papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/17/89)
In article <7066@chaph.usc.edu> eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) writes: >The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, >December 15, 1989, page D3. > >Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software [...] > > A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent ^^^^^^ >changes in software protection and intellectual property laws ^^^^^^^ >make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify >those changes. Just a little clarification on this. The "recent changes" clearly refer to the fact that earlier this year the US joined the Berne Convention. The "MAJOR" item involved in this is that it is no longer considered a requirement for copyright protection to put a copyright notice (the little 'c' enclosed in a circle) to claim copyright protection, as it was previously. Many lawyers have commented that if the Intel vs. NEC lawsuit were to be tried today, Intel would win and not lose as it did because it did not write proper copyright notices on its chips. It is going to be fun to watch this thing (and the related Apple vs. MS/HP lawsuit) unravel. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [.signature under contruction] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/17/89)
OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (12/18/89)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). --
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/18/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since almost the very beginning.
perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >-- Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox, one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it. One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ? -- --- Per Andersson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >-- This world is unfair! Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, make things look good and friendly. It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at the manual and learn things fast. But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? What is the good judgement? Where are the users? If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we users see the windowing interface so early? If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if.....
langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (12/18/89)
In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >> >>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>NeXT Step, etc.? > >NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >almost the very beginning. Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system. -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (12/18/89)
>In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> I write: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) replies: > This world is unfair! > >Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for >- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? >- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? >- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? Personally I don't have a problem with this - never had. I don't mind DOS because I accept it as what it truly is: not much more than a monitor (it ain't an OS if you can get at the hardware). Then again, my first summer job was writing assembly language programs for these things back in '85 (aside: I didn't even know what assembly language was, when I got the job :-) and I can see how people who can't intuit the innards of DOS/Unix might have a problem. > > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >make things look good and friendly. > > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >the manual and learn things fast. Granted. This is precisely what pisses me off about Apple: a GUI is wonderful, "but you MUST buy one of OUR machines to use it. If you buy someone elses machine we expect a small royalty payment." On another note, I don't know how accurate this (second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy! > > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides. However, I will go out on a limb and state, based on the contents of your posting, that you aren't qualified to make such a statement. Yes, I know them there's fightin' words, but I don't want to argue. I won't reply - it's not worth it. > > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >What is the good judgement? Where are the users? > > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we >users see the windowing interface so early? Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it) is nigh :-). > > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Sorry, I couldn't quite figure out your grammar, but I believe this sentence amounts to whining. 'nuff said. > > Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if..... ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. Sorry ;^> I couldn't help myself!! If you're going to leave your balls on the table, someone's bound to chop them off sooner or later. Davin --
brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? > IBM may have thoroughly unremarkable products, but that is not the basis of a suit. If people need certain requirements, and an IBM product doesn't have them, but still people buy it, then they are idiots. There is no further issue. IBM is in deep trouble as we speak. The Third Reich is crumbling... > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. > It depends on how well windows, etc. are used. Too much of that silly business, and it loses its advantages. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > 680x0 superior to 80x86? In what ways, Mr. Computer Engineer? In some ways, yes, in others, no. "fact"? > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. Yeah, like everytime the Mac says something like: Macintosh cannot read this disk ________ | OK | ~~~~~~~~ Yeah, everybody knows just exactly was has gone wrong here, huh? Remember, SE stands for System Error. Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are advantageous in many, but not all aspects. Apple's implementation of GUI's is far, far from perfect. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? > What is the good judgement? Where are the users? > Apple sued Microsoft because of "Look and Feel" arguments. What's the diff? Sauce for the goose. > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* > users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? DOS does "inhale with great force," but stating that the 680x0 is superior is nonsense, and not open minded. ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec18.040441.30118@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to >> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. > > ...people checked their facts first. Yes. > By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because > they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel > that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time. > And time is valuable to me. Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than pc. gary
kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > > Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there > sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any > supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get > into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are > advantages and disadvantages on both sides. >[lines deleted] I agree that there are trade-offs. And I did not reach these conclusions all by myself. I will not want to argue with you either, at least not before you do some researches yourself. Just find some technical datas sheets, many of the magazines are also good souces (some actually do the comparisons for you), walk that extra mile will not hurt you. > Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to > the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As > evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was > not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on > the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it) > is nigh :-). When the Macintosh interface became so successful, the companies which follow it are not taking risks. As a matter of fact, a company that does not give users GUI is taking risks because they are losing their grounds :-) Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a 9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not now. You might haven't noticed, the SPARCstation has arrived, and it has windowing system for it, not totally command driven :-) :-) Question, what is the evidence that Apple will not sue these other companies? :-)
t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) (12/18/89)
RED ALERT! NETWORK CRAP FILTERS ENGAGING! ALL CROSS-POSTING DISABLED! INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION HAS CEASED, EVERYONE ^K IMMEDIATELY AND ABANDON THE NET. all further replys to this thread will be dealt with the most extreme fines and punishments. all transmission costs and wasted time will be automatically billed back to those who continue to add to this lack of intelligence. signed THE NET POLICE ------------- they asked me to forward this announcement as they couldn't get through with the biggest shovel they had! ;^) Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (12/18/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. Please, please,please STOP this cross-posting! If you want to score points about PC being better than a Mac, don't post your article to an Amiga group. I don't want to read your crap, and anyone who does can read the appropriate group for it. DON'T just press 'f' or 'F' without checking the cross-posting groups. I know it is harder, but if you did it you wouldn't see this type of crap either. This will be my last cross-posting to so many groups, and try to make sure I don't read any similar articles (this and the one above!). [Flame off] If you want to flame me, go for it (see the address in the .sig). But don't expect a nice reply. Ian. Ian Rowlands | "I don't want to be political, but you Dept. of Electrical Engineering | can't trust the ALP!" University of Melbourne | -Joh Bjelke-Petersen Email :- ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au | (Flames to ianr@uluru.ecr.mu.oz.au)
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/18/89)
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis): > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. The most obvious example is "train someone else to use it". My next example would be writing a memo/resume/spec. that didn't look like I did it on a cheap typewriter (multiple fonts/sizes, proportional spacing etc). I know this is dependent on a LaserWriter and that you can also do it on a PC, but you asked what an average person could do *faster* on a Mac. > There > probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than > pc. You seem to've missed the point here; the whole idea of the Mac is to get away from *commands*. If you want to talk about which *activities* can be performed faster on Macs, see the above. Since I'm posting anyway, I'd like to add my two cents' worth about Xerox's suit and Apple's corporate arrogance. It seems to me that the suit is an attempt to prevent Apple from making money off of Xerox technology, not to prevent Apple from *using* it or to make money for Xerox. In