Last Win vs. Mac question
Nathan Hughes
On or about Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:57:57 -0400, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Adrian Penalo <adr...@accesspro.net> exclaimed :
<s>
>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0
<snip for brevity>
> better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
A timely answer would be Quicken. On top of that, I hate smiley
faces.
Nathan A. Hughes
MFA Candidate
The University Theatre KU
http://scenedesign.ml.org
Adrian Penalo
Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
I would like those features above excluded in your opinion since even
UNIX, VMS, and OS/2 Warp provide better ones than Windows 95/98 and NT
4.0/5.0. But UNIX and VMS wouldn't be the OS you make your employees or
students to use in a daily basis (and OS/2 Warp is almost dead for the
desktop).
David Field
>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
Would that you would, troll-boy.
>
>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>
>I would like those features above excluded in your opinion since even
>UNIX, VMS, and OS/2 Warp provide better ones than Windows 95/98 and NT
>4.0/5.0. But UNIX and VMS wouldn't be the OS you make your employees or
>students to use in a daily basis (and OS/2 Warp is almost dead for the
>desktop).
Like it. It's a Mac vs. Windows debate, so lets get rid of the major
reasons in favor of Windows because other OSs (not Macs) "provide
better ones."
Here's a parallel, for the benefit of Mr. Penalo and any other
thinking-impaired folk:
"Say why Fords are better than Chevvies, but you can't use any
features which Mercedes and BMW do better than Ford."
Back under the rock, Adrian.
David.
Jason S.
Nathan Hughes wrote:
>On top of that, I hate smiley faces.
So dress up as Count Dracula and hang out with...
Never mind. ;)
--
If FreeBSD actually did that, I would concede that FreeBSD was any more
"correct" than Linux is, but not even the FreeBSD people can justify
that kind of performance loss.
-- Linus Torvalds on comp.unix.advocacy
Paxon Hou
In article <6hbada$dd4$2...@o.online.no>, "K.S. Brønnick"
<broennic-n...@online.no> wrote:
] Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen <353905...@accesspro.net>...
] >Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
] >
] >Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
] >current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
] >5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
] >
[ . . . ]
] To answer your question: Mac OS 8.1 is just as good and perhaps better than
] WinNT and Win98 on PnP and UI design. However- it is worse than Win98 and
] NT4 on:
]
] *Memory use- having to set memory amounts is an anachronism. NT4 and Win98
] doesn't get out-of-memory errors if you have enough HD-space.
]
This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
the way Apple does it? How do these people react to this remark made by
an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
"Why should I have to tell an application how much memory to use? Why
can't it just have what it needs and use it?"
Is it time for them to change their opinion to conform with Apple's latest
agenda or will they try to petition Apple to prevent the addition of that
feature to any of their operating systems?
] *Disk-cache: NT4 and Win98 has dynamic disk-cache size depending on
] memory-load and paging.
]
] *Protected memory: WinNT has never been taken down by any program I have
] run on it. Win95 is not as good.
]
As with all issues of stability, your mileage will vary.
] *Standard 2 mouse buttons for us who are smart enough to use it ;-).
]
MacOS 8 help, Tips & Features, About contextual menus:
"Point to an object in a window or on the desktop, and click once while
holding down the Control key.
(If you have a two-button mouse, click the right button.)"
Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines:
"The contextual menu may also be invoked by clicking on an item with the
right button on a two-button mouse."
Are these 2 button mouse remarks true?
Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the system getting blocked (pausing)
when menus are opened. This will supposedly be fixed in Allegro. It will
also include proportional scroll thumbs and double scroll arrows. And
while it is nice being able to move windows by dragging any side, I would
also like to resize windows from any corner.
[ . . . ]
--
Paxon Hou
Joe Ragosta
In article <paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
> of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
> think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
> the way Apple does it? How do these people react to this remark made by
> an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
snip.
Nice strawman.
I haven't seen any Mac advocates claim that it's better--just that it's
not important enough to outweigh the ease of use and productivity
advantages of the Mac.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Mac Man
In article <353905...@accesspro.net>, Adrian Penalo
<adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>
>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>
What? The PC users have been chanting "Rhapsody's not out yet" forever.
Now you want to do a comparison using not one, but -two- Windows versions
that aren't out yet, but not include Rhapsody? Yeah, that's gonna give you
some answers. It's like saying compare all future Windows to current Mac
and tell me what you think.
--
Mac Man
mac...@home.msen.com
Adrian Penalo
My fellow Mac-user, I stated those conditions because we all know Windows (95,
98, NT 4.0, NT 5.0) have no chance against Rhapsody! And Windows 98 and NT 5.0
will still be the same old 32-bit Windows. So, I gave the Mac-impared PC users
loosers, the opportunity to compete against current technology. Besides,
Rhapsody will no longer be the MacOS as we know it, it may behave alike, but it
will be so great that you won't even recognize it. Hey, the Neanderthal was not
like Homo Sapiens, wasn't he?
Joshua T. McKee
In article <paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> ] *Memory use- having to set memory amounts is an anachronism. NT4 and Win98
> ] doesn't get out-of-memory errors if you have enough HD-space.
> ]
>
> This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
> of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
> think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
> the way Apple does it? How do these people react to this remark made by
> an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
> "Why should I have to tell an application how much memory to use? Why
> can't it just have what it needs and use it?"
> Is it time for them to change their opinion to conform with Apple's latest
> agenda or will they try to petition Apple to prevent the addition of that
> feature to any of their operating systems?
Can you point to a reference where a Mac advocate has defended the memory
management? All I've seen are posts to the effect that it needs to be
corrected (said by Mac users). Included in some of those posts, and I
will comment on myself, is the fact that while it is not ideal, it is not
a big problem. And if you run out of memory because the allocated size is
insufficient, it is easy enough to change. Again, it is not the optimal
method of managing memory, but it has been almost a non-issue for myself.
And when it has become an issue, it was quickly corrected within 10
seconds.
> Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines:
> "The contextual menu may also be invoked by clicking on an item with the
> right button on a two-button mouse."
>
> Are these 2 button mouse remarks true?
Yes...can we give up the one/two button mouse arguement now...or should we
move onto 3 buttons?
> Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the system getting blocked (pausing)
> when menus are opened. This will supposedly be fixed in Allegro. It will
> also include proportional scroll thumbs and double scroll arrows. And
> while it is nice being able to move windows by dragging any side, I would
> also like to resize windows from any corner.
Again, not the ideal method of handling menu's, but not a show stopper
either. I can't imagine how long you keep menus open for...it only seems
to be a problem just because it blocks...can you give me an example of
where this has been anything other than an annoyance? As for the
proportional scoll thumbs...big whoop...you like proportional, I prefer
non (because it doesn't shrink while you're trying to get ahold of it).
It's a preference thing, hardly worth deciding which OS is best. Same
holds true for double scroll arrows, dragging windows by each side and
resizing by the corners. How lazy can you get?
Josh
Paxon Hou
In article <01bd6b48$cd2ae640$0b0ba8c0@woohoo>, "Earl Malmrose"
<malm...@nospam.jetcity.com> wrote:
] > I haven't seen any Mac advocates claim that it's better--just that it's
] > not important enough to outweigh the ease of use and productivity
] > advantages of the Mac.
]
] Come on Joe. You've been around here a lot longer than I have, and I can
] remember people saying, "its better because I can give only 8MB to
] Netscape, and it won't try to take more, unlike Windows, where one app can
] eat up all of memory".
I forgot to mention the possible memory fragmentation that results when
you don't quit applications in the reverse order that they were opened.
--
Paxon Hou
Kevin Stone
> Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen <353905...@accesspro.net>...
> >Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
> >
> >Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
> >current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
> >5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
> >
> >I would like those features above excluded in your opinion since even
> >UNIX, VMS, and OS/2 Warp provide better ones than Windows 95/98 and NT
> >4.0/5.0. But UNIX and VMS wouldn't be the OS you make your employees or
> >students to use in a daily basis (and OS/2 Warp is almost dead for the
> >desktop).
