derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) (03/27/91)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 & ATM 1.0 problem Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.lang.postscript In comp.lang.postscript you write: >I just finished the installation of the ATM (I checked the atm.txt >file said it is 1.0 although it cam with the Times New Roman and Gill >Sans fonts) that came with Pagemaker 4.0 along with the ~100 fonts >from cica.cica.indiana.edu (pub/pc/win3/fonts). Boy was it a pain in >the butt to modify the win.ini file to support automatic downloading >of those additional fonts. I know that you don't want to hear this but.....you are obviously a talented computer professional that finds modification of the init and configuration files in the MS-DOS world a "pain in the butt". I was in your same place a year ago or so, forever fighting to get my MS-DOS machine to do what I wanted it to do. I finally did the right thing and bought a different computer. ATM on this computer only required placing the necessary files in a single directory and rebooting the computer. I have 40 adobe font families and they all work just fine together. ALL of my programs can (without any reconfiguration) utilize all these fonts. Life is good and it was so easy. Of couse on this computer system changing many things like this, printer drivers, fonts, accessories, and other pieces of auto loading software is just as easy. Just copy it from the floppy to the hard disk and, voila, any and all applications can gain access to these common resources. COMMON RESOURCES, this appears to be the most efficient way for computers to operate. MicroSoft Windows is heading that way....but only if you have the updated programs....and the latest system...now that will mean how much money?....where do these files need to be?.....what was the name of that path?....christ, I misspelled it again...oh, and about the config.sys...or was it the exec.bat....or win.ini....hell, never mind......you need to have a degree in CS to get a handle on this thing..... need a bigger hard drive....what type of controller is it? .....must partition it.....3-1/2", shit I need 5-1/4"... ..THIS is the computer for the masses?.....rm *.*.. ....damn.....the file name is docsub12.txt....what was in that again?......8 characters only file names are a "pain in the butt".... Can you guess the name of my computer system? Remember that you are a computer professional, don't go off and start flaming, treat this as a professional discussion. -- = John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Group = = e-mail: ...uunet!motcid!derosaj, motcid!derosaj@uunet.uu.net = = Applelink: N1111 = =I do not hold by employer responsible for any information in this message =
tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) (03/27/91)
In article <6078@crystal9.UUCP>, derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes: >Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 & ATM 1.0 problem >Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.lang.postscript > >In comp.lang.postscript you write: > >>I just finished the installation of the ATM (I checked the atm.txt >>file said it is 1.0 although it cam with the Times New Roman and Gill >>Sans fonts) that came with Pagemaker 4.0 along with the ~100 fonts >>from cica.cica.indiana.edu (pub/pc/win3/fonts). Boy was it a pain in >>the butt to modify the win.ini file to support automatic downloading >>of those additional fonts. > >I know that you don't want to hear this but.....you are obviously >a talented computer professional that finds modification of the >init and configuration files in the MS-DOS world a "pain in the >butt". I was in your same place a year ago or so, forever fighting >to get my MS-DOS machine to do what I wanted it to do. > >I finally did the right thing and bought a different computer. > > [complaits censored] > >.....damn.....the file name is docsub12.txt....what was >in that again?......8 characters only file names are >a "pain in the butt".... > >Can you guess the name of my computer system? Remember >that you are a computer professional, don't go off >and start flaming, treat this as a professional discussion. >-- >= John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Group = >= e-mail: ...uunet!motcid!derosaj, motcid!derosaj@uunet.uu.net = >= Applelink: N1111 = ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Therein lies the clue. He's clearly got a Macintosh and is simply pleased as punch with himself. I don't know about others, but I'd rather not spend $10,000 to make John Scully or whoever is in charge over at Apple rich. I'd rather spend $2,000 on a nice 386 machine, splurge the $80 for windows and use the $8,000 to buy a car. Besides, who wants to own a computer that wipes your butt for you, anyway? Oops. I flew off the handle. Begin professional discussion: I believe Macintoshes to be overpriced and though they are fine for some people, I'd rather have the raw power of my IBM compatible that I can configure any which way I want than be forced into doing things with (I can hardly bear to type it) GUI. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Adam Goldberg Bitnet: tabu6@ISUVAX.BITNET + + Iowa State University Internet: tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU + + H: (515) 233-5135 + "It's simple! Even a Pascal programmer could do it!" + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
betsey@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar27.030224.20622@news.iastate.edu> tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: >In article <6078@crystal9.UUCP>, derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes: >>Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 & ATM 1.0 problem >>Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.lang.postscript >> > [ramblin's of a MacWeeny deleted (oops, there i go..)] >>Can you guess the name of my computer system? Remember >>that you are a computer professional, don't go off >>and start flaming, treat this as a professional discussion. >>-- >>= John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Group = >>= e-mail: ...uunet!motcid!derosaj, motcid!derosaj@uunet.uu.net = >>= Applelink: N1111 = > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Therein lies the clue. > >He's clearly got a Macintosh and is simply pleased as punch with himself. I >don't know about others, but I'd rather not spend $10,000 to make John Scully >or whoever is in charge over at Apple rich. I'd rather spend $2,000 on a nice >386 machine, splurge the $80 for windows and use the $8,000 to buy a car. > >Besides, who wants to own a computer that wipes your butt for you, anyway? > >Oops. I flew off the handle. > >Begin professional discussion: > >I believe Macintoshes to be overpriced and though they are fine for some >people, I'd rather have the raw power of my IBM compatible that I can configure >any which way I want than be forced into doing things with (I can hardly bear >to type it) GUI. > >+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >+ Adam Goldberg Bitnet: tabu6@ISUVAX.BITNET + >+ Iowa State University Internet: tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU + >+ H: (515) 233-5135 >+ "It's simple! Even a Pascal programmer could do it!" + >+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Amen to that, Adam! I've been fighting with my MacFriends about this for a long time...but you forgot to mention beautiful *full-color* graphics for a mere *fraction* of the MacPrice....:-) /betsey Follow men's eyes as they look to the skies The shifting shafts of shining weave the fabric of their dreams...