this I think it's similar to Bucky Fuller's idea of patenting something and releasing the patent into the public domain, preventing anyone from making money off of his ideas. I programmed Macs for 3-4 years, and I like the little buggers, but I've always tried to recognize other machines' strengths. Since this has led to my current involvement with UNIX I think I have some perspective on the issue. Xerox did some *very* valuable and *expensive* work to determine how user interfaces should work. Apple took the results of this work and made it available to the public. Both companies deserve lots of credit. Apple's insistence on "owning" the interface is absurd because not only were they not its inventors, but it's not so much a new technology as it is a new area of study. Anyone else could duplicate Xerox's experiments with mice (n buttons), light pens, tablets, icons, windows, menus, etc. and it would surprise nobody if they got the same results. With those results in hand, they would logically come up with an interface basically similar to Apple/Xerox. How, then, can either company own an interface that's inevitable given the way human perceptions work? Much as I like the Mac, its interface is not perfect. This is partly because of developers who fail to appreciate the effort that went into creating "the rules", but part is also inherent. Ever try to do pipes on a Mac? How about real multitasking (MultiFinder doesn't help much when you're trying to write network daemons and such)? If I could have an interface as intuitive as the Mac's on a machine with a real OS I'd be very happy. Fortunately my wait is getting shorter, mainly because Apple is failing to maintain their chokehold on interface technology. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
clye@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Christopher Lye) (12/18/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. > >gary While you mention disk handling procedures you did say give a single example. I'll give you a few. Time is a commodity to many Mac Users and not just in terms of computer clockspeed. Learning time is much reduced when faced with Mac applications. Believe me I've worked "both sides of the fence," and know whereof I speak. Particularly germane is Desktop Publishing. I have used Ventura on the PC and Pagemaker on the Mac. Granted Ventura (by Xerox) is very powerful, but SLOWWWWW. I was handling a 65 pg document and had to wait ages for the PC to process any graphics I had incorporated. On the Mac handling graphics and text is a breeze and NO WAY can you tell me that the IBM PC can do a better job. Lets not even mention postscript on an IBM PC. Also if you were clued enough to realize, most of the power programs in the Mac environment have command key sets for all you people who love to memorize these things rather than get on with the actual act of creating. I love this great overarching generalizations that just set people up sometimes. Didn't someone from the "IBM Camp" mentioning "balls on the table." :-) Besides, in my book its not the one who does it faster, its the computer that does it better. For me this is clearly the Macintosh. Some of my best friends are PC users, really. :-) Chris
mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) (12/18/89)
In article <9105@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >>In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >>> >>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>>NeXT Step, etc.? >> >>NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >>almost the very beginning. > >Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system. > I am told AT&T also licenses from Xerox for Open Look. Looks like the industry already recognizes Xerox as the defacto owners of the technology. This, I would believe, could only help Xerox. What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low price (to everyone but Apple that is :-). -- Mark A. Storin Lake Systems, Milw., WI mark@lakesys.lakesys.COM
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/18/89)
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a >mac than pc. Oh god this is just too easy. Gary you really are as bad, in your own way, as a Mac zealot. Why watch the Comedy Channel when I can read your messages? In answer to your question: 1) Launching a wordprocessor and reading in a document. DOS <name of program> <name of document> Mac <clickety click> (on document) 2) Deleting a file DOS era <name of file> Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) 3) Selecting a word in a document. DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> Mac <clickety click> 4) Selecting a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph DOS <lots of keys to move> Function-Whatever <lots more keys> Function-Whatever Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> I'll give you this; you are much more entertaining than the Mac zealot you are fighting with. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King) (12/18/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Any operation on a numeric array with more than 64k of data.
nasa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) (12/18/89)
In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >> >>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > >NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >almost the very beginning. As does IBM, HP and Microsoft...
wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit gets in the way. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught. And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence level they aimed for. > If *some* people would not be so close minded... I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/19/89)