>
> As a long time OS/2 and WinNT4/3.5 user I know you are very wrong if you
> think OS/2 had dynamic VM- at least version 3.0 and 2.1 did not have it.
> Neither did it have a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). The PMT was better
> though. Win98 doesn't have HAL either.
Could I just butt in on this truely pointless conversation and ask the
silly question... Just what the heck is Dynamic Virtual Memory? I think
you guys have gone so "buzzword happy" that you're making up new ones as
you go along!
--
-Kevin Stone | "Only two things are infinite,
Stone Entertainment | the universe and human stupidity,
www.StoneEntertainment.com | and I'm not so sure about the former."
| -Albert Einstein
Kevin Stone
Just as I find myself arguing that this is going to turn into another Mac
vs. PC flame bait... I think I might as well get some words in as long as
logical disucssion is taking place. :)
In article <paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> In article <6hbada$dd4$2...@o.online.no>, "K.S. Brønnick"
> <broennic-n...@online.no> wrote:
(snip)
> ] To answer your question: Mac OS 8.1 is just as good and perhaps better than
> ] WinNT and Win98 on PnP and UI design. However- it is worse than Win98 and
> ] NT4 on:
> ]
> ] *Memory use- having to set memory amounts is an anachronism. NT4 and Win98
> ] doesn't get out-of-memory errors if you have enough HD-space.
> ]
>
> This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
> of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
> think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
> the way Apple does it?
(snip)
Absolutely. I don't think any semi-knowlegable Mac users believe that
manual allocation is a superior feature. The underlying memory
architecture of the MacOS however is much better than Windows, allowing for
long contiguous blocks of memory, unlike Windows DOS-like limitations which
have been worked around... but never truely fixed. So if a method could be
implimented into the MacOS to auto-allocate just the right amount of memory
for an application, even if the heap size still couldn't be changed while
the application was running, it would be a vast improvment indeed.
(snip)
> ] *Standard 2 mouse buttons for us who are smart enough to use it ;-).
> ]
>
> MacOS 8 help, Tips & Features, About contextual menus:
> "Point to an object in a window or on the desktop, and click once while
> holding down the Control key.
> (If you have a two-button mouse, click the right button.)"
I have yet to understand this argument from PC users. Anyone who disagrees
with MacOS standardizations is blind to the corrupt and often incompatible
so called "standards", a meriad of which change every year on the PC.
What's more... Windows didn't even support two button mice with any
consistency until Windows95 was released only a few years ago. Some
standard. :/
> Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the system getting blocked (pausing)
> when menus are opened. This will supposedly be fixed in Allegro. It will
> also include proportional scroll thumbs and double scroll arrows. And
> while it is nice being able to move windows by dragging any side, I would
> also like to resize windows from any corner.
> Paxon Hou
I can't wait for Allegro. It's going to be the first truely revolutionary
version of the MacOS since System 7.0. The feature I'm looking forward to
the most are the system extensions turned into applications for dynamic
loading and unloading!
K.S. Brønnick
Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen <353905...@accesspro.net>...
>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>
>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>
>I would like those features above excluded in your opinion since even
>UNIX, VMS, and OS/2 Warp provide better ones than Windows 95/98 and NT
>4.0/5.0. But UNIX and VMS wouldn't be the OS you make your employees or
>students to use in a daily basis (and OS/2 Warp is almost dead for the
>desktop).
As a long time OS/2 and WinNT4/3.5 user I know you are very wrong if you
think OS/2 had dynamic VM- at least version 3.0 and 2.1 did not have it.
Neither did it have a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). The PMT was better
though. Win98 doesn't have HAL either.
To answer your question: Mac OS 8.1 is just as good and perhaps better than
WinNT and Win98 on PnP and UI design. However- it is worse than Win98 and
NT4 on:
*Memory use- having to set memory amounts is an anachronism. NT4 and Win98
doesn't get out-of-memory errors if you have enough HD-space.
*Disk-cache: NT4 and Win98 has dynamic disk-cache size depending on
memory-load and paging.
*Protected memory: WinNT has never been taken down by any program I have
run on it. Win95 is not as good.
*Standard 2 mouse buttons for us who are smart enough to use it ;-).
*Integrated OpenGL
*Active desktop with live INET content as background on your desktop. (I
don't like it myself though)
*No emulation necessary.
Regards K.S. Brønnick
Earl Malmrose
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote in article
<joe.ragosta-18...@elk58.dol.net>...
> In article
<paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
> pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
>
> > This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the
proponents
> > of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
> > think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because
it's
by
> > an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
>
>
> Nice strawman.
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-18...@pm3a18.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
]
] Can you point to a reference where a Mac advocate has defended the memory
] management? All I've seen are posts to the effect that it needs to be
] corrected (said by Mac users). Included in some of those posts, and I
] will comment on myself, is the fact that while it is not ideal, it is not
] a big problem. And if you run out of memory because the allocated size is
] insufficient, it is easy enough to change. Again, it is not the optimal
] method of managing memory, but it has been almost a non-issue for myself.
] And when it has become an issue, it was quickly corrected within 10
] seconds.
]
If you search Deja News you will definitely find people complaining
that it needs to be corrected, only to be countered by other people who
make sarcastic remarks like "Oh, it's so hard to click Get Info and change
a number". You will also find people who claim that it's better because
they get to control the amount memory that applications like Netscape. So
in effect, they think the memory hogging of a couple of applications like
Netscape requires subjecting a thousand other applications to
unintelligent fixed-block memory settings by hand. It's better to fix the
faulty application.
Not only can you run out of memory from too small of a memory
allocation, you can also run out when other applications continue holding
onto excess memory they don't need at the moment. While some applications
give you a warning when they are low on memory, others can crash and
destroy your work, possibly taking down the whole system as well. And is
this type of memory management one of the factors responsible for the
memory fragmentation that can result when applications are not quit in the
reverse order they were opened?
I came across an interesting exchange in Deja News regarding the memory
management. I'm recalling this from my own memory:
One person wrote that the best memory management is one where the memory
allocations can grow and shrink to be optimal. Then Sang Choe responded:
"I think you've just described a working virtual memory system."
]
] > Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines:
] > "The contextual menu may also be invoked by clicking on an item with the
] > right button on a two-button mouse."
] >
] > Are these 2 button mouse remarks true?
]
]
] Yes...can we give up the one/two button mouse arguement now...or should we
] move onto 3 buttons?
Although I would like it to be true, I'm still skeptical about it. So
according to the Apple documentation, the Mac OS will automatically use
the second button of any 2 button mouse for context menus without
requiring a third party mouse programming utility?
]
] > Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the system getting blocked (pausing)
] > when menus are opened. This will supposedly be fixed in Allegro. It will
] > also include proportional scroll thumbs and double scroll arrows. And
] > while it is nice being able to move windows by dragging any side, I would
] > also like to resize windows from any corner.
]
] Again, not the ideal method of handling menu's, but not a show stopper
] either. I can't imagine how long you keep menus open for...it only seems
] to be a problem just because it blocks...can you give me an example of
] where this has been anything other than an annoyance?
I did refer to it as an "annoying aspect of MacOS". Are you reading
more into it than I wrote? But the annoyance is enough for me to really
want improvement. As for examples, I occasionally spend a lot of time
browsing menus because I'm not always poring through user manuals, and
sometimes I forget where things are in the menus, and sometimes I just
want to explore. I also put an alias of my hard drive in the Apple menu
and it can take a long time to dig through submenus and scroll down long
menus and when you also want to browse you hard drive without opening a
lot of windows.
Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the forward delete key not working
everywhere-- try using it in the Get Info memory settings. People can
reasonably argue about the difference between Mac and Windows
implementations of the Home and End keys, but how can they argue about
having a key work vs leaving it nonfunctional?
] As for the
] proportional scoll thumbs...big whoop...you like proportional, I prefer
] non (because it doesn't shrink while you're trying to get ahold of it).
] It's a preference thing, hardly worth deciding which OS is best. Same
] holds true for double scroll arrows, dragging windows by each side and
] resizing by the corners. How lazy can you get?