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (03/27/91)
betsey@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) writes: >Amen to that, Adam! I've been fighting with my MacFriends about >this for a long time...but you forgot to mention beautiful >*full-color* graphics for a mere *fraction* of the >MacPrice....:-) > It appears that Apple hasn't been advertising their new machines enough. The PC-bigots still have some misconceptions about Mac prices. A Mac LC can be had for $2,000. That includes a _color_ monitor that has onboard video support for 256 colors, 2 MB RAM, and a 40 MB SCSI HD along with the keyboard. Its rough analog in the PC world would be a 16 MhZ 386SX. A Dell 316SX (to take a fairly reputable clone maker as an example) has 40 MB, VGA Color Plus (16 colors at full 640 x 480 resolution) and 2 MB of RAM, all for $2,099 (March 4 PC week prices). You can save a couple hundred bucks by buying from Joe Blow's computers 'n' stuff if you feel lucky. The Mac come bundled with the System software, a mouse, and HyperCard (add $150 for PC-equivilent). It has a built-in SCSI port. A complete computer-phobe can unbox it and get it running in under two hours. It has simple built-in networking that can connect small groups and share printers and files for under $30 per station. The Mac software base is larger than the Windows software base. Is this mere *fraction* of a PC price greater than one or less than one? :-) For all their "Windows-is-just-as-good-as-Mac" rhetoric, the PC folks are still being dragged kicking and screaming into the GUI world. They grump about using it, call into doubt the manhood/womanhood of anyone who does, and generally long for the good 'ol days when they could explain to a befuddled user the difference between COPY and XCOPY--don't forget, you need the /S switch for XCOPY to work on subdirectores. Don McGregor |"You can fall for chains of silver/You can fall for mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| chains of gold/You can fall for pretty strangers/ | And the promises they hold..."
betsey@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar27.091029.18566@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes: >betsey@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) writes: >>Amen to that, Adam! I've been fighting with my MacFriends about >>this for a long time...but you forgot to mention beautiful >>*full-color* graphics for a mere *fraction* of the >>MacPrice....:-) >> > It appears that Apple hasn't been advertising their new machines > enough. The PC-bigots still have some misconceptions about Mac > prices. > [MacDrivel deleted] >Don McGregor |"You can fall for chains of silver/You can fall for >mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| chains of gold/You can fall for pretty strangers/ > | And the promises they hold..." Look, Donnie, I admit that Macs have advantages over PC's for *some* things. They definitely have the GUI down pat, among other things. However, I still stand by my ALR 20386DT, and will. If I wanted to hear how wonderful Macs were, I would read Macintosh newsgroups or talk to one of my MacUser friends. However, I am here to read about the wonderful world of IBMs and clones, so please keep your MacSh*t out of here. Thanks. /betsey Follow men's eyes as they look to the skies The shifting shafts of shining weave the fabric of their dreams...
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/28/91)
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: > The Mac come bundled with the System software, a mouse, and And what a shitty mouse it is, too! > For all their "Windows-is-just-as-good-as-Mac" rhetoric, the > PC folks are still being dragged kicking and screaming into > the GUI world. They grump about using it, call into doubt > the manhood/womanhood of anyone who does, and generally long Actually, I think the Mac has some really neat features to it. Some of it is magic to me. How does the system know where to get the application to run when you select a data file? It seems you can move applications around and the data files can still be launched! -- US Supreme Court: confessions extracted under torture are admissible.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.061608.23203@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> betsey@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) writes: >Amen to that, Adam! I've been fighting with my MacFriends about >this for a long time...but you forgot to mention beautiful >*full-color* graphics for a mere *fraction* of the >MacPrice....:-) > >/betsey probably an improper fraction. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/28/91)
derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes: >I finally did the right thing and bought a different computer. How much did it cost you, anyway? Bet my MSDOS machine is cheaper! 8) >MicroSoft Windows is heading that way....but only if you >have the updated programs....and the latest system...now >that will mean how much money?....where do these files need >to be?.....what was the name of that path?....christ, I >misspelled it again...oh, and about the config.sys...or was >it the exec.bat....or win.ini....hell, never mind......you need >to have a degree in CS to get a handle on this thing..... >need a bigger hard drive....what type of controller is it? >.....must partition it.....3-1/2", shit I need 5-1/4"... >..THIS is the computer for the masses?.....rm *.*.. >....damn.....the file name is docsub12.txt....what was >in that again?......8 characters only file names are >a "pain in the butt".... If you were having these kinds of troubles, it's good that you bought a different machine! These machines are not for the computer incompetant. (Who else would type rm *.* on a DOS machine?) >Can you guess the name of my computer system? Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much more you have to pay for disk storage, and how difficult it is to get things like a MIDI port and/or modems installed for it. Then I could guess. >Remember that you are a computer professional, don't go off >and start flaming, treat this as a professional discussion. Just as you did, no doubt. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend.