In article <14971@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: | Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be | right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a | 9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not | now. People have a strange idea of what's a workstation. A Sun2 or 3/50 is a "workstation," but a 386 running SysV, with NFS and X-windows is always called "a PC running UNIX." I think it's just name dropping, myself. We have a few people here running SL/IP to home of 9600 baud lines. They tell me that V.32 works better than proprietary modes, at least those from Telebit and Vadic. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: > > I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. Huh? Funny, I've yet to meet an open-minded MS-DOS user. Or an open-minded Apple // user. Or an open-minded Amiga user. Or an open-minded Macintosh user. Sorry, Bill, but my SE is exactly what I *want* in a computer. The menus on the screen aren't a bloody hand to hold (geez), anymore than you MS-DOS people have those idiotic keyboard reference cards ("What?" Bill says, "*I* don't use keyboard reference cards..."). Yeah, what I think "stinks" is having to go through elaborate installation mechanisms to get new software on the machine. "Stinks" is having different graphics resolutions, none of which are compatible with the other (oh gee, Bill, sorry that the Mac can do this...) "Stinks" is when the software/ hardware combination doesn't *help* at all to bring technology down from the technical to a greater population. I try to be open-minded. But I can't stand when some people are "hell bent" on telling me that my "piece of shit" is just a toy ... when most of the new software coming out for their "power machines" sure seems to resemble the stuff that runs on mine... Never mind. If you can't figure out that each computer has its strength and there are very few "pieces of shit" out there (the only machine I'd consider garbage is the TI 99/4A, and heck, *that* has devoted followers still), then ... it's hopeless. Roger rre@ihlpn.ATT.COm
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (the Wizard of Speed and Time) (12/19/89)
Could y'all kindly keep the "Mac is God/IBM rules" war out of comp.sys.amiga. Please? We already know the real answer anyways :-) :-) -- Rich Carreiro - Most Biased Boston Celtics Fan! "So long, farewell, and may ARPA: rlcarr@space.mit.edu the forces of evil become UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr confused on the way to your BITNET: rlcarr@space.mit.edu door!" - George Carlin
lumsdon@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Lumsdon) (12/19/89)
I saw somewhere in one of Commodore's Amiga manuals, a statement giving credit to Xerox. I know that some of the GUI vendors have purchased licenses from Xerox for the icon & mouse concepts. On a side note, IEEE Computer magazine had a fascinating article about the Xerox Star machnie sometime during the past 8 months. Go Xerox! Taking a __long__ side trip, changes in patent laws have made is possible to patent software under certain conditions. It goes something like.... you can patent the software that controls the flight path of a missile, or controls a physical device that controls a process or device, but you can't patent the software that controls a computer part or peripheral. --- Esther Lumsdon David Taylor Research Center Annapolis Lab cm 301-267-3816 av 281-3816
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (12/19/89)
Absurd "macho he-man" statement #1 (talking about using the mouse and menus):
If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
gets in the way.
This is not true. When you need power is when the mouse and menus become more
helpful. As a computer science major, I would be lost without using Think's C
with its multiple windows, integrated debugger, data-structure viewing, and
menus. The mouse saves much time. As a business management major, I also
work with lots of numbers and statistics. Sure, I can do a graph with Lotus
1-2-3, but I would much rather choose a menu item that lets me look at the
data in another way.
Definely true statement #1:
I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Humerous statement #1:
BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
I guess this means that if you don't get caught, everything is fine.
Humerous statement #2:
I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
I like to think that I am open-minded. I like Macintosh machines. I like
MS-DOS machines. I like VAX machines. I like Unix machines. Each has its
strong points. Each definitely has its weak points. But many people here
are shooting down the strong points of the computers as though they were weak
points. You have to make many considerations, not defenses.
* The Mac uses a mouse, and is consistent in the use of a mouse. This is
good.
* MS-DOS is a simple operating system. This is good, too. The trick is to
make the operating system more powerful without requiring a more-powered
user. Apple has done this with the Mac OS, and from what I have seen of
OS/2 so far, IBM is trying the same thing.
* Character-based systems are good. Say this in 5 years and watch yourself
get laughed out of the place. The flexibility is just not there.
* MS-DOS machines give you everything you need in one box. Sure, fine, great.
But so do Macs, Amiga, NeXTs, Suns, VAXen, and yes, even Apple IIs.
* The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030.
Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's
stay away from this argument.
Press 'n' now if you can't take any more...
At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
and raving.