]
] Josh
Yes these are preference things. But you can't set your preferences if
the system doesn't offer you the choice to begin with. When I started
reading newsgroups a couple of years ago, the Mac advocates always
belittled Windows' ability to resize a window from any corner. But when
news of Copland began to spread, some of these advocates started beating
Windows people over the head with Copland's ability to move a window by
dragging any side. I believe double scroll arrows were a highly praised
feature of Nextstep. How lazy can I get? Well, I use Automenus Pro to
open menus just by moving the mouse over them without clicking and to
automatically cancel a menu when the pointer is moved away. And yes I
think Apple should provide these as options.
--
Paxon Hou
Paxon Hou
In article <joe.ragosta-18...@elk58.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
] In article <paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
] pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
]
] > This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
] > of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
] > think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
] > the way Apple does it? How do these people react to this remark made by
] > an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
]
] snip.
]
] Nice strawman.
]
] I haven't seen any Mac advocates claim that it's better--just that it's
] not important enough to outweigh the ease of use and productivity
] advantages of the Mac.
How nice of you to snip it. Is Apple's own words to damning for people
to handle? So they react to it by snipping it? What about:
"To create a new standard takes something that's not just a little bit
different. It takes something that's really new and captures people's
imaginations. Macintosh meets that standard."-- Bill Gates, 1984
"That's not how Mac does it. I want Mac, I want Mac!"
---------------------------------------------------
Tevanian or DeLuca at 1997 WWDC: "Why should I have to tell an
application how much memory to use? Why can't it just have what it needs
and use it?"
Jerry Borrell, Macworld, January 1988:
"...Do I recall a documentation of MultiFinder that showed how to minimize
the amount of memory used by applications?
If you select any application while in the MultiFinder and then request
Get Info from the File menu, an updated dialog box opens up showing two
new entries: the amount of memory Apple recommends you allocate for the
application and the amount of memory you choose to devote to the
application...
As I sit pondering this, I have creeping memories of past experiences.
Like the time I installed my first hard disk on an IBM PC. But this is
the Macintosh. I didn't fall in love with this computer to have to
partition my memory each time I open up a desktop full of applications. I
don't want to understand fragmentation of memory that may prevent me from
opening this or that application. The Mac should take care of this. I
don't have time to play hacker/enthusiast with my Mac these days-- I do
too much work with it..."
I don't have time... I do too much work with it. Isn't that a matter
of ease of use and productivity?
--
Paxon Hou
Joshua T. McKee
In article <paxon-19049...@ppp-206-170-3-45.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> If you search Deja News you will definitely find people complaining
> that it needs to be corrected, only to be countered by other people who
> make sarcastic remarks like "Oh, it's so hard to click Get Info and change
> a number". You will also find people who claim that it's better because
> they get to control the amount memory that applications like Netscape. So
> in effect, they think the memory hogging of a couple of applications like
> Netscape requires subjecting a thousand other applications to
> unintelligent fixed-block memory settings by hand. It's better to fix the
> faulty application.
Are sarcastic remarks a form of defense? I would make similar claims that
if you're to low on memory, it's not very difficult to change. Indeed, I
believe that I made remarks similar to that in my post to you. But
stating that something is easy to change is not the same as defending it.
I would like to see this problem corrected. But on the other hand, I've
run into it so few times that I hardly even remembered about it until your
post. It's not ideal, but it's not significant enough to make me want to
switch away from MacOS.
> Not only can you run out of memory from too small of a memory
> allocation, you can also run out when other applications continue holding
> onto excess memory they don't need at the moment. While some applications
> give you a warning when they are low on memory, others can crash and
> destroy your work, possibly taking down the whole system as well. And is
> this type of memory management one of the factors responsible for the
> memory fragmentation that can result when applications are not quit in the
> reverse order they were opened?
Yes, this can happen. And maybe it does happen to many people, but I can
say that I've never run into this problem in all my years of using Macs.
Of course, with 128MB of memory in this Mac, one can see why. But I've
not always had this much memory installed. For years, I used this Mac
with 16MB of memory and never ran into this problem. Again, not ideal and
in theory, not a good idea. But I wonder how much this is an issue in
reality?
> I came across an interesting exchange in Deja News regarding the memory
> management. I'm recalling this from my own memory:
> One person wrote that the best memory management is one where the memory
> allocations can grow and shrink to be optimal. Then Sang Choe responded:
> "I think you've just described a working virtual memory system."
So far you have not provided anything to back up the claim that Mac
advocates defend this. I'm certain that every so often a Mac advocate has
defended this memory management as there will always be exceptions.
However, I cannot recall any of the well known Mac advocates here to have
defended this position.
> Although I would like it to be true, I'm still skeptical about it. So
> according to the Apple documentation, the Mac OS will automatically use
> the second button of any 2 button mouse for context menus without
> requiring a third party mouse programming utility?
As far as I know, this works as you want it to (I don't use a two button
mouse, I seem to be able to do my work just fine with the "crippled" one
button mouse). My brother uses a two button mouse with MacOS 8.1. And
the behavior he has described indicates that it works just like you want
it to...so can we move on now? Or should I start complaining about the
8.3 character naming used for PC's?
> ] Again, not the ideal method of handling menu's, but not a show stopper
> ] either. I can't imagine how long you keep menus open for...it only seems
> ] to be a problem just because it blocks...can you give me an example of
> ] where this has been anything other than an annoyance?
>
> I did refer to it as an "annoying aspect of MacOS". Are you reading
> more into it than I wrote? But the annoyance is enough for me to really
> want improvement. As for examples, I occasionally spend a lot of time
> browsing menus because I'm not always poring through user manuals, and
> sometimes I forget where things are in the menus, and sometimes I just
> want to explore. I also put an alias of my hard drive in the Apple menu
> and it can take a long time to dig through submenus and scroll down long
> menus and when you also want to browse you hard drive without opening a
> lot of windows.
And I ask you...what adverse affect has holding a menu open for any length
of time done to you? I do the same things that you described above and
have not had any problems with it. An annoyance? Yes. Detrimental?
No. Again, it would be nice to have it "fixed". But then again, it's not
sufficient to move from MacOS (for me).
> Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the forward delete key not working
> everywhere-- try using it in the Get Info memory settings. People can
> reasonably argue about the difference between Mac and Windows
> implementations of the Home and End keys, but how can they argue about
> having a key work vs leaving it nonfunctional?
And? Again, something that should be corrected. Enough to make me leave
MacOS? Certainly not (especially since I never knew about this problem
with the memory settings until you brought it to my attention).
> Yes these are preference things. But you can't set your preferences if
> the system doesn't offer you the choice to begin with. When I started
> reading newsgroups a couple of years ago, the Mac advocates always
> belittled Windows' ability to resize a window from any corner. But when
> news of Copland began to spread, some of these advocates started beating
> Windows people over the head with Copland's ability to move a window by
> dragging any side. I believe double scroll arrows were a highly praised
> feature of Nextstep. How lazy can I get? Well, I use Automenus Pro to
> open menus just by moving the mouse over them without clicking and to
> automatically cancel a menu when the pointer is moved away. And yes I
> think Apple should provide these as options.
This is a dumb thing to say. We could spend all day thinking up examples
of where each OS does not have a preference setting for this or that.
There are examples on both side. Is there an option in Windows to allow
you to choose the method of the scroll thumb? Can I set it so it is *not*
proportional? Also, the idea of the proportional scroll thumb quickly
disolves once it has reached that thin sliver because you've got 500 pages
in your Word document. At least give me the option so that it doesn't
turn into a paper thin wafer under those circumstances.
And regarding the resize windows bit. This is quite understandable.
Let's take the PMT issue for a moment. Many Mac advocates do not believe
that PMT is sufficiently beneficial for most users (I would be one of
them). I agree that it is nice, but not a "must have". And especially
that an OS is quite usable, even without it. However, Rhapsoday will be
including PMT. And I will put money on it that Mac advoactes will bring
Rhapsodays PMT to the PC advocates attention. However, this does not mean
that they think PMT is any more beneficial than it was before. They're
will just be stating that Rhapsody has PMT.