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/28/91)
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: > A Mac LC can be had for $2,000. That includes a _color_ monitor > that has onboard video support for 256 colors, 2 MB RAM, and a > 40 MB SCSI HD along with the keyboard. Its rough analog in the > PC world would be a 16 MhZ 386SX. A Dell 316SX (to take a fairly > reputable clone maker as an example) has 40 MB, VGA Color Plus > (16 colors at full 640 x 480 resolution) and 2 MB of RAM, all > for $2,099 (March 4 PC week prices). Gee...for that price I had a 386/33 with 128K cache, 8MB of memory, 110MB hard disk, a 2400 baud modem, 2 serial ports/1 parallel port, and 1024x768x256 VGA. I don't buy clones from Dell. I go direct to the clone suppliers. <big shit-eating grin> > For all their "Windows-is-just-as-good-as-Mac" rhetoric, the > PC folks are still being dragged kicking and screaming into > the GUI world. With good reason. GUIs interfere with throughput for us real professionals. I can do things at least 4 to 5 times faster without a GUI in the way. > They grump about using it, call into doubt > the manhood/womanhood of anyone who does, and generally long > for the good 'ol days when they could explain to a befuddled > user the difference between COPY and XCOPY--don't forget, you > need the /S switch for XCOPY to work on subdirectores. Now wait...I don't recommend non-GUI for anyone but us pros. Let those who want GUI have GUI...but why force those that don't want GUI to have GUI? Wouldn't that be like me forcing you to use an IBM? 8) -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend.
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.200613.4423@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >If you were having these kinds of troubles, it's good that you bought >a different machine! These machines are not for the computer incompetant. >(Who else would type rm *.* on a DOS machine?) After using MS-DOS, Mac, and UNIX machines for several years, I still made a mistake similar to the one you mention. I cannot attribute it to my own incompetency, but rather for a desire for speed and efficiency. You see, I had just created numerous temporary files in a directory named JUNK right of of the main directory on a DOS machine. Wanting to rid the drive of these now unnecessary files with as little trouble as possible, I quickly typed cd JUNK from the main directory and del *.*. The problem was, I am normally a decent touch typist, so I was not watching the screen when I made the typo in the cd command. Next thing I knew I had removed all the files off the main directory of a 70Mb Hard Drive. The point being that on the Mac, I would have simply dragged Junk (notice beautiful lowercase lettering) to the trash with NO possibility for error. >Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much > >Then I could guess. > >Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh I assume that you have never attempted desktop publishing on a PC, or simple AutoCAD illustrations (can you say FOREVER redraw on a 286), or... the list goes on. There are numerous applications where the speed of a PC is far inferior to the Mac, and these happen to be the same applications that I use on a daily basis. For instance, compare Pagemaker on a 16Mhz 68030 Mac and a 16Mhz 80386 PC, or for any medium level CAD/illustration program on the PC to programs such as Claris CAD on the Mac. There are instances of applications where the PC is faster as well, of course, but sweeping generalizations such as the one you make above are ludicrous, especially when I have found my Mac to be much faster for the above applications (not to mention other productivity gains inherent in the Mac). Jess Holle
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.200613.4423@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes: > >Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much >more you have to pay for disk storage, and how difficult it is >to get things like a MIDI port and/or modems installed for it. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Falicies MS/DOS users believe. In the real world, disk storage is not more expensive, but cheaper. If you have a 40 meg on a mac and need another, buy it for $299 and hook it up. If you want to do the same on a DOS clone, check your hard drive controller, MFM or RLL?, any open ports?, no? Buy a new controller. Reconfigure your BIOS setup. $299 seems pretty cheap, for plug and go. $399 for 105 megs. $499 for a removable 45. No way can you add that to an existing DOS system for that cheap unless your controller happens to be SCSI. In the real world, a mac user opens the modem or midi box and plugs it in (internal or external). NO DIP SWITCHES. I can't believe I'm hearing a DOS user say that hardware add ons are easier than the mac. And it's cheap, $99 for a modem and $79 for MIDI. Mac's are easier AND cheaper. Factor is real costs, like setup time, software and OS maintainance differences and there is an even greater advantage to the mac.
