 bit bw (hi rez mono also available -1600x1280, don't know the price) 1 bit bw *8 bitplanes, *4 meg ram, *71 mbyte disk, *60 Meg tape drive, *Ethernet card *Naturally FPU and MMU *DMA *optical mouse :) Software *SunOS (Unix), *Fortran, *C, *Pascal, *Suntools (clock, defaultsedit,lock, perf,mouse editor, mail, iconeditor, shelltools,fonttool, dbxtool (mouse based debugger based on dbx) etc.), Customizable menu system. *nroff Unix tools (that all those PC-based Unix guys like to unbundle) *Libraries (all the usual Unix stuff) *SunView library(2D CGI-based primitives) and *SunView II libraries based on NeWS/X (summer-fall) *SunCore library (3D Core standard,handle rotation transforms, etc) *NeWS library will be standard in NeWS/X (summer-fall) *X11 library will be standard in NeWS/X (summer-fall) *X11 is available from MIT now ($150 or free) *NeWS (now optional $100 will become standard) *postscript shell *postscript previewer *NeWS server *etc. *NFS (Network File System - networking software) Documentation *FULL* the Unix documentation plus Sun's documentation : primers on Unix, Suntools, SunPro, etc. --------------------- I am probably forgetting something. I should mention that Sun is rumored to have a Sun 386 pending arrival relatively soon. Okay take the above prices and now begin discounting...:) To do any type of development (except maybe Mac OS) I would buy Sun. The Sun 3/60 is comparable in performance to Apollo's new high/low end DN 4000...but the software, documentation and hardware is much better in my opinion. > compare Apple list prices with Sun discounted prices). If you want As can be seen the prices quoted seem pretty much in line with Sun list prices. Sun is extremely competitive and your University/Company probably get discounts on the order 20-40% - for all i know more. > to get a Sun with any kind of expansion capability, you have to buy > a $25,000 (list) machine. While Apple is going to have to come up Again, it depends on what you want to do...for example the NuBus from Apple typically has some very expensive 24 bit graphics cards. Their aren't yet a whole lot of things out. The VME bus (what Apple SHOULD have gone with, instead of their 10Mhz bus) has alot more going for it. LISP coprocessors, frame grabbers, graphics coprocessors, etc. Apple played some games in the design of their NuBus...(read the Mac Today article recently written on the Mac NuBus to get more information). Incidentally the recent announcement of the Sun 4/110 (low high end -7 MIPS) at under 19K bodes well for Sun dropping their Sun 4 line prices... > with some way to let people buy A/UX without purchasing an 80 Mbyte > disk (since people are using 300 Mbyte Wren IVs which cost around > $3K), Apple's list prices are NOT out of line with other 68020 > offerings, especially for machines with busses. Except with no DMA, > The prices are farther out of line compared to an IBM PS/2-80 > or a Compaq 386/20 with Xenix/Unix/AIS, but again, not so far out > of line compared to those manufacturer's list prices. The problem(?) > is that no manufacturer can compete with a $5000 no-name 386 clone with > a 100 Mbyte drive and Xenix/Unix. But those machines do not offer > a standard graphics interface, the potential to run Mac programs, > or the support of a major manufacturer. Again what impact 386 Sun running Unix with all or most of the above??? > I wonder how many of the net-readers pay list price for > any of these products? Comparing Apple list to Sun/IBM/clone discount Again the price I gave, I believe is list. (i'm-sure-i'll-here-if-its-not) -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Opinions expressed are my own. No one else would have them. --------------------------------------------------------------------
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (02/19/88)
In article <330@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: > That's exactly it. Remember, your Mac II running A/UX can also run real live > useful applications as well (not that Unix isn't useful, but...). The Apollo, > on the other hand, runs what in the way of software? I don't know, but it > sure ain't as good as Illustrator, PageMaker, etc., etc. And please, no > flames from the TeX/troff junkies... :-) Both Apollo and Sun run desktop publishing packages that make PageMaker and Illustrator look positively primitive, ever heard of FrameMaker and Interleaf? Ever see these on a 1600x1280 screen? If you live at all in a technical world - which clearly it doesn't sound like you do - Apollos and Suns run *lots* of engineering, CAD/CAM, medical applications. Have you ever seen NeWS (ever seen a circular window?). Get serious the Mac II has a *long* way to go before ever being considered an "engineering workstation" let alone a workstation. > > To paraphrase Mr. Oster, "A Mac II makes a poor Apollo, and an Apollo makes a > poor Mac II." > By the way, the only "sophisticated user interface management system" >I've seen > running on an Apollo (or a Sun for that matter) looks >suspiciously like multiple color windows with lots of scrolling text in them. >Whoopee! :-) You mean like Mac's Word. You don't seem to know a whole lot about workstations generally. It might be worthwhile to check out "Ideas", ComputerVisions CAD 4X, etc. NeWS on the Sun is a networkable window system that *understands* postscript. You can preview postscript graphics, etc. *I'm sorry, I suddenly am beginning to understand...go back to your Missile Attack game on your Mac* :)