And if we would like to discuss short commings of OS's, I've a couple jump
to mind with Windows 95:
1. How do you save screen settings? I have this tiny little window that
pops open everytime I click my "C" drive icon. I'd like it to open to the
size that I constantly have to resize it to. But it never seems to save
the setting.
2. How come a 4GB Windows NT network drive is reported as 2GB when mapped
on a Windows 95 system?
You see, there are issues on both sides. I'm certain there are many more
for the PC than I have mentioned. And I'm certain that there are more on
the Mac than what you have mentioned. Nothing is perfect. But what
counts for me is how productive can I be with system x or system y. And
so far, the Mac has been the most productive, hassel free computer I've
ever used. And apparently I have the backing of many major studies.
Josh
George Graves
> Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>
> Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
> current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
> 5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
Actually, even with the above mentioned features, Windws is NOT better
than the current Mac OS. The reason is mostly one of implementation, or
rather lack of it on the Windows side. Windows has the buzzwords all right,
but they are simply not very well implemented. A Mac running OS 8.1 is, in
my opinion every bit as stable as as an NT box, in spite of it having neither
protected memory, nor true multithreaded multitasking. As far as
multiprocessor support is concerned, Macs don't have it, to be sure, but on
the other hand, Win'95 and NT scale so poorly, that it's pretty much a waste
of money to use it with them. Today, if you want these features done RIGHT,
you'll have to go to something like Linux.
On the other hand, the Mac has a much better GUI, is much easier to set-up
and use, and is ELEGANT.
George Graves
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-19...@pm3a13.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
]
] Are sarcastic remarks a form of defense? I would make similar claims that
] if you're to low on memory, it's not very difficult to change. Indeed, I
] believe that I made remarks similar to that in my post to you. But
] stating that something is easy to change is not the same as defending it.
] I would like to see this problem corrected. But on the other hand, I've
] run into it so few times that I hardly even remembered about it until your
] post. It's not ideal, but it's not significant enough to make me want to
] switch away from MacOS.
]
Maybe sarcastic remarks are not always a form of defense, but they can
be a form of denial. As far as I recall, the people such as yourself who
want the memory management corrected are not the ones making those
sarcastic remarks.
]
] > Not only can you run out of memory from too small of a memory
] > allocation, you can also run out when other applications continue holding
] > onto excess memory they don't need at the moment. While some applications
] > give you a warning when they are low on memory, others can crash and
] > destroy your work, possibly taking down the whole system as well. And is
] > this type of memory management one of the factors responsible for the
] > memory fragmentation that can result when applications are not quit in the
] > reverse order they were opened?
]
]
] Yes, this can happen. And maybe it does happen to many people, but I can
] say that I've never run into this problem in all my years of using Macs.
] Of course, with 128MB of memory in this Mac, one can see why. But I've
] not always had this much memory installed. For years, I used this Mac
] with 16MB of memory and never ran into this problem. Again, not ideal and
] in theory, not a good idea. But I wonder how much this is an issue in
] reality?
]
]
I also have 128 MB on my system and I must say that it's really
disturbing to quit applications in a different order and then discover
that 30 MB has disappeared, even when no other applications are running.
] > I came across an interesting exchange in Deja News regarding the memory
] > management. I'm recalling this from my own memory:
] > One person wrote that the best memory management is one where the memory
] > allocations can grow and shrink to be optimal. Then Sang Choe responded:
] > "I think you've just described a working virtual memory system."
]
]
] So far you have not provided anything to back up the claim that Mac
] advocates defend this. I'm certain that every so often a Mac advocate has
] defended this memory management as there will always be exceptions.
] However, I cannot recall any of the well known Mac advocates here to have
] defended this position.
]
One again I will recall from memory. In Deja News, I read a person
giving this example: sometimes he likes to play a QuickTime movie in the
background while working in another application. So he leaves the
MoviePlayer at the usual memory setting. But when he wants to load the
entire movie into memory so he can view it movie in the foreground at
higher quality, he goes and increases the memory allocation of Movie
Player. That was his defense of manual fixed-block memory settings and it
was misguided. Actually, if you wanted to load the entire movie into
memory, you have use Movie Player's Get Info and change enable the Preload
option for that movie. And then the operating system should have been
smart enough to use the available memory to load the movie without the
user having to worry about whether he told MoviePlayer to use enough RAM.
And if you want to play from disk, you disable the Preload option and the
application should automatically take up less RAM without requiring the
user to tell the application to not take up 10 times the amount of memory
that it really needs at the moment.
How many times have you read people using Netscape's memory hogging as
an example for manual memory settings and against dynamic memory usage
adjustment?
[. . .]
]
] We could spend all day thinking up examples
] of where each OS does not have a preference setting for this or that.
] There are examples on both side. Is there an option in Windows to allow
] you to choose the method of the scroll thumb? Can I set it so it is *not*
] proportional? Also, the idea of the proportional scroll thumb quickly
] disolves once it has reached that thin sliver because you've got 500 pages
] in your Word document. At least give me the option so that it doesn't
] turn into a paper thin wafer under those circumstances.
]
Both Allegro and BeOS let you choose single or double scroll arrow,
fixed or proportional scroll thumbs. The problem with proportional thumbs
in Windows is that they keep getting smaller until it becomes a thin
sliver as you described. The system should be designed so the thumbs get
no smaller than a reasonable minimum size. And BeOS lets you specify that
minimum size.
] And regarding the resize windows bit. This is quite understandable.
] Let's take the PMT issue for a moment. Many Mac advocates do not believe
] that PMT is sufficiently beneficial for most users (I would be one of
] them). I agree that it is nice, but not a "must have". And especially
] that an OS is quite usable, even without it. However, Rhapsoday will be
] including PMT. And I will put money on it that Mac advoactes will bring
] Rhapsodays PMT to the PC advocates attention. However, this does not mean
] that they think PMT is any more beneficial than it was before. They're
] will just be stating that Rhapsody has PMT.
]
] And if we would like to discuss short commings of OS's, I've a couple jump
] to mind with Windows 95:
]
[ . . .]
]
] You see, there are issues on both sides. I'm certain there are many more
] for the PC than I have mentioned. And I'm certain that there are more on
] the Mac than what you have mentioned. Nothing is perfect. But what
] counts for me is how productive can I be with system x or system y. And
] so far, the Mac has been the most productive, hassel free computer I've
] ever used. And apparently I have the backing of many major studies.
]
] Josh
The last Windows system I had was 486/66 running on Windows 3.1 which I
sold 2 years ago. Then I bought my Umax SuperMac S900. I'm not
completely satisfied with the MacOS so I mentioned things that could be
improved. Please don't try to make me feel bad by mentioning Windows
shortcomings because it won't work. Back in DOS and Windows 3.1 I've had
my share of annoyances. I have only used Windows 95 on other people's
PC's to do basic things such as word processing and Internet browsing but
as I become more familiar with Windows 95 I am finding annoyances with
that as well. I am not playing favorites.
You have agreed with me that it would be nice to fix those annoyances I
described. But in every case you also mentioned that those annoyances are
not enough to make you leave the MacOS, and I agree with you in every
example. But I do think this attitude is a cop-out and an impediment to
progress. If we used your line of reasoning when considering improvements
to MacOS or Windows, there would be close to none because most of those
things that needed improving would be reduced to annoyances that are not
enough to make one leave their respective platform. If we used this as
the only consideration for making improvements, we would all still be
running System 6 and Windows 3. And maybe some of the features that make
you yourself more productive and hassle-free wouldn't exist.
--
Paxon Hou
Joe Anstett
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> In article <paxon-18049...@ppp-207-104-156-76.okld03.pacbell.net>,
> pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
>
> > This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
> > of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
> > think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
> > the way Apple does it? How do these people react to this remark made by
> > an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
>
> snip.
>
> Nice strawman.
>
> I haven't seen any Mac advocates claim that it's better--just that it's
> not important enough to outweigh the ease of use and productivity
> advantages of the Mac.
