a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (04/12/90)
In article <134346@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >The menubar isn't all bad, since you aren't forced to look around to see where >a given application's menu is (or *which* application is active). Personal preference, I guess. I'd rather have the program name in the menu bar until I want to see menus. I found while using A-Max that Mac programs' highly-standardized menus :-) made it hard to tell which program I was in, if any (as opposed to the desktop menu itself). I haven't used MultiFinder, but I can imagine it would be that much worse. If you're only running one program at a time, though, it might not be too bad. But I guess I'm just a multitasking sort of guy. ...uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a218 (bang) "I shot the mailer..." Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP (domain) "But I didn't shoot the backbone site"
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr11.182605.288@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >Excuse me, but what do multitasking and object-oriented programming have to >do with a GUI? They provide ways to make better use of the GUI. Watch the Amiga scroll several windows at once, all of which may be partially or even completely obscured. I don't think multitasking and the programming environment can be as cleanly divorced from the GUI as you would like to imagine. >Are you trying to say that Apple's interface is less >powerful than the Xerox's? Yes. >Have you ever used a Xerox? Do you know what you're saying?? Yes. Yes. >Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a >GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the >Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. OK, I will. First of all let me make note that you totally sidestepped my major point which was that people did not have to copy the Mac to get GUIs and that, in fact, the Mac substantially copied Xerox's GUI. Apple even gave credit to Alan Kay for GUI concepts when they launched of the machine, but that was the "old Apple", before Apple decided they invented GUIs after all. Now as to things in the Mac that are degraded from the Xerox GUI. One. On the Xerox desktop, all objects are peers. There is no difference between the garbage can and other programs that could have files dropped on them. That is, on the Xerox, you could drop a file on a program and the program would execute with that file as an input parameter. On the Mac, all that is left of that useful concept is the trashcan. Two. Pop-up menus. On the Xerox the menu popped up where the mouse was. On the Mac it pops up on top. This causes one to have to drive the mouse a bunch to get to the menus, useful on a machine without a lot of pixels, but a pain. Granted some workarounds have appeared, such as programs that warp the cursor up to the top then back, but that's nonstandard and kind of a kludge. I will acknowledge that this is kind of a judgement call, so no followups taking me to task on this single issue, OK? Three. The Xerox had a three-button mouse and the buttons behaved consistently. The one-button mouse of the Mac was supposed to be an improvement, but that button has ended up having several multiplexed actions, one click, two clicks, three clicks, even five clicks for some programs. I've tried dialing a phone with the switchhook for fun. Quintuple-clicking reminds me of that. Four. Icons would change on the Xerox depending on what was going on. If you dropped something on the mailbox to send to someone, the mailbox icon would show something in it until it was delivered. Now some stuff has appeared that does things like this on the Mac, but it was not in the original Mac GUI, hence "degraded." Speaking of lineage, the Amiga mouse has a menu button. As the Xerox has one and the Mac doesn't, I would certainly trace the lineage of this Amiga feature to the Star and not to the Mac. And I can think of another machine's GUI that is a predecessor of the Mac that is better implemented than the Mac... Yes, the Lisa. Remember the original hype about the Mac? 75% percent of the functionality of the Lisa for 25% of the price? They said 75%, not 125% or something, so even Apple knew and admitted that the Mac was less than the Lisa. To quote Cringely from a few months back, "The Lisa had problems, but it was a terrific piece of engineering that still puts the Macintosh to shame." And you guys are still paying the price for the corners that had to be cut in the original Mac to meet its target price, i.e. software shortcuts (no multitasking) to meet the original 64K ROM target, etc. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -- Emerson -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/12/90)