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (02/19/88)
| In article <42143@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | Until the low end boxes have mac caliber software, it's going to be VERY | hard for them to go in after Mac environments. The low end unix box is good | for low end unix. It isn't terribly good for spreadsheets, word processing, | etc. The Mac2/AUX is probably more likely to suck out sales from the low end | of the other manufacturers simply because it can run both Unix AND Mac | stuff, not the other way around. | In article <8184@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: | It's odd that Chuck would think this way. My feeling is that A/UX will | not be popular with either Mac or Unix people. If I wanted a Unix, | I would buy a Sun. I would not buy A/UX for my MacII. AU/X is not as | good a Unix as a Sun and it is not as good a Macintosh as a Macintosh | running its own OS. I would get LESS of Unix and Macintosh than I | wanted. Well, I'm a Unix people, and I found that I could have almost anything that I actually **use** on unix on a mac, even before A/UX. In the process of laying groundwork for A/UX, Apple made MPW sufficiently Unix-like that porting simple programs was trivial. The worst time I had was porting wart (a yacc-like DFA compiler), because I had brain-damaged it in a port to a customer's MuSh-DOS box. That took an extra 10 to 20 minutes... I seriously expect that A/UX will deliver more ease of use to experienced Unix programmers than Sun (I've used both: horses for courses). I also seriously believe that many Mac-specific programs will run under A/UX, and will be welcomed by Unix programmers. --dave (you mean you **like** dbx?) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
ephraim@think.COM (ephraim vishniac) (02/19/88)
In article <1686@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >Both Apollo and Sun run desktop publishing packages that make >PageMaker and Illustrator look positively primitive, ever heard of >FrameMaker and Interleaf? Yes. My boss has Interleaf on his Mac II. I've got it here on my Sun, too, and it drives me nuts in both implementations. Can you say "random menu structure"? Why is it that menus with many of the same commands have them in different orders, or even in different sub-menus? Interleaf (or "Interloss" as one of my co-workers calls it) does some things very well, but it has serious flaws. >Have you ever seen NeWS (ever seen a circular window?). No, I haven't seen NeWS, and Yes, I've seen a circular window. I've got a program for the Mac that includes WDEF's for a circular window, windows with holes in them, and other kinds of bizarre windows. You can paste them into existing applications (or your system file). No sweat. Hasn't caught on though. What use is a circular window? >Get serious the Mac II has a *long* way to go before ever being >considered an "engineering workstation" let alone a workstation. By you, certainly so. But we already knew that. Ephraim Vishniac ephraim@think.com Thinking Machines Corporation / 245 First Street / Cambridge, MA 02142-1214
wrp@biochsn.acc.virginia.edu (William R. Pearson) (02/19/88)
I am reading this article on a SUN3/50 with a 71 Mbyte disk, 60 Mbyte tape cartridge, and 4 Meg of memory that costs (list) about $10000. I think that it is great for unix software development, reading news, and ftp'ing stuff across the country. At home I have a MacII, and I suppose that if I bought it this week with A/UX, and then added a tape drive, (which A/UX does not currently support I read) it would cost a little more than $10,000. I don't have A/UX, but I love my Mac. Before I got the machine, I had no idea how much I needed programs that saved pictures in a common format (PICT), and editors that could combine documents with this format. Writing programs for the Mac is an incredible pain, but once they work, and then use PICT windows or text windows that can be copied to other places, they are great. I can't do anything like that with my sun. So an earlier observation is certainly correct, a sun makes a poor MacII and a MacII makes a poor sun. But I am happy with my MacII, and would buy it over the sun, because it will take a lot less to get the MacII to become a (albeit 80%) sun than it will to get the sun to become a MacII. (And it is not at all clear how useful my Sun would be without the $200,000 of University network support). Bill Pearson wrp@virginia
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (02/20/88)