Our friend Adrain Penalo, for one, has claimed in the past that it is better
because you get to control how much memory your application takes and keep it
from using too much. Useful for all those applications that allocate memory
for the hell of it. ;)
Come on Joe, Mac users have a knack for defending the indefensible.
Joe
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-19...@pm3a13.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
] > Another annoying aspect of MacOS is the forward delete key not working
] > everywhere-- try using it in the Get Info memory settings. People can
] > reasonably argue about the difference between Mac and Windows
] > implementations of the Home and End keys, but how can they argue about
] > having a key work vs leaving it nonfunctional?
]
]
] And? Again, something that should be corrected. Enough to make me leave
] MacOS? Certainly not (especially since I never knew about this problem
] with the memory settings until you brought it to my attention).
]
Apparently, the forward delete key doesn't work properly due to a
problem with TextEdit (the part of the Mac Operating System which manages
basic text editing). The author of the shareware Forward Delete extension
wrote:
"According to a knowledgeable source, what really happened is that
TextEdit was modified to support this key, during some beta version of
System 7.0 but for some reason this caused compatbility problems with some
3rd party software, and they had to take it out. Well, if they had to
take it out, I suppose it is a very large software company."
In the summer of 1997, I complained in the newsgroup about this key
not working. Several people including Arlo Rose responded that the
application developers themselves are responsible for the forward delete
key. That was a disturbing opinion, given the information from the
shareware author and considering that the key doesn't work in some of
Apple's own software. If I wanted to be harsh, I could rag on Apple's
finger-pointing at other companies regarding the forward delete key. But
I'll just quote Macintosh advantage #17/75:
"... Many Windows users have to call a different vendor for every card or
piece of hardware installed in their PC. Often those vendors will say that
it is not the fault of their device, but the fault of another
manufacturer零 hardware device in the PC."
Other people including myself disagreed with Apple's forward delete
opinion. Some of the responses include:
"All applications use TextEdit so all applications have the problem."
"TextEdit has been broken for so long that Apple considers the delete key
to be an 'extra' feature."
One person even wrote "Fix TextEdit" and proceeded to point out the
nature of the flaw. Arlo Rose then wrote back, informing us that he and
his people have indeed confirmed a flaw in TextEdit and "it will be fixed
in a future version". It's been almost a year and we are still waiting,
wondering whether it will indeed be fixed.
--
Paxon Hou
David Field
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 23:45:03 -0400, Adrian Penalo
<adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>Mac Man wrote:
>>
>> In article <353905...@accesspro.net>, Adrian Penalo
>> <adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>> >
>> >Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>> >current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>> >5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>> >
>> What? The PC users have been chanting "Rhapsody's not out yet" forever.
>> Now you want to do a comparison using not one, but -two- Windows versions
>> that aren't out yet, but not include Rhapsody? Yeah, that's gonna give you
>> some answers. It's like saying compare all future Windows to current Mac
>> and tell me what you think.
>
>
>My fellow Mac-user, I stated those conditions because we all know Windows (95,
>98, NT 4.0, NT 5.0) have no chance against Rhapsody! And Windows 98 and NT 5.0
>will still be the same old 32-bit Windows. So, I gave the Mac-impared PC users
>loosers, the opportunity to compete against current technology. Besides,
>Rhapsody will no longer be the MacOS as we know it, it may behave alike, but it
>will be so great that you won't even recognize it. Hey, the Neanderthal was not
>like Homo Sapiens, wasn't he?
No, you're not like Homo Sapiens, Adrian. More like Homo Trollus.
David.
M_a_c_G_o
Yeah, if I was forced to use Windblows, that would wipe the smile of my face
fer sure.
Nicolas Krinis
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>
>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>
For my home PC, games availability is a big consideration. So clearly
there are tons more Win95 games than Mac. I am into games like
StarCraft and that is available only for the PC (not even consoles).
And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
the Mac.
Kay-Yut
Nevin ":-]" Liber
Paxon Hou wrote in message ...
> This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of MacOS. Do the proponents
>of user-defined, fixed-block memory usage defend it because they really
>think it's better than OS level dynamic adjustment or simply because it's
>the way Apple does it?
It's just such a minor nit compared with everything else. If this is all
that is really bugging people, Apple makes a pretty damn good computer.
It's like someone complaining about a car because of the placement of the
cup holders. If that is the only major complaint, it's a pretty darn good
car. This complaint ranks up there with "the MacOS sucks because you can't
format a floppy in the background". I just can't work up any enthusiasm to
complain about such trivial issues. Just how often do you have to change
the memory partition size, anyway? Unless you are doing it fairly often, I
can't see why this is such a major issue for you.
And even on those systems with seperate address spaces (which is the typical
solution to the problem), you still have the problem of setting a limit so
an app doesn't run the system out of virtual memory.
>How do these people react to this remark made by
>an Apple official at the 1997 WWDC:
>"Why should I have to tell an application how much memory to use? Why
>can't it just have what it needs and use it?"
If I believed for a second that he didn't know the answer to this question,
I would say that this official (I can't remember who it was offhand) should
be fired on the spot for not knowing how the MacOS works or who inside Apple
to ask for the answer. Of course, the question is rhetorical, and he was
only asking it for dramatic effect. If the choice is between having to set
it and not having to set it, with all else being equal, then not having to
set it is the obvious choice. But all else was not equal at the time the
choice was being made. Apple could have chosen to let all apps share the
same heap, but this is far worse from a reliability standpoint. Or they
could have chosen to just support machines with an MMU, but this doesn't
seem like a prudent choice back in the late '80s.
>Is it time for them to change their opinion to conform with Apple's latest
>agenda or will they try to petition Apple to prevent the addition of that
>feature to any of their operating systems?
Or just ignore the officials spouting propaganda instead of real technical
expertise. Almost all of your postings result from quoting Apple propaganda
and saying how it differs with reality. Most of us already know the
difference.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:ne...@CS.Arizona.EDU> (847) 816-9660
Joshua T. McKee
In article <paxon-19049...@ppp-206-170-3-99.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
[ snip - a lot of information about the broken forward delete key ]
> One person even wrote "Fix TextEdit" and proceeded to point out the
> nature of the flaw. Arlo Rose then wrote back, informing us that he and
> his people have indeed confirmed a flaw in TextEdit and "it will be fixed
> in a future version". It's been almost a year and we are still waiting,
> wondering whether it will indeed be fixed.
I agree with you that it may be a problem. I say may because I've been
using the Mac since 1993 and never gave this key much thought as to where
it works and where it does not. Obviously it seems to be a big problem to
you as you have posted about it often enough. All I can say is this: It
is a problem, and hopefully will be fixed in the future. But I have to
ask you this: Aside from being a minor annoyance, is it hindering you in
your ability to do something useful with the system? And if so, since
Apple's official stance is that the application developer take care of it,
you should be contacting the application developer and asking that they
put it in. You may think this is dumb and inefficient...but Apple laid
down the rules and the application developer didn't implement it. And,
Apple itself can be guilty of this as well as you have demonstrated. But
again, this is more an annoyance than a show stopper. I'd much rather
have this "broken" behavior than the show stoppers that I get on a Windows
system.
Like I said before...there are always going to be something that someone
doesn't like. This is an example of something you don't like about the
Mac, and hopefully will be fixed someday. But it's hardly anything to get
worked up about. Seriously...if Windows 95 suffered only from such
trivial problems (and it has it's fair share), I would be very happy
indeed. Unfortunately Windows 95 suffers from similar, and more complex
problems...which is what steers me away from it.
Josh
Joshua T. McKee
In article <paxon-19049...@ppp-206-170-3-106.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> You have agreed with me that it would be nice to fix those annoyances I
> described. But in every case you also mentioned that those annoyances are
> not enough to make you leave the MacOS, and I agree with you in every
> example. But I do think this attitude is a cop-out and an impediment to
> progress. If we used your line of reasoning when considering improvements
> to MacOS or Windows, there would be close to none because most of those
> things that needed improving would be reduced to annoyances that are not
> enough to make one leave their respective platform. If we used this as
> the only consideration for making improvements, we would all still be
> running System 6 and Windows 3. And maybe some of the features that make
> you yourself more productive and hassle-free wouldn't exist.