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.201319.4604@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >With good reason. GUIs interfere with throughput for us real professionals. >I can do things at least 4 to 5 times faster without a GUI in the way. > I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "real professionals use text interfaces" argument. I have been using computers for years on a daily basis, and have found that for the day to day needs of at least this user (and I do not consider myself a computer nitwit) command line interfaces waste enormous amounts of time. Granted, if your work consists of altering low level system parameters all day long or something of that nature, a command line interface has its advantages, but most computer users are not engaged in this type of work. For quick incorporation of calculations, graphics, and text from as many as 6 or 7 programs into a single document, the Mac interface allows a much more seamless interface. Upon discovering the need for another analysis in a report, the analysis program is but a click away. The results can then be integrated into the report without any more effort than Copy, click, Paste. I have yet to see anything in a non-GUI environment approach this efficiency. DOS offer nothing that approaches this. UNIX allows process switching with nearly equal ease, but still causes far more hassle when Copy and Paste type procedures are called for. Jess Holle
CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu (03/28/91)
Previous to the token lowering of prices by Apple, it was figurd out by a
variety of people on the comp.sys.amiga.misc net that with hardware costs,
costs of labor and other production costs, that Apple was making approximately
a 50% profit on each machine sold. With the intro of the Classic and LC, along
with price cuts (and weren't they just slashed to the bone :) that Apple now
only makes approximately a 40% profit on their machines.
Then again, Apple needs to take its consumers for everything they have in
order to be able to pay for all those lawyers. They wouldn't want to see their
monopolistic company start to fall apart as Windows 'stole' the _look and feel_
of their operating system:)
Chris Winward
userid CXW148 on psuvm.psu.eduap@deimos.caltech.edu (Alain Picard) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.221220.22757@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes... >In article <1991Mar27.201319.4604@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >> >>With good reason. GUIs interfere with throughput for us real professionals. >>I can do things at least 4 to 5 times faster without a GUI in the way. >> > >I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "real professionals use text interfaces" >argument. I have been using computers for years on a daily basis, So have I. >and have >found that for the day to day needs of at least this user (and I do not >consider myself a computer nitwit) neither do I :-) >command line interfaces waste enormous >amounts of time. Rubbish. [wonderful stuff you can do with GUI's deleted...] I use computers to analyze data, using my OWN programs (i.e. not Microsoft Excel :-) I can perform more operations in a tiny Cshell script than you can in 100 mouse clicks (guaranteed!) The bottom line is, different people have different needs, and any overgeneralization is probably wrong. Cheers! Alain Picard p.s. This message was written on a computer without a GUI, and I daresay I was fairly efficient about it ! :-)
stanger@otago.ac.nz (Nigel Stanger) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.171045.9721@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: >> The Mac come bundled with the System software, a mouse, and > > And what a shitty mouse it is, too! I agree, the old ones with the heavier ball were much better. It's interesting to see that Apple have started making mice with the heavy ball again (well, at least, *we* got one with our IIsi). Unfortunately, this one has the quirk that if you use it on a softish mouse pad, it grinds to a halt on the mouse pad. Something to do with the ridge around the ball on the bottom. You get used to it after a while though, and the problem goes away... >> For all their "Windows-is-just-as-good-as-Mac" rhetoric, the >> PC folks are still being dragged kicking and screaming into >> the GUI world. They grump about using it, call into doubt >> the manhood/womanhood of anyone who does, and generally long You'll probably find (IMHO) that it's mostly the power MS-DOS users who do the kicking and screaming :-) > Actually, I think the Mac has some really neat features to it. > Some of it is magic to me. How does the system know where to > get the application to run when you select a data file? It > seems you can move applications around and the data files > can still be launched! By a neat little feature called a *signature*. Every application has a unique (in theory) signature. Apple keeps a register of application signatures to prevent conflicts. The signature of the application is appended to every document it creates (i.e. each document knows who created it). When you open the file, the Finder grabs the application signature, looks it up in the Desktop file (which keeps a track of all the apps on the disk), goes and finds it ("Finder" get it? :-), and launches it. It's quite simple really... :-) -- See ya Nigel. /******************************************************************************\ * "If I had a quote, I'd be wearing it." * Internet: stanger@otago.ac.nz * * -- Dylan Thomas (I think) * SnailMail: Information Science, * * * University of Otago, * * "Say no MORE!!!" * P.O. Box 56, * * -- Eric Idle * Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND. * \******************************************************************************/
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (03/29/91)
stanger@otago.ac.nz (Nigel Stanger) writes: > When you open the file, the >Finder grabs the application signature, looks it up in the >Desktop file (which keeps a track of all the apps on the disk), >goes and finds it ("Finder" get it? :-), and launches it. It's >quite simple really... :-) Now WHY can't it do the same with FONTs, INITs, etc. WHY should these files be in the System Folder. I don't get it: APPLs don't need to be in "/bin" (or "MPW:Applications" :-), but all those other files have to be in a certain directory on the disk. And spare me that "subfolders of the System Folder" rubbish. I don't want all my INITs in one place (or even having to tell the System all the places they can be, i.e. I don't consider a search path a solution AT ALL): the fact that they are INITs is enough information for the System to KNOW that they are INITs. Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.171045.9721@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: >> The Mac come bundled with the System software, a mouse, and > >And what a shitty mouse it is, too! > >> For all their "Windows-is-just-as-good-as-Mac" rhetoric, the : Gentlemen: These discussions belong to alt.religion.computers. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (03/29/91)
From article <1991Mar28.173225.4282@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): > jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >>on a daily basis. For instance, compare Pagemaker on a 16Mhz 68030 Mac and >>a 16Mhz 80386 PC, or for any medium level CAD/illustration program on the PC to > > You mean a 1-bit 512x340 display with an 4-bit 800x600 display? > > Gee, I wonder why a tiny mac can redraw its screen so fast... As you yourself have said in another context: "read what was written". Do you see anything above that rules out a non-512x340 screen or a color display? -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/29/91)
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >From article <1991Mar28.173225.4282@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): >> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >>>on a daily basis. For instance, compare Pagemaker on a 16Mhz 68030 Mac and >>>a 16Mhz 80386 PC, or for any medium level CAD/illustration program on the PC to >> >> You mean a 1-bit 512x340 display vs a 4-bit 800x600 display? >> >> Gee, I wonder why a tiny mac can redraw its screen so fast... >As you yourself have said in another context: "read what was written". >Do you see anything above that rules out a non-512x340 screen or a color >display? Sure, we all know how common those color macs with big screens are. -- Gun control is elitist.
tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar28.235320.10269@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: > >>From article <1991Mar28.173225.4282@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): > >Sure, we all know how common those color macs with big screens are. > >-- >Gun control is elitist. Well I happen to have a 13" 24-bit system at home and it works quite well thank you. We also have about a 4-1 ratio (200+ machines or so) of color to non color Macs in our public clusters. (Mainly IIci's, with some IIsi's (all 8 bit) and for the 1bit machines SE's, with IIfx's doing the serving..) Todd =============================================================================== Todd A. Green "<_CyberWolf_>" --> Pascal <- InterNet: Unix Systems Administration --> Unix <--- tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu Macintosh Systems Administration --> VMS <---- tagreen@rose.ucs.indiana.edu WCC:136.04 Phone:(812) 855-0949 --> C <------ BitNet: "This is the end, my only --> Mac <---- tagreen@iubacs.BITNET friend, the end" --> NeXT <--- NeXT Mail: -Jim Morrison --> SunOS <-- tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu ===============================================================================
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/29/91)
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.200613.4423@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >> >>If you were having these kinds of troubles, it's good that you bought >>a different machine! These machines are not for the computer incompetant. >>(Who else would type rm *.* on a DOS machine?) >of a 70Mb Hard Drive. The point being that on the Mac, I would have simply >dragged Junk (notice beautiful lowercase lettering) to the trash with NO >possibility for error. Interesting. Perhaps you could have missed the trash can and had to redo the stroke? In my years of using UNIX and DOS, I have never ever typed del *.* or rm -r * lightly...not once have I made a mistake of this caliber. I guess I could never understand someone else making such a mistake. >>Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much >AutoCAD illustrations (can you say FOREVER redraw on a 286), or... the list >goes on. There are numerous applications where the speed of a PC is far >inferior to the Mac, and these happen to be the same applications that I use I see. Most of my comparisons are a 386/25 to a Mac SE. Think about it. >where the PC is faster as well, of course, but sweeping generalizations such >as the one you make above are ludicrous, especially when I have found my Mac >to be much faster for the above applications (not to mention other productivity >gains inherent in the Mac). Again, I haven't your experience with applications. My experience is directly with music apps...Finale 2.0 is at least 3 times slower on Mac. However, you can have that the Mac's are far superior to PCs. Go ahead...I'll shut up and take my obviously incorrect opinions away...and get back to computing on my inferior machine. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh People who think they know all are often insufferable. Rather like those who imagine that they know nothing.
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar28.235320.10269@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >>From article <1991Mar28.173225.4282@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): >>> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >>>>on a daily basis. For instance, compare Pagemaker on a 16Mhz 68030 Mac and >>>>a 16Mhz 80386 PC, or for any medium level CAD/illustration program on the PC to >>> >>> You mean a 1-bit 512x340 display vs a 4-bit 800x600 display? >>> >>> Gee, I wonder why a tiny mac can redraw its screen so fast... > >>As you yourself have said in another context: "read what was written". > >>Do you see anything above that rules out a non-512x340 screen or a color >>display? > >Sure, we all know how common those color macs with big screens are. Actually, the systems that I was comparing in my original post were a 13" Mac II screen in 8-bit mode vs. a PC with the same size of screen with a lower resolution and in a lower bit mode. Jess Holle
jyp@wucs1.wustl.edu (Jerome Yvon Plun) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar29.015546.24193@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: [things not related deleted] >>>Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much > >>AutoCAD illustrations (can you say FOREVER redraw on a 286), or... the list >>goes on. There are numerous applications where the speed of a PC is far >>inferior to the Mac, and these happen to be the same applications that I use > >I see. Most of my comparisons are a 386/25 to a Mac SE. Think about it. Well, as a Mac user, I am very proud to find out that you need to compare a PC with a 386 running at 25Mhz with a poor little SE having only a mere 6800 at 16MHz. Before I start getting hardware characteristics and other not very useful details if you are not playing with the raw hardware (give me a 500MHz 68070 without a computer around it and some software to use the beast and I will have a very fast paper holder :-), let me tell you that I really don't care about the fact that application X works slower on machine Y than machine Z. In fact: 1) I can buy a faster machine Z, 2) I can buy a different program that will have an inverse speed ratio, 3) A program contains more than one feature usually. Being slower for one doesn't imply to be slower for all. Can anybody dare to tell me that MS-DOS, Windows or OS/2 are _ALWAYS_ faster/slower (pick your favorite) than MacOS/Unix/Xenix/VMS/... 