In article <5562@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <1990Apr11.182605.288@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >>Please tell me how your comments are relevant to the power of a >>GUI, and how you decided that Apple's GUI 'degraded' the power of the >>Xerox GUI...without talking about OS concerns. > >OK, I will. First of all let me make note that you totally sidestepped my >major point which was that people did not have to copy the Mac to get GUIs >and that, in fact, the Mac substantially copied Xerox's GUI. Apple even gave I agreed with you there. Nobody I know has ever claimed that Apple didn't copy the Xerox GUI, to a large extent. There was no need to sidestep. >credit to Alan Kay for GUI concepts when they launched of the machine, but >that was the "old Apple", before Apple decided they invented GUIs after all. I assume you are referring to the microsoft lawsuit issue? Many people seem to forget that Apple has never claimed the GUI as their own, only their particular implimentaion of it. >Now as to things in the Mac that are degraded from the Xerox GUI. One. >On the Xerox desktop, all objects are peers. There is no difference between >the garbage can and other programs that could have files dropped on them. >That is, on the Xerox, you could drop a file on a program and the program >would execute with that file as an input parameter. On the Mac, all that >is left of that useful concept is the trashcan. That seems like a very useful attribute of a GUI. I'm surprised that it doesn't appear in the Mac or Amiga GUIs. Does anyone know if Windows 3.0 will have such a feature? > >Two. Pop-up menus. On the Xerox the menu popped up where the mouse was. >On the Mac it pops up on top. This causes one to have to drive the mouse >[...] >a kludge. I will acknowledge that this is kind of a judgement call, so no >followups taking me to task on this single issue, OK? OK. Personally I like the Mac's method. >Three. The Xerox had a three-button mouse and the buttons behaved consistently. >The one-button mouse of the Mac was supposed to be an improvement, but that It is a huge improvemant, in my mind. When I first started using a Mac, I was put off by the single button. After getting comfortable with it, though, I wondered why anybody would want more than one, except for a few special cases. And before you ask, yes, I like seeing the menu bar at the top of my screen all the time, without having to hit a special mouse button for it. It tends to make me more aware of my options, especially in a program that I'm not very familiar with. >button has ended up having several multiplexed actions, one click, two clicks, >three clicks, even five clicks for some programs. I've tried dialing a phone 3-5 CLICKS??? Which programs demanded that? Tell me, so I'll know to stay away from them!!! >Speaking of lineage, the Amiga mouse has a menu button. As the Xerox has one >and the Mac doesn't, I would certainly trace the lineage of this Amiga feature >to the Star and not to the Mac. I would say that the Amiga's 2 button mouse differentiates it from other systems. It is a good compromise between the spartan simplicity of the Mac and the somewhat confusing flexibility of 3 buttoned systems. -- Don DeVoe ddev@epsl.umd.edu
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/12/90)
In article <5562@sugar.hackercorp.com>, karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > > Two. Pop-up menus. On the Xerox the menu popped up where the mouse was. > On the Mac it pops up on top. The Mac interface isn't quite static...menus that popup, or can be "torn off" to be placed wherever they're most convenient are supported now. Hierarchical menus, too (finally). The menubar isn't all bad, since you aren't forced to look around to see where a given application's menu is (or *which* application is active). Lots of neat ideas floating around all over the place, doubt if we'll see the "ultimate GUI" for a long time yet. (All over the place encompasses everyone playing with GUI design, btw.) > Three. The Xerox had a three-button mouse and the buttons behaved consistently. > The one-button mouse of the Mac was supposed to be an improvement, but that > button has ended up having several multiplexed actions, one click, two clicks, > three clicks, even five clicks for some programs. I've tried dialing a phone > with the switchhook for fun. Quintuple-clicking reminds me of that. This is a joke, right? (I suppose anything's possible, though. Sheesh.) > Four. Icons would change on the Xerox depending on what was going on. > If you dropped something on the mailbox to send to someone, the mailbox icon > would show something in it until it was delivered. Now some stuff has > appeared that does things like this on the Mac, but it was not in the original > Mac GUI, hence "degraded." Simplification isn't always synonymous with degradation. I'll agree on some points, disagree on others. > And I can think of another machine's GUI that is a predecessor of the Mac > that is better implemented than the Mac... Yes, the Lisa. Remember No argument. Lots of good ideas there...a lot of which will likely resurface in the future, too. (Lots of the original Lisa developers are still around at Apple, with a lot of their original convictions.) > And you guys are still paying the price for the corners that had to be cut > in the original Mac to meet its target price, i.e. software shortcuts (no > multitasking) to meet the original 64K ROM target, etc. You have to charge alot to the vision of one individual who *really* wanted an "appliance" for the masses. And had enough clout to get away with a lot of it. Very little of his enforced restrictions were strictly based on direct cost factors. Pretty good points. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)