How is my attitude a cop out? I've never said that these things shouldn't
be fixed...or can you provide a post where I have? All I've said is that
the things listed are more of "annoyances" than show stoppers. In the
examples you gave, except for the personal preference ones, I've agreed
that they should be corrected. But I've also said that while they exist,
they are merely inconviences, and as such are not sufficient to make me
switch from the Mac.
Josh
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-20...@pm3a11.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
[ . . . ]
] Apple's official stance is that the application developer take care of it,
] you should be contacting the application developer and asking that they
] put it in. You may think this is dumb and inefficient...but Apple laid
] down the rules and the application developer didn't implement it. And,
] Apple itself can be guilty of this as well as you have demonstrated.
[ . . . ]
I thought Arlo Rose's confirmation of the TextEdit flaw proved that the
forward delete key was Apple's responsiblity in the first place. The
shareware author pointed out that the foward delete support was removed
due to an incompatibility with a company's software. You are right that
people should contact that company for not working with Apple's operating
system. But instead, Apple removed the support for that key. So it's the
fault of both companies: that one company for being incompatible and
Apple for just scrapping the delete key even though the incompatibility
may not have been Apple's fault. So now all developers have to do the key
themselves because of Apple's action.
I think it's inappropriate to pound on 3rd party software writers for
not going through hoops to work around Apple's software flaw. It should
be Apple itself that first gives proper OS support for the key. Then we
can talk about other companies implementing things correctly.
--
Paxon Hou
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-20...@pm3a6.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
]
] How is my attitude a cop out? I've never said that these things shouldn't
] be fixed...or can you provide a post where I have? All I've said is that
] the things listed are more of "annoyances" than show stoppers. In the
] examples you gave, except for the personal preference ones, I've agreed
] that they should be corrected. But I've also said that while they exist,
] they are merely inconviences, and as such are not sufficient to make me
] switch from the Mac.
]
] Josh
I apologize for the misinterpretation. You did agree that those things
should be fixed, and that is no cop out. I guess I was disturbed by you
questioning how seriously I take those things.
--
Paxon Hou
Robato Yao
In <353d960a....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) writes:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:57:57 -0400, Adrian Penalo
><adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>>
>>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>>
>
>For my home PC, games availability is a big consideration. So clearly
>there are tons more Win95 games than Mac. I am into games like
>StarCraft and that is available only for the PC (not even consoles).
You like Star Craft? I have reports calling this among the most buggy
of games.
>
>And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
>the Mac.
Enjoy your buggy games.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
>Kay-Yut
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
On 21 Apr 1998 08:19:21 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao)
wrote:
>In <353d960a....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) writes:
>>On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:57:57 -0400, Adrian Penalo
>><adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>>>
>>>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>>>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>>>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>>>
>>
>>For my home PC, games availability is a big consideration. So clearly
>>there are tons more Win95 games than Mac. I am into games like
>>StarCraft and that is available only for the PC (not even consoles).
>
>You like Star Craft? I have reports calling this among the most buggy
>of games.
>
Huh? If you go over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy, you will find
there is very few bugs reported for SC. I have yet encountered one
bug.
>>
>>And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
>>the Mac.
>
>Enjoy your buggy games.
>
Sounds like sour grapes to me ...
Kay-Yut
Chris Richards
kych...@hpl.hp.com (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) writes:
>>You like Star Craft? I have reports calling this among the most buggy
>>of games.
>Huh? If you go over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy, you will find
>there is very few bugs reported for SC. I have yet encountered one
>bug.
Me either. I get a kick out of "I have reports" as well -- why not play
the game and find out, or try reading c.s.i.p.g.s to see what other
players have encountered. It's like he's running a spy organization or
something he's not at liberty to discuss.
It's pretty obvious that the extra time Blizzard took getting SC out the
door resulted in a very polished product, "reports" notwithstanding. You
want bugs, check out something like Daggerfall, BC3000, DTUM, or M:tG.
>>>And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
>>>the Mac.
>>Enjoy your buggy games.
>Sounds like sour grapes to me ...
Sounds like someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Chris R
Joshua T. McKee
In article <paxon-20049...@ppp-207-104-156-91.okld03.pacbell.net>,
pa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Paxon Hou) wrote:
> In article <Josh.McKee-20...@pm3a11.rmac.net>,
> Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
>
I guess it all boils down to who is responsible for implementing certain
features. This key is a perfect example...why is it Apple's responsbility
to implement it in the OS? Yes, it might have made things more consistent
and easier for Apple to provide the functionality you desire. But is it
their fault because it is not there? It appears that Apple had a choice
to make because implementing it would have broken some specific piece of
software (of which we don't know who's). Rather than break an existing
application (if we are to believe the rumors), Apple choose to back out
the "fix", and laid down the rules that developers were responsible for
this particular implementation. Does this constitute a failing of Apple?
Especially when they were faced with breaking a "major application"?
Also, I'm not "pounding" on the 3rd party developers. But the fact of the
matter is, Apple (for whatever reason) stated that they do not provide
this functionality and that the developer is the one responsible for the
implementation of this key. We may fault Apple for not providing "system
wide" implementation of this key (which would be nice). But in the end,
the developers are the ones responsible for it's implementation. If it
doesn't work the way you expect in their program...you can blame no one
but the developer as they were made fully aware.
Josh
Paxon Hou
In article <Josh.McKee-21...@pm3a14.rmac.net>,
Josh....@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee) wrote:
]
]
] I guess it all boils down to who is responsible for implementing certain
] features. This key is a perfect example...why is it Apple's responsbility
] to implement it in the OS? Yes, it might have made things more consistent
] and easier for Apple to provide the functionality you desire. But is it
] their fault because it is not there? It appears that Apple had a choice
] to make because implementing it would have broken some specific piece of
] software (of which we don't know who's). Rather than break an existing
] application (if we are to believe the rumors), Apple choose to back out
] the "fix", and laid down the rules that developers were responsible for
] this particular implementation. Does this constitute a failing of Apple?
] Especially when they were faced with breaking a "major application"?
]
] Also, I'm not "pounding" on the 3rd party developers. But the fact of the
] matter is, Apple (for whatever reason) stated that they do not provide
] this functionality and that the developer is the one responsible for the
] implementation of this key. We may fault Apple for not providing "system
] wide" implementation of this key (which would be nice). But in the end,
] the developers are the ones responsible for it's implementation. If it
] doesn't work the way you expect in their program...you can blame no one
] but the developer as they were made fully aware.
]
] Josh
According the shareware author's information, Apple modified its
software to implement the forward delete key during some beta of System
7.0 but some third party software had problems with it. As a result,
Apple decided to scrap the delete key. I agree with you that developers
should be responsible for ensuring compatibility with Apple's software and
following Apple's rules. I assume this opinion also applies to the
earlier days of Apple during the System 7.0 beta. So doesn't this mean
that the third party company should have done something about its software
instead of Apple dropping the delete key? I guess it's hard to clearly
establish fault on this issue. Maybe Apple's software really did have a
flaw. Or maybe the "flaw" that Arlo Rose confirmed was simply the removal
the forward delete key and if it the same code had remained, it would be
correct. In that case, it would have been that third pary company's fault
for not being compatible.
--
Paxon Hou
Robato Yao
In <3543d3f7....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) writes:
>On 21 Apr 1998 08:19:21 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao)
>wrote:
>
>>In <353d960a....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) writes:
>>>On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:57:57 -0400, Adrian Penalo
>>><adr...@accesspro.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, here I will ask the last question of the MacOS vs. Windows debate:
>>>>
>>>>Besides better PMT, SMP, dynamic VM, and HAL, why you concider the
>>>>current Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (you can also concider Windows 98 and NT
>>>>5.0) better than the current MacOS 8.1 (do not concider Rhapsody)?