In article <1686@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >Both Apollo and Sun run desktop publishing packages that make PageMaker and >Illustrator look positively primitive, ever heard of FrameMaker and Interleaf? >Ever see these on a 1600x1280 screen? If you live at all in a technical >world - which clearly it doesn't sound like you do - Apollos and Suns run >*lots* of engineering, CAD/CAM, medical applications. Have you ever seen >NeWS (ever seen a circular window?). Get serious the Mac II has a *long* >way to go before ever being considered an "engineering workstation" let >alone a workstation. Never said it compared as a workstation. But circular windows... gee! I guess I'm wrong -- Sun's have it all over Mac's for serious work... You Sun guys take everything so seriously... chill out. And I thought people here in NY were tense. Actually, for serious typesetting, I'll take troff or TeX on our Pyramids any day. 10 MIPS? Whoopee! My thumb is on my nose and I'm wiggling my fingers... Have a nice day... [ :-), in case you still don't get it. ] -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
eric@hector.UUCP (Eric Lavitsky) (02/20/88)
In article <1686@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP writes: >In article <330@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >> That's exactly it. Remember, your Mac II running A/UX can also run real live >> useful applications as well (not that Unix isn't useful, but...). The Apollo, >> on the other hand, runs what in the way of software? I don't know, but it >> sure ain't as good as Illustrator, PageMaker, etc., etc. And please, no >> flames from the TeX/troff junkies... :-) >Both Apollo and Sun run desktop publishing packages that make PageMaker and >Illustrator look positively primitive, ever heard of FrameMaker and Interleaf? >Ever see these on a 1600x1280 screen? If you live at all in a technical >world - which clearly it doesn't sound like you do - Apollos and Suns run >*lots* of engineering, CAD/CAM, medical applications. Have you ever seen >NeWS (ever seen a circular window?). Get serious the Mac II has a *long* >way to go before ever being considered an "engineering workstation" let >alone a workstation. Er, you may be right, but your basis isn't completely correct... Interleaf runs on a Mac II - I saw it at DEXPO yesterday. A Mac II (probably a vanilla Mac as well) can have circular windows - I also saw it at DEXPO yesterday (yea, a round clock on the Mac Desktop - neat!). But I'm an Amiga fan, so what the hell - I'd sorely like to have a 19 inch color hi-res monitor (my heart lusts for one), but for now I'll settle with the 13 inch 1Kx800 monitor that CBM is beta testing now... >NeWS on the Sun is a networkable window system that *understands* >postscript. You can preview postscript graphics, etc. No reason why it couldn't be ported to run under A/UX ... >*I'm sorry, I suddenly am beginning to understand...go back to your >Missile Attack game on your Mac* :) It's not nice to talk down to people on the net ;-) Eric ARPA: eric@topaz.rutgers.edu "Lithium is no longer available UUCP: ...{wherever!}ulysses!eric on credit..." ...{wherever!}rutgers!topaz!eric - from Buckaroo Banzai SNAIL: 34 Maplehurst Ln, Piscataway, NJ 08854
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (02/20/88)
In article <16937@think.UUCP>, ephraim@think.COM (ephraim vishniac) writes: > Yes. My boss has Interleaf on his Mac II. I've got it here on my Sun, > too, and it drives me nuts in both implementations. Can you say Actually, I use interleaf on an Apollo...i find it useful. On a 1600x1280 screen it would be even better. Having looked at Frame on a Sun, both still are much better than Pagemaker for documentation. Frame should not even be compared to Pagemaker. > "random menu structure"? Why is it that menus with many of the > same commands have them in different orders, or even in different > sub-menus? Interleaf (or "Interloss" as one of my co-workers calls > it) does some things very well, but it has serious flaws. I will agree with you on the peculiar user interface scheme Interleaf chooses. Though I would much rather work in Interleaf than Pagemaker. Frame seems far beyond both. Incidentally most of the people I know seem to work rather productivily in Interleaf. > > >Have you ever seen NeWS (ever seen a circular window?). > > No, I haven't seen NeWS, and Yes, I've seen a circular window. I've > got a program for the Mac that includes WDEF's for a circular window, > windows with holes in them, and other kinds of bizarre windows. You > can paste them into existing applications (or your system file). No > sweat. Hasn't caught on though. What use is a circular window? Oh. No I'm not talking about a game. NeWS is a *networking* window system that is viewed by most unjaundiced eyes to be superior to X11. NeWS is entirely Postscript based and as such has a postscript shell, postscript previewer, etc. The Postscript extensions Sun put into NeWS make it an object-oriented, NeWS should be hitting the Mac world soon in the form of a port for A/UX (multi-tasking networking) and a port for Mac OS (non-multi-tasking). If you follow the discussions in comp.windows.misc much discussion has centered on NeWS and X11. I think when it does, it will be extremely popular.