4) Speed is not the only characteristic of a program (a car can be a lot faster if it only has 4 tires, an engine and a steering wheel. You might beat everybody else but you might have some trouble in winter!). Similarly, would you prefer a compiler that spits out poor code very fast or a compiler that takes much longer but generates optimized code. You won't waste time waiting for your code but you might waste that time using the code later on. I would like both compilers, the fast to write run-once test routines and debugging, the slow to produce the final code. To finish, let me come back to this general trend of considering a particular machine has being above the others. Each religion tries the same approach and milleniums of religious behavior with respect to the others didn't (and are still not) leave much nice and pleasant things. Constructive and instructive informations are more interesting than "I know your computer stinks". If some Cray user were to show up and state that PCs are useless because they compute weather maps or fluid dynamics so slowly, everybody would "beat" on her/him. If the same user states that PCs are useless for supercomputing, most of us would agree but we might start looking at what computational intensive tasks a PC and a Cray can both attack. In one case, religious wars, in the other mutual exchange of information. Being an engineer, I would rather see the latter taking over the former. Just my 2 cents worth. Jerome Jerome Plun jyp@wucs1.wustl.edu // Tell me why is it so hard to say Dept of Computer Science // Brother don't you walk away Washington University // St. Louis, Mo // Hooters "Zig Zag"
ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.200613.4423@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: |derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes: |>I finally did the right thing and bought a different computer. |If you were having these kinds of troubles, it's good that you bought |a different machine! These machines are not for the computer incompetant. |(Who else would type rm *.* on a DOS machine?) Hey, I've used both. And I've seen some very competent people on DOS machines really do rm *.*. I also saw somebody do rm -r * on a Unix machine (really!). These things happen. It's just that only arrogant guys like me and you ;-) take others to task for making such errors. |>Can you guess the name of my computer system? | |Gee..I could if you tell me how much slower it runs, how much |more you have to pay for disk storage, and how difficult it is |to get things like a MIDI port and/or modems installed for it. Look, I hate to imply that you're clueless, Dave, but anybody who follows prices of Mac, DOS, Unix systems nowadays knows that Mac third party stuff is at a par with DOS, sometimes significantly better prices. Also my friends who run in a mixed Mac/DOS shop report that the Macs are much faster than comparable DOS machines. Their perceptions are their own, I know, but not out of line with comparisons I've seen in the trade mags. I have a buddy who bought an IBM PS/2 model 70 awhile back. Ran it for the longest time in base configuration. Then he was really chagrined when he found out how much he had to lay out for a (bigger) hard disk, because it had to be compatible with IBM's MCA controller. Also, he's still messing around with applications written with PharLap's extender and something like 2Mb of (real) memory. Meanwhile, I just got a price on a Fujitsu 15ms X 4.8Mb/s, 1.2Gb drive: $2800. And thanks to my PMMU and a $100 piece of software, I'm running with 14Mb of virtual memory. Sorry, guys, but I no longer consider the DOS-type computer to be the platform of choice for this power user. Oh, yes, Ethernet card (10Base T) for $200. Also, my accountant drives around with a 150Mb SCSI drive and just plugs in the Macs here in the office. She's no hacker and yet has no trouble. You can't do that with your standard AT/EISA box: where you going to plug it in? The Centronics port? Oh, look. This thing is cross-posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc. No wonder so many DOS respondents to this thread. Alright, then, please fellow flamers, accept this challenge: state how much experience/money you've spent on DOS/Mac systems when you post. Let those who have their feet in both camps relate their experiences, and let the bigots confess themselves for what they are: uninformed. Arthur Ogawa Internet: ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov Ph: 1/415/691-1126 TeX consultant AppleLink: ogawa FAX:1/415/962-1969
cs442a07@cs.iastate.edu (Sunny G) (03/29/91)
jyp@wucs1.wustl.edu (Jerome Yvon Plun) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.015546.24193@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >To finish, let me come back to this general trend of considering a particular >machine has being above the others. Each religion tries the same approach and Agree, I do. I don't have very strong opinions about most things. But this I do know. My ideal set up would be: Have both a Mac & a PC. Use the Mac for the most excellent Word Processing Capabilities. Use the PC for writing all those hundreds of little programs I think up of. Try and write software which better enables the user of a Ibm to import Mac stuff and vice-versa. I know that the Mac interface is a lot easier to use. On the other hand, sometimes its so much easier to do stuff in a shell script. Each computer has its own strong points. I would like to own both, but pricewise, the Ibm is what I have to settle for, thanx to those good old tuition blues. Of course, we could always bring in the Amiga, with its IBM/Mac/* emulators and the excellent games (and apparently some good hardware... I wouldnt know, the only Amiga experience I have is 3rd hand) Now what was I trying to say? I dunno. Sunjeev "Sunny" Gulati cs442a07@zippy.cs.iastate.edu the perpetually confused motion machine.