>>>>
>>>
>>>For my home PC, games availability is a big consideration. So clearly
>>>there are tons more Win95 games than Mac. I am into games like
>>>StarCraft and that is available only for the PC (not even consoles).
>>
>>of games.
>>
>
>Huh? If you go over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy, you will find
>there is very few bugs reported for SC. I have yet encountered one
Maybe they don't talk much about it at all.
>bug.
Hah. One of the 'reports' came from a vocal Windows NT advocate in the
COOA, and how much he prefers the 'solidity' of Microsoft written games.
But of course, this guy always had his credibility questioned.
Should I take his word over yours or yours over his?
>
>>>
>>>And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
>>>the Mac.
>>
>>Enjoy your buggy games.
>>
>
>Sounds like sour grapes to me ...
Why should I be sour grapes about a lifeless geek glued to a desktop?
Get a life. Get a real sport. I play real golf now in my
spare time. Big improvement to my health and my skin color. Not to
mention, my golf swing.
>
>
>Kay-Yut
Frankly I am a little tired of buggy games on the PC, particularly I
have not found one that never had a glaring bug. I am just tired of
wasting so much time and money on highly flawed juvenile games.
Rgds,
Chris
Chris Richards
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) writes:
>>>You like Star Craft? I have reports calling this among the most buggy
>>>of games.
>>Huh? If you go over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy, you will find
>>there is very few bugs reported for SC. I have yet encountered one
>Maybe they don't talk much about it at all.
Wht do you mean "maybe"? Have you looked or are you lecturing on
something about which you are completely clueless? A Deja News search
listed 2203 posts about StarCraft since it's release April 1. Sounds like
a lot of discussion to me. And since I've read a lot of it, I know that
bugs have not been a major complaint. And csipgs is a haven for
complainers.
>Hah. One of the 'reports' came from a vocal Windows NT advocate in the
>COOA, and how much he prefers the 'solidity' of Microsoft written games.
>But of course, this guy always had his credibility questioned.
>Should I take his word over yours or yours over his?
Well, you could easily prove that StarCraft is "among the most buggy of
games" by listing a dozen or so. Should be easy if there are that many.
It's called "put up or shut up". I'm sure your friend could supply some
of the more serious ones.
A much better complaint against StarCraft was the way Blizzard was swiping
registry information and sending it back to corporate headquarters (but
then you'd know that if you read csipgs). That's rather disturbing.
>>>>And for 3D games, PC got a lot better 3D hardware acceleration than
>>>>the Mac.
>>>Enjoy your buggy games.
>>Sounds like sour grapes to me ...
>Why should I be sour grapes about a lifeless geek glued to a desktop?
Beats me, but the evidence is pretty clear. You're practically a DSM IV
diagnosis above.
>Get a life. Get a real sport. I play real golf now in my
>spare time.
Heh. Something about saying "golf" and "real sport" like that strikes me
as funny.
>Big improvement to my health and my skin color. Not to
>mention, my golf swing.
I'm happy for you. I play sports *and* computer games. It's hardly
either/or.
>Frankly I am a little tired of buggy games on the PC, particularly I
>have not found one that never had a glaring bug.
How many games on any computer platform are shipped wothout "a" glaring
bug? It's a complicated process. The trick is how quickly a company
responds. Mac games are no better, and company response time tends to be
worse.
>I am just tired of
>wasting so much time and money on highly flawed juvenile games.
1. If you think they're a waste of time, why are you playing? I consider
golf a waste of time, so I don't bother.
2. If you think they're a waste of money, why do you buy them? I
consider expensive cars a waste of money, so guess what, I don't get them.
3. If you think the games are juvenile, what does that say about your
decision to "waste" your time and money on them?
4. There's a big difference between "highly flawed" and and "containing a
bug" which I think is pretty easy to spot.
You're a real peach. Quit playing games if they cause you to get so bent
out of shape. Believe me, we won't miss you.
Chris R
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>>You like Star Craft? I have reports calling this among the most buggy
>>>of games.
>>>
>>
>>Huh? If you go over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy, you will find
>>there is very few bugs reported for SC. I have yet encountered one
>
>Maybe they don't talk much about it at all.
>
>Hah. One of the 'reports' came from a vocal Windows NT advocate in the
>COOA, and how much he prefers the 'solidity' of Microsoft written games.
>But of course, this guy always had his credibility questioned.
>
huh?? First of all Starcraft is NOT a Microsoft written game. Second
of all, it runs on 95 (not NT) and I don't know what NT advocate have
anything to do with it.
Third of all, you have yet to list ONE bug of Starcraft.
Please, I have read tons of "reports" (more accurately online reviews)
about Starcraft and I don't see any of them mentioning bugs.
>Should I take his word over yours or yours over his?
>
Don't take any word of anyone. Go READ all the online review. Go PLAY
the game. Go READ a newsgroup (not this one, of course).
Kay-Yut
Quantum Leaper
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply wrote in message
<353d960a....@news.supernews.com>...
>For my home PC, games availability is a big consideration. So clearly
>there are tons more Win95 games than Mac. I am into games like
>StarCraft and that is available only for the PC (not even consoles).
>
Did you REALLY buy the game, if you did take a look at the front of the
manual? It says Window 95, Windows NT and Power Macintosh CD-ROM. It
just to the left of the Blizzard logo. BTW I'm just point out something
ANY owner of the game should know about it.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
I don't know where you get this erroreous information. My box said
"Win 95 and NT40". There is no mention of a Mac version.
In fact, I went to my local Fry's today. All the Starcraft boxes there
said "Win 95 and NT40" too.
They have a pretty big Mac games section but are filled with old games
in PC standard. There is no Starcraft in that section.
If Blizzard is going to put out a Mac version, it is apparently not at
the same time as the PC version. Hardly a surprise though.
Kay-Yut
Nathan Hughes
On or about Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:05:39 -0600, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
st...@stoneentertainment.com (Kevin Stone) exclaimed :
<s>
>Could I just butt in on this truely pointless conversation and ask the
>silly question... Just what the heck is Dynamic Virtual Memory?
I think that refers to the ability of OS's like NT and 95 to
"dynamically" shrink and grow the swap file as necessary. With such
a system, the amount of VM is limited only by the amount of HD space
you have free in the root partition. Additionally, it never needs to
be adjusted or even thought about.
Both 95 and NT allow you to turn off Dynamic VM and set up the swap
file as you wish. NT goes one further and allows you to set up swap
files as either fixed or dynamic on any, several or all available
partitions. Some people say it is faster to put the swap on a
different partition than your OS, which is what I do.
Nathan A. Hughes
MFA Candidate
The University Theatre KU
http://scenedesign.ml.org
fretwiz
In article <stone-ya02408000...@news.enetis.net>,
st...@stoneentertainment.com (Kevin Stone) wrote:
> I can't wait for Allegro. It's going to be the first truely revolutionary
> version of the MacOS since System 7.0. The feature I'm looking forward to
> the most are the system extensions turned into applications for dynamic
> loading and unloading!
Are you sure that dynamic loading and unloading is part of Allegro?
Alan Baker
According to Blizzard Entertainments web site the Mac version is under
development.
Alan Baker
Christopher Smith
>Both 95 and NT allow you to turn off Dynamic VM and set up the swap
>file as you wish. NT goes one further and allows you to set up swap
>files as either fixed or dynamic on any, several or all available
>partitions. Some people say it is faster to put the swap on a
>different partition than your OS, which is what I do.
Only if that partition is on a separate physical disk - preferably also on a
separate controller, otherwise you gain nothing.
Joe Ragosta
In article <fretwiz-2304...@den-co53-24.ix.netcom.com>,
fre...@ix.netcom.com (fretwiz) wrote:
Once again, a caution.
Anyone who has actually seen Allegro is under NDA. So, anything you read
about it is based on rumors or on someone violating an NDA. Either way,
take it with a big grain of salt until you see something official.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>
>According to Blizzard Entertainments web site the Mac version is under
>development.
>
>Alan Baker
In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
other cases.