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/19/89)
From article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, by wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske): > I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. %sarcasm on I have yet to meet an open-minded IBM PC user; if they were open-minded they switched to the Mac or to UNIX. %sarcasm off Let's keep the stupid personal attacks out of this, eh? Your comments have done very little to raise the discussion out the pseudo-religious muck. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (12/19/89)
> I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. Obviously, the right solution is to have multiple tools for multiple jobs. I've got a Sun workstation on my desk, and a Mac-IIcx on the table next to my desk. I use one or the other depending on what task I have to perform. For word processing, I use troff on the Sun. For drawing, I use Dreams on the Mac. Even PCs have a place in life, and it's not in the dumpster. They are all over the place here as dedicated lab equipment controllers. No, my Mac doesn't stink (either the IIcx I have at work or the Plus I have at home). It may not be the last word in computers, but it certainly doesn't stink. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"
robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (12/19/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >In article <1989Dec18.040441.30118@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >>In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >>> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to >>> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. >> >> ...people checked their facts first. Yes. >> By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because >> they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel >> that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time. >> And time is valuable to me. > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. > >gary There are NO single commands that work faster on a Mac, (or AMIGA since this keeps showing up in comp.sys.amiga), but then if the computer is only used to copy one file to another, what good is it. But,.. The Mac is undoubtably faster on certain useful functions. Like: You can learn any program faster with the Mac/Amiga than on the PeeCee. This is because you have a consistant user interface on the mac/amiga. On the PeeCee every program thinks it knows the best way to do something, and all of the rest are just backwards and unfriendly. Consequently the user must read the entire manual on every piece of software he buys to learn how to use the program -- ie. the learning curve for a new piece of software is much steeper. For example, when I first worked at Lockheed (in 1987) the R&D Division (where I worked) bought PeeCees 5-to-1 over Macs. After several secretaries of the Directors got Macs, the number quickly shifted in favor of the Macs. The reason?? The people who owned Macs could learn how to put out a paper and connect to the Vax, and manage their files, and whip up a budget, etc. in half the time of the PeeCee users. My department was responsible for PeeCee and Mac support, the lady that did this job was asked during a staff meeting by our manager, "Why, if we have an equal number of Macs and PeeCees; does your weekly status report never contain more than a few lines about what you did to help the Mac users, while the remainder of your report fills volumes on what you did to help PC users? Are you just not familiar with the Mac, or are you shorting the Mac users in any way?" She responded, "No it's nothing like that. It's just that the Mac users only ask for help setting their machines up -- you know; plugging it in. Once they get past that, they figure the rest out in a few hours, and it is the same for every program they buy. On the other hand, the PC users need me to help them everytime they buy some new software, because they have to re-learn everything all over again." You can print out a "HIGH-QUALITY" document faster on Mac. Desktop Publishing is far and away superior on the Mac to anything offered on the PeeCee. It is more powerful, faster, better looking, more flexible, and easier to use than anything the PeeCee could probably EVER offer. In the same amount of time, an experienced user on a Mac vs an equally experienced user on a PeeCee would turn out a document an order of magnitude superior to the PeeCee user's document. You can diskcopy faster. It may sound simple, but it is invariabley true. It is far faster to grab a disk with the mouse, and move it over to the disk that you want it to copy onto; than it is to type diskcopy a: b: (or whatever). This; of course, assumes an equal amount of bytes being copied. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/19/89)
In article <1439@lakesys.lakesys.com>, mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) writes... >In article <9105@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >>In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >>>In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >>>> [next, sun, etc. liscensing from Xerox] But if Apple has to liscense, then it's liscense to to MicroSoft is invalid, and Windows is also in trouble, no? >What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then >turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low >price (to everyone but Apple that is :-). I don't think you can charge different liscensing fees purely for spite. BTW, I never knew that so many Macintosh users were so spiteful. I guess you learn something new every day. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
rgm@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Menke) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > ...but I've been told that Apple > recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would > agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy! Actually, it was a group of computer sellers, not Apple, who tried to pass legeslation to outlaw computer discounts. A representative from Apple even posted on this newsgroup asking us to write letters to the congressmen, etc. "Collision imminent...." | Robert Menke "Energize the force fields!" | rgm@OCF.berkeley.edu "What force fields?" | Robert.Menke@bmug.fidonet.org TEAM CS -- Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today!
james@utastro.UUCP (James McCartney) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: > shit > BULLSHIT! > shit doesn't stink. Real intelligent language, dude. Convinces me. Yup. --- James McCartney
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (12/19/89)
In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes:
)Definely true statement #1:
)
) I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
)
)Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
)Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
)article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
)Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Because they serve as manuals to people who pirate the programs.
I can't figure out what you were trying to say there, but I'm
pretty sure you missed this point.
)At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
)and raving.
Not clear.
)Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
)Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
)Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com
jimm
--
-------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me
"This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute.
`Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired.