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (02/23/88)
In article <1690@ssc-vax.UUCP>, benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: > ... I'm not talking about a game. > NeWS is a *networking* window system that is viewed by most ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > unjaundiced eyes to be superior to X11. NeWS is entirely Postscript ^^^^^^^^^^ > based and as such has a postscript shell, postscript previewer, etc. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ > The Postscript extensions Sun put into NeWS make it an object-oriented, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > NeWS should be hitting the Mac world soon in the form of a port for > A/UX (multi-tasking networking) and a port for Mac OS (non-multi-tasking). > If you follow the discussions in comp.windows.misc much discussion has > centered on NeWS and X11. I think when it does, it will be extremely > popular. Only, I hope, if they fix the bugs. The initial release rivals MicroSoft Word 3.0 in flakyness. These two products make me wonder whether all the stuff I teach students about the importance of reliability is wrong. The market seems to like bells and whistles more than quality. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Radford Neal PS: Doesn't anyone but me think that Word 3.01 is *still* flaky? My favourite is its occasional tendency to crash if you customize the menus - you then can't start Word until you delete its settings file from your system folder. Don't tell me it works for you - *most* of its bugs are non-deterministic. I think they clear random bits in their idle routine just to keep the users hopping :-) (or is that hoping? hyping? ...)
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (02/29/88)
PS: Doesn't anyone but me think that Word 3.01 is *still* flaky? My
favourite is its occasional tendency to crash if you customize the
menus - you then can't start Word until you delete its settings file
from your system folder. Don't tell me it works for you - *most* of
its bugs are non-deterministic. I think they clear random bits in
their idle routine just to keep the users hopping :-) (or is that
hoping? hyping? ...)
Radford Neal
I have noticed that almost everytime something goes wrong under multifinder
one of two programs has been, or is, running:
Microsoft Word 3.01
or
NCSA Telnet 2.1
The combination is especially deadly. These two are especially sneaky in that
they hardly ever crash while running, but lead to cursor freezing and other odd
behavior in otherwise well behaved programs. The worst example is:
Run Telnet for a while, log out, quit Telnet, start Word, do a few things,
freeze up.
No fun at all. I can hardly wait till things start REALLY working under
Multifinder.
--
Michael Lonetto UUCP:(allegra!phri!lonetto)
Dept of Applied Genetics
Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/29/88)
>PS: Doesn't anyone but me think that Word 3.01 is *still* flaky? > My > favourite is its occasional tendency to crash if you customize the > menus - you then can't start Word until you delete its settings file > from your system folder. Don't tell me it works for you - *most* of > its bugs are non-deterministic. I run thousands of words a month through Word 3.01 with heavily customized menus, and I've never had it crash. >I have noticed that almost everytime something goes wrong under multifinder >one of two programs has been, or is, running: > >Microsoft Word 3.01 Word 3.01 is not completely Multifinder compatible. It'lll hang up other programs running in the background (especially nasty when the background process is Red Ryder doing a download). it won't deal with the Multifinder icon on the menubar properly. But I've yet to crash it. Are you running it in the insanely small memory partition the SIZE resource gives it? Try putting it in a 640K or larger partition and I'll bet your Word problems go away. The first serious word processor that is MultiFinder compatible will get my business. I can't afford a program that doesn't cooperate..... The only question is whether it'll be Word 4.0 or FullWrite.... Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. Ken Olson, President, Digital Equipment, 1977
pgn@usceast.UUCP (Paul Nevai) (03/01/88)
My Word 3.01 almost always crashes when (i) saving user dictionaries and (ii) saving glossaries. Otherwise it's OK. Paul Nevai N410106@univscvm.BITNET (PREFERRED) Carolina Research Professor ...\!usceast\!pgn.UUCP Department of Mathematics pgn@cs.scarolina.edu.CSNET University of South Carolina 73057,172.Compu$erve Columbia, S.C. 29208 1-(803)-777-3776.office U.S.A. 1-(803)-777-4226.secy