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/30/91)
ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa) writes: >Hey, I've used both. And I've seen some very competent people on DOS >machines really do rm *.*. I also saw somebody do rm -r * on a Unix >machine (really!). These things happen. It's just that only arrogant >guys like me and you ;-) take others to task for making such errors. Hey, *I* didn't bring this error up, did I? I was merely stating that the possibility of making a mistake is a poor foundation to build upon when judging OS systems. The judgement of which, by the way, has gotten out of hand. Publicly I say: I USE THE *WORST* OS SYSTEMS AND PLATFORMS THAT THERE COULD EVER POSSIBLY BE. There. Now we can all stop. Including me. 8) >Look, I hate to imply that you're clueless, Dave, but anybody who Then don't...OK? >follows prices of Mac, DOS, Unix systems nowadays knows that Mac third >party stuff is at a par with DOS, sometimes significantly better >prices. Like I said...please tell me where this information about pricing can be had. I have MacFreinds that would LOVE to know this!!! Right now, the best buy for the money is a 486. I imagine in about a year that will change to SPARC clones. This is *my* experience only...your mileage may vary. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh If your own vice happens to be the search for virtue, recognize that it is so.
jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) (03/30/91)
ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa) writes: > Oh, look. This thing is cross-posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc. No > wonder so many DOS respondents to this thread. Alright, then, please > fellow flamers, accept this challenge: state how much experience/money > you've spent on DOS/Mac systems when you post. Let those who have > their feet in both camps relate their experiences, and let the bigots > confess themselves for what they are: uninformed. Ghod what a bore it is listening to people flame about "My brand is super, your brand is sh*t." It's no different from listening to rednecks argue about Ford trucks vs. Chevy trucks. (Not a reflection on ogawa@orion, I thought your post was quite rational....) Any given machine will do some tasks better and some worse than another machine with a different design philosophy. I don't happen to have a Mac but if Santa Clause brought me one I sure wouldn't throw it away. I do still use and enjoy Apple products, though not Macs. (My ancient and venerable Apple II is presently tied to a Unix box via serial cable and Kermit, and is the first Apple II in the Known Universe to achieve Dhrystone 20000....) I wouldn't at this point buy any- thing else from Apple due to being mad about their damned look-and-feel lawsuits, but that's an argument with their company policies, not a gripe about their products. To accept your challenge, I have about $9000 tied up in crom2 (see the .sig below for system configuration.) I bought this stuff last spring and the same system could be had now for 2/3 what I paid, or less -- but then if I'd waited for prices to fall I'd now be a beginner at *nix instead of having a year's bloody-fingered climbing up the learning curve already behind me. In my particular case it was worth it, but certainly other people might feel differently. If it matters, I chose a 486-based box instead of a Mac a) because at that time it was possible to build an IBM-clone without using any IBM-brand parts but not possible to build a Mac-clone/Hackintosh without using Apple- brand parts (I understand this may be changing; if so, good) and b) because generic Unix was available for 486s but not for Macs (I wanted to run Unix, not something called AIX or A/UX.) Note that neither of these points has anything to do with the quality or functionality of Macs as computers. Finally, the computer I want NEXT isn't either a Mac *or* a PC. LORDY how I hope the SPARCstation clones are a success! THAT'S what I want next, bro! P.S. One thing I wonder is, how many people who post to comp.sys.mac.misc are posting FROM MACS, and how many who post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc are posting FROM PC's. (I'm posting this from crom2.) ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- crom2 Athens Public Access Unix | i486 AT, 16 mg RAM, 600 mg online | AT&T Unix System V release 3.2 Molecular Biology | Tbit PEP 19200bps - V.32 - V.42/V.42bis Population Biology | Ecological Modelling | Admin: James P. H. Fuller Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn | {jim,root}%crom2@nstar.rn.com ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
wadew@ducvax.auburn.edu (WILLIAMS_WADE) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar30.021300.3899@crom2.uucp>, jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes... > >Universe to achieve Dhrystone 20000....) I wouldn't at this point buy any- >thing else from Apple due to being mad about their damned look-and-feel >lawsuits, but that's an argument with their company policies, not a gripe >about their products. Why are you mad about Apple's look and feel lawsuit? It's just trying to protect that which sets Macintosh apart (and to many, makes it better). Face it, Windows never would have come to pass if Microsoft wasn't trying to pull Mac users to MS-DOS. With the huge percentage of computer users that use MS-DOS (Mac users would say out of ignorance) Microsoft would have done just fine with MS-DOS had the Mac not created a need for Windows. I don't think Microsoft would have been worried about bringing MS-DOS users a more productive way of computing, it would have just been interested in maintianing its profits. Of course, if the roles were reversed, Microsoft would have done the same exact thing. Any major corporation would. As for your comment about "I wanted to run Unix, not something called A/Ux," to my knowledge A/Ux IS standard Unix with a few enhancements. I don't think there's any more difference in A/Ux and Unix than you would find between Unix on an MS-DOS and a Sun. Wade
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (03/30/91)