I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bushphorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (12/19/89)
Please, don't bring your language, CPU, or computer bigotry here. Most of us just want to discuss the Amiga here...go somewhere else please:) I understand, I'm pretty bigoted and unreasoning about my choices too. It's just that this is not the place. Thanks Patrick Horgan (phorgan@cup.portal.com)
fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Zippy) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >> make things look good and friendly. > >If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit >gets in the way. What kind of intelligence is it that is proud of being able to use a command line interface rather than a graphic-based one? Do you seriously consider this some sort of badge of honor? How threatened you must feel by those that can use both... > >> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >> manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >> the manual and learn things fast. > >I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough. My, you ARE smart... >> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >> the other impundent company is being "punished". > >BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught. >And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because >they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to >decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence >level they aimed for. Perhaps your own company, the phone company, should have aimed for telephone systems that used 39 wires connected to switch boxes in every home. That way only intelligent people could use phones, and you'd feel much better. > >> If *some* people would not be so close minded... > >I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems >hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things >need no defense - they stand on their own merits. Then what are you defending and why? -------- Please ask yourself a question: if the Mac interface is so bad, insulting and inefficient, why is everyone falling all over themselves to make a functional copy for their systems? Somebody must be buying it. Thank you for a most insulting and immature posting... David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/19/89)
In article <988@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >2) Deleting a file > DOS era <name of file> > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) And if you want to delete a file three directories down the tree, but want to keep working in the directory you're in, you get to click on three folders, then drag the file icon to the trashcan, then click back up three times. In DOS, you just specify the pathname: DOS era dir\dir\dir\filename Mac <clickety click> (wait) <clickety click> (wait) <clickety click> (wait) <click> ...drag... <kcilc> <clickety click> (wait) <clickety click> (wait) <clickety click> (wait) >3) Selecting a word in a document. > DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> > Mac <clickety click> Assuming you're not using a mouse-driven word processor. In Microsoft Word, for example, it's '<click> (using the righthand button)' >4) Selecting a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph > DOS <lots of keys to move> > Function-Whatever > <lots more keys> > Function-Whatever > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> Same objections as above. You are picking out a single type of WP program and attempting to tar all DOS WP programs by denigrating it against the Mac. Straw Man fallacy. Your arguments are invalid. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
unhd (Roger Gonzalez ) (12/20/89)
Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). Some GUI's work well. But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-) Some comments: Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for (a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical command sets. They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large command sets and with experienced users. On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without pointing at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this whole section, but whenever I've tried to look at or otherwise hack into things at a low level, things complained noisily because I wasn't using the proper applications. Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). -Roger -- UUCP: ..!uunet!unhd!rg | USPS: Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory BITNET: r_gonzalez at unhh | University of New Hampshire PHONE: (603) 862-4600 | 242 SERB FAX: (603) 862-4399 | Durham, NH 03824-3525
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (12/20/89)
Reading all this stuff really makes me chuckle. As a user of minis and
micros using DOS, OS/2, *nix as well as the MacOS, I cant believe that
so many would be so involved in their "own" architecture and OS that they
cant admit that there are other valid ways of doing things. A GUI
(Graphical User Interface) is well suited to doing some things, just as
a command driven interface is suited to doing other things. A GUI is more
cumbersome at some things that are easy in a command driven one, as a
command driven interface is more cumbersome at doing some things that are
a piece of cake under a GUI.
Whats the big deal? Use what works for you!