Kay-Yut
Neil Fernandez
In article <3545bffa...@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com
Can't they just use a PC emulator like VPC?
Neil
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
And runs the games at 5-6 fps???
I doubt anyone is using VPC to play games seriously.
Kay-Yut
Tim Scoff
In article <3550bf08....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com
(Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:40:04 +0000, ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
>(Neil Fernandez) wrote:
>
>>In article <3545bffa...@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com
>>(Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >According to Blizzard Entertainments web site the Mac version is under
>>> >development.
>>> >
>>> >Alan Baker
>>>
>>> In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
>>> that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
>>> other cases.
>>
>>Can't they just use a PC emulator like VPC?
>>
>>Neil
>
>And runs the games at 5-6 fps???
>
>I doubt anyone is using VPC to play games seriously.
>
>
>Kay-Yut
I watched someone run it on a 4400/200 and a 7300/180 while it was in
beta to play Quake. I couldn't tell that they weren't on a PC.
--
Tim Scoff
cas...@nb.net
<http://www.nb.net/~casper/>
"Intel spends an average of $8,000 a year per for each PC to keep its internal PC network running, and that figure is probably close to what other corporations spend, Intel spokesman Tom Waldrop said."
The Oregonian, 9/25/96, Anthony Effinger
Patrick William Gierke
In article <casper-2704...@wheat-b-33.monroeville.nb.net>,
cas...@nb.net (Tim Scoff) wrote:
> In article <3550bf08....@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com
> (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:40:04 +0000, ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
> >(Neil Fernandez) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3545bffa...@news.supernews.com>, kych...@hpl.hp.com
> >>(Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply) wrote:
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >According to Blizzard Entertainments web site the Mac version is under
> >>> >development.
> >>> >
> >>> >Alan Baker
> >>>
> >>> In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
> >>> that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
> >>> other cases.
> >>
> >>Can't they just use a PC emulator like VPC?
> >>
> >>Neil
> >
> >And runs the games at 5-6 fps???
> >
> >I doubt anyone is using VPC to play games seriously.
> >
> >
> >Kay-Yut
>
> I watched someone run it on a 4400/200 and a 7300/180 while it was in
> beta to play Quake. I couldn't tell that they weren't on a PC.
Actually, games run pretty fast on VPC 2.0. Supposedly, with a 233 G3,
you'll get the performance of a Pentium 120 (or the like), which isn't too
bad. What's really cool about VPC 2.0, however, is that it allows (this is
important) *direct access to any 3Dfx (an OpenGL, I think) accelerator*.
The result is games that can run under VPC at about the same speed as an
equivilant Pentium II.
--
łI pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use
grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to
never use Caps Lock as my Śruną key, and to never, ever, leave a
single Bob alive.˛ -- Oath of the Vidmaster
Adrian Penalo
>>> In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
>>> that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
>>> other cases.
That's BS! All the major games for PCs are also available for the Mac (
DOOM, Descent, Myst, Quake, etc.).
KS Broennick
Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen ...
Oh- where is:
Quake2, Hexen2, UbiSoft F1, Wing Commander Prophecy, Janes F15, Longbow2,
Joint Strike Fighters, Flight Unlimited2, Flight Simulator 98, Need For
Speed 2, X Wing vs Tie fighter, F22 ADF, Dungeon Keeper, NHL98, Cart
Precision Racing, Forsaken, Jedi Knight, QuakeWorld and Turok?
All these games are major releases. Hmm- guess you have a strange definition
of B.S.
K.S. Brønnick
Earl Malmrose
KS Broennick <broennic...@online.no> wrote in article
<6idlev$m2h$1...@o.online.no>...
>
> Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen ...
> >>>> In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
> >>>> that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
> >>>> other cases.
> >
> >That's BS! All the major games for PCs are also available for the Mac (
> >DOOM, Descent, Myst, Quake, etc.).
And all of those games were available on the PC *long* before the Mac.
> Quake2, Hexen2, UbiSoft F1, Wing Commander Prophecy, Janes F15, Longbow2,
> Joint Strike Fighters, Flight Unlimited2, Flight Simulator 98, Need For
> Speed 2, X Wing vs Tie fighter, F22 ADF, Dungeon Keeper, NHL98, Cart
> Precision Racing, Forsaken, Jedi Knight, QuakeWorld and Turok?
>
> All these games are major releases. Hmm- guess you have a strange
definition
> of B.S.
Don't forget Starcraft. Awesome game. I sure hope the Mac version comes out
soon. I can't wait to lay waste to all the Mac users at work in Starcraft,
like I do with Quake. Its great having many months to get good at a game
before the Mac users get to try them.
Hmm, looks like Army Men was just released for Win95. I think I'll have to
go check that one out.
1La...@usa.net
In article <6idlev$m2h$1...@o.online.no>#1/1,
"KS Broennick" <broennic...@online.no> wrote:
>
>
> Adrian Penalo skrev i meldingen ...
> >>>> In any case, Mac gamers have to wait a while before enjoying games
> >>>> that PC gamers have been playing for quite some time, like in most
> >>>> other cases.
> >
> >That's BS! All the major games for PCs are also available for the Mac (
> >DOOM, Descent, Myst, Quake, etc.).
>
>
> Quake2, Hexen2, UbiSoft F1, Wing Commander Prophecy, Janes F15, Longbow2,
> Joint Strike Fighters, Flight Unlimited2, Flight Simulator 98, Need For
> Speed 2, X Wing vs Tie fighter, F22 ADF, Dungeon Keeper, NHL98, Cart
> Precision Racing, Forsaken, Jedi Knight, QuakeWorld and Turok?
>
> All these games are major releases. Hmm- guess you have a strange definition
> of B.S.
>
>
>
Oh.. Dont want to forget StarCraft! Also I would like to add something, any
mac users are always saying that oh this game and this game is coming out
soon. Thats a bunch of crap, if we wanted to say that we could also say SIN,
half-life, UNREAL, Diablo 2, any many more games. Mac Games suck, go back
to playing your great Marathon 2! haha
Jason
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Patrick William Gierke
No...i'd rather go back to playing Myth: The Fallen Lords, F/A-18 Hornet,
and maybe a little Duke Nukem (/w the Duke it out in DC expansion pack).
Marathon 2 is over three years old. The game engine is outdated by far
(but i've never seen a game yet that can match its storyline). I rather be
playing Infinity than Marathon 2....
Oh, and speaking of Unreal...I've been seeing a lot of ad's for it already
(Mac version)...but I'm honestly more interested with what Bungie West's
up to.
--
³I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use
grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to
never use Caps Lock as my Œrun¹ key, and to never, ever, leave a
Chad Irby
"Earl Malmrose" <malm...@nospam.jetcity.com> wrote:
> > >That's BS! All the major games for PCs are also available for the Mac (
> > >DOOM, Descent, Myst, Quake, etc.).
>
> And all of those games were available on the PC *long* before the Mac.
Ummm. No. Half of them were, though. But Descent was a Mac-first game,
and Myst was not only Mac-first, but completely Mac-made, with
StrataVision and SuperCard.
--
Chad Irby ci...@magicnet.net
/ My greatest fear:
/ That future generations will, for some
/ reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Earl Malmrose
Chad Irby <ci...@magicnet.net> wrote in article
<cirby-02059...@pm61-35.magicnet.net>...
>
> Ummm. No. Half of them were, though. But Descent was a Mac-first game,
> and Myst was not only Mac-first, but completely Mac-made, with
> StrataVision and SuperCard.
Duh, of course Myst was Mac first. Don't know how I missed that. But you
are completely wrong that Descent was a Mac first game. So of the 4 you
listed, 3 of them were PC first by a long shot.
Chris Richards
"Earl Malmrose" <malm...@nospam.jetcity.com> writes:
Earl is right about Descent here. The Descent FAQ didn't document the
release dates, but a Deja News search of csmga shows that Mac Descent was
released in 11/95, while csipga claims Descent *2* was released for the PC
in 12/95. Maybe that's what you were thinking about, Chad.
Chris R