In article <91MAR30.004457@ducvax.auburn.edu> wadew@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >As for your comment about "I wanted to run Unix, not something called A/Ux," to >my knowledge A/Ux IS standard Unix with a few enhancements. I don't think >there's any more difference in A/Ux and Unix than you would find between Unix >on an MS-DOS and a Sun. The deplorable experience that our department has had is that not every Unix is alike. Hybrids like A/Ux and AIX (and, our favorite, Domain/OS) are trouble, unless you don't care about spending half your life porting software and then still having trouble because Unix itself wasn't ported/cloned properly in the first place. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar30.021300.3899@crom2.uucp> jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: > >P.S. One thing I wonder is, how many people who post to comp.sys.mac.misc >are posting FROM MACS, and how many who post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc are >posting FROM PC's. (I'm posting this from crom2.) > I am posting this from my PC clone (Dell 310) running MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows 3.0, using my News program Snuz. Othe programs are actually running in other windows. Doug McDonald
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley) (04/01/91)
In <1991Mar29.042136.8302@cec1.wustl.edu> jyp@wucs1.wustl.edu (Jerome Yvon Plun) writes: >Well, as a Mac user, I am very proud to find out that you need to compare >a PC with a 386 running at 25Mhz with a poor little SE having only a mere 6800 ^^^^ >at 16MHz. WOW!! Motorola must really be souping up the old 8-bit 6800 chip!! Now they can power Mac SE's at 16MHz and still beat the crap out of 386/25's!! When can I get one!! I wonder how it stands up against my 386/33?? Sorry, I couldn't resist coming back at your missing zero. :-) Rhys. P.S. Flaming someone else's machine is simply childish. Each machine is good at some particular application, and horrible on others. Try generating arithmetic progressions of primes on anything less than a network of Suns and you can get ready for a LONG WAIT!! +=====================+==================================+ || Rhys Weatherley | The University of Queensland, || || rhys@cs.uq.oz.au | Australia. G'day!! || +=====================+==================================+
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/02/91)
I wonder if Berkeley will ever do a port of BSD to the Mac, like they are doing for the 386. -- 72 DPI sucks.
vick-paul@CS.YALE.EDU (Paul A. Vick) (04/02/91)
In article <cs442a07.670237940@zippy> cs442a07@cs.iastate.edu (Sunny G) writes:
Use the Mac for the most excellent Word Processing Capabilities.
Not to enter too deeply into this religious debate here, but...
:-) Just a bit of a product plug -- I've actually found that
Microsoft's Word for Windows is an excellent product that makes word
processing as easy (if not easier) than using, say, Microsoft Word for
Mac. I also like the Windows interface more than Macintosh, but that's
only because I don't have the bucks to latch on to a color Mac.
Anyway, summary: I take no position on the Mac/IBM "nyah nyah
nyah, my computer is better than yours" debate. I do, however, posit
that Word for Windows is an excellent product and is as easy and nice
to use as another popular Microsoft product, Word for Mac. This does
not, of course, override or mitigate the other factors in the debate
currently underway...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vick | "Stands to reason? What a silly expression. Why
Internet: vick@cs.yale.edu | not 'lies down to reason'? Much easier to reason
Bitnet: VICPAUA@YALEVM | lying down..." - Tom Bakeralan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Mar27.215516.20770@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: > >of the main directory on a DOS machine. Wanting to rid the drive of these now >unnecessary files with as little trouble as possible, I quickly typed cd JUNK >from the main directory and del *.*. The problem was, I am normally a decent >touch typist, so I was not watching the screen when I made the typo in the cd >command. Next thing I knew I had removed all the files off the main directory >of a 70Mb Hard Drive. The point being that on the Mac, I would have simply >dragged Junk (notice beautiful lowercase lettering) to the trash with NO >possibility for error. So the computer said Are you sure (Y/N) and you typed Y without checking, yes that's obviously the computers fault. And as for the complaint about the case, if you really care I've got the source for a program which gives the same functionality of the unix command ls but gives lower case filenames. When the computer doesn't care about the case you can display it in either.
jwbirdsa@amc.com (James Birdsall) (04/05/91)
In article <91MAR30.004457@ducvax.auburn.edu> wadew@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >As for your comment about "I wanted to run Unix, not something called A/Ux," to >my knowledge A/Ux IS standard Unix with a few enhancements. I don't think >there's any more difference in A/Ux and Unix than you would find between Unix on >an MS-DOS and a Sun. *cough* *choke* *hack* SunOS is BSD-based. All flavors of Unix for the IBM architecture that I am aware of are System V-based, except for the very recent port of BSD itself. BSD and SysV are NOT the same; they are gradually merging, but there are still major differences between the installed base of the BSD and SysV camps. There have also been numerous reports that Unixes with major proprietary extensions (such as A/UX, although I am not sure than any of the reports have been about A/UX specifically) have peculiar problems, including the possibility of being incompatible with *both* BSD and SysV source without major changes. Not all Unixes are created equal. -- James W. Birdsall WORK: jwbirdsa@amc.com {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!jwbirdsa HOME: {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!picarefy!jwbirdsa OTHER: 71261.1731@compuserve.com ================== Kitten: a small homicidal muffin on legs. ================== =========== "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin ===========