_________________________________________________________________________
Randy Thompson | rht@smsdpg.UUCP -- Office
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | rht%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP -- mac@home
703/648-9400 |
_________________________________________________________________________
* Constructive criticism is always appreciated *
Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP
_________________________________________________________________________cswarren@enzyme.berkeley.edu (Warren Gish;133 Barker;x3-9219) (12/20/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Okay, here's an easy one... Name a file "numerical recipes". It takes a LOT longer to do this under DOS. Call me when you're done. ;^) Warren X (padding for the linecount police) X X X
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/20/89)
in article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.amiga:48425 comp.sys.ibm.pc:44674 comp.sys.mac:47930 > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Please multiply these two matrices: long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC you can buy for the same price. Others can take it from there. > There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac > than pc. There probably is, but who's talking about _single_ commands anyway. If you're not running OS/2 on your PC machine, there are MANY things a Mac can do better than a PC (the current Mac OS and OS/2 each support the same amount of memory). I'm using a different 680x0 based computer, but the same rules apply. I regularly use a DTP program that's almost 400K in size. I often fire up the companion drawing program, another 270K, while the DTP program is still running. Both programs, a drawing, and the 100 page manual I'm working on is all in real memory. You could simulate this on a PC by swapping to disk or bank-switching memory, but there's no way this is going to be as fast under MS-DOS as it would be on my Amiga or a Mac under Multifinder. And I have about 10-15 other smaller things running in the background most of the time. OS/2 could probably do the same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. > gary -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
jwright@cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (12/20/89)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: | kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: | > Please give an example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. | Please multiply these two matrices: | | long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; Let's see... No assignments, and of course all compilers initialize data to zero, hence the answer is the zero matrix! Oh, I'm typing this on my AT, so that must be faster than the Mac I'm not typing this on. QED Gee folks, ain't computer wars grand? [Of course, it's still an open question as to whether the VAX I'm logged in to or the Sun that handles the news is the more powerful. Time to write a research grant...] -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (12/20/89)
king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King) writes: >In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >>Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Any operation on a numeric array with more than 64k of data. If you consider a PC as an ms-dos based system, then the answer to the "what can be done faster on a Mac than a PC" is easily generalized as "anything which requires a large data space". Image processing, for instance, or large sorting operations, or heavy database use, or large spreadsheets, or much of physics. If you throw out the MS-DOS and move to 32-bit 80x86 systems, then it's a lot closer, but you get to abandon MS-DOS in favor of something a little more useful. Happy hacking, jim frost madd@std.com
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (12/20/89)
>2) Deleting a file > DOS era <name of file> > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) And if you want to delete a file three directories down the tree, but want to keep working in the directory you're in, you get to click on three folders, then drag the file icon to the trashcan, then click back up three times. In DOS, you just specify the pathname: Bzzt, wrong answer. Yes, you have to open up the three subdirectories. However, you certainly don't have to close them to resume work in the current window. This assumes that you make a habit of bad techniques such as specifying pathnames rather than using CD. Easy way to lose files accidentally. And of course, Unix does it better because you don't have to hunt for the \ key. >3) Selecting a word in a document. > DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> > Mac <clickety click> You are picking out a single type of WP program and attempting to tar all DOS WP programs by denigrating it against the Mac. Straw Man fallacy. Your arguments are invalid. Oh, really? How many sites are using MSWord or MSWrite? In all my secretarial work, I have found exactly *one* site that does not use WordPerfect, which is probably what he was alluding to. (That one site was a non-profit organization whose PCs were government-granted and MS-Windows was given as a gift/donation.) And WordPerfect isn't exactly user-friendly- if you don't have a function key template, forget it. It would be foolish to dismiss the most popular PC word processor as a Straw Man, don't you think? -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> "Famous? I'm not famous. People come up to me after a show and say 'Hey, Steve!'" -Jon Anderson
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (12/20/89)
In article <3450@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Zippy) writes: >In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >>In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >>> If *some* people would not be so close minded... >> >>I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems >>hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things >>need no defense - they stand on their own merits. > >Then what are you defending and why? This is a GREAT argument (the Bill Argument... :-) No matter what, you lose. If you don't argue the merits of whatever you're defending, then you have to accept the argument that it's junk. If you do defend it, however, it must be junk because it can't stand on it's own merits. Thank you for a particularly amusing concept. -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@nic.mr.net __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Go ahead... be naughty. Save Santa the trip."
johna@van-bc.UUCP (John Altstadt) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: > ... >Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). >-Roger I've never used an Amigoid either... Sorry Roger, I just couldn't resist the straight line, especially since you were steering the discussion back to something intelligent. John -- johna@wimsey.bc.ca || ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!johna || ...!uunet!van-bc!johna
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: >Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people >feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). >Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! >After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things >up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and >especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". > >The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the >tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." >PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there >are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure >out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it >is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, >I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this No flames, but I think you are. See, what schema is more USEFUL to a particular individual (NOT more powerful; that's a BIG difference) depends on the situation the individual sees him/herself in. Now I'll bashfully beat my own drum and say that I was involved in a minor study or two ialong these lines, but I think the principle is valid. The way people think depends on how they're viewing the situation. For a LOT of people, they'll WANT the constraints the Mac interface imposes---they don't care what kind of power is available to them, they just want to do the single specific thing they NEED to do RIGHT NOW. Learning the internal logic of a program to do that single specific thing won't appeal to them if they don't want to take a whole lot of time. On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface. They DO end up doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in the former camp than at the latter. -- Roger Tang, Member Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu
d87-khd@sm.luth.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland) (12/20/89)
In article <10644@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> nasa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) writes: >In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >>In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>> >>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>>NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >>>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). >> >>NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >>almost the very beginning. > >As does IBM, HP and Microsoft... What about Commodore, do they pay something to Xerox. They obviously use almost the same user interface as the M*c. Karl <$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$> < Karl 'Kalle' Hultland <$> > < Dept. of Comp. sci. <$> d87-khd@sm.luth.se | > < University of Lulea <$> {uunet,mcvax}!sunic.se!sm.luth.se!d87-khd > < Sweden <$> > <$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$> < If two people agree on EVERYTHING , one of them is OBSOLETE!! > <$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$><$>
einari@rhi.hi.is (Einar Indridason) (12/20/89)
Some days ago I saw a video lecture about 'power users VS. casual users' The tape is from about '87 but there are some good points in it. The casual user is pictured as a Mackintosh user, while the power user is displayed as a PC user. I know that this is not quite true, some Mackintosh user are some kind of a power user (the macintosh programmers), while some PC user don't know anything at all about computer. But having used (and programmed) the PC for about 6-7 year, I consider myself as a kind of power user. And as such I could not stand using the Mac's interface with pull-down-menues and those scroll-bars (yucc). The pull-down-menues and scroll-bars are more of a hindrance than a help to me!!!! Take for example some word processing program on the Mac. There you would need to use the mouse (here comes another curse from me) to select Laserwriter or Imagewriter. On the PC you could use one program to prepare the output, and another to interpret the output from the previous one, taking into account the difference between printers. (You could even use a pipe if you wanted to). I know what I would do if I got the 'big-one' in lottery: I would buy an UNIX system, with it's pipes, and other good stuff like that. In my meaning the moral of this story is: Graphics User Interface (GUI) are good for those 'casual users' that only use the programs. (And don't know how to type) Line orientered Interface are good for those 'power users' that want to bend the programs to their likings. (And know how to type) (For example: in lotus-123 some guy widden the column up to 80 chars and used it as a word processing tool) I don't want the GUIs. But I could use some Multitasking on MS-DOS. (When would MS-DOS give us a true multitasking?) -- I just learned a new curse: "SCROLLBAR !$#$%%#" Internet: einari@rhi.hi.is UUCP: ..!mcvax!hafro!rhi!einari
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (12/20/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > > OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, > NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but > all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > > Robert > Except Apple WON'T license an idea that isn't theirs, whereas Xerox WILL license an idea that is clearly theirs. To Apple: What goes around, comes around. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > > The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030. > Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > stay away from this argument. > ABSOLUTELY!!! I can't stand it when people turn a software argument into a processor/hardware argument. I can't stand it when people worship Motorola for creating the 68000 and bash on Intel for making the 80286. The arguments make it sound like Intel chips are INCAPABLE of running something like MacOS. This is BULLSHIT! EACH PROCESSOR WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE! > >At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting >and raving. > I wouldn't make any generalizations here. Mac users, just like PC users, are a large and varied bunch. Personally, I like both systems, but PC's seem to make more sense to me, as I can easily buy a UNIX-capable PC with SuperVGA graphics (640x480x256), a 25MHz processor, and a big disk for less than $3K. That's less than the base price of a B/W MacToaster WITHOUT A KEYBOARD! I've got to admit, those IIx's with the 24-bit color cards are nice, but what's with the stratospheric pricing? > > >-Michael > >-- >Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas >Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu >Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com) --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
sc@qmet.UUCP (Steve Croft) (12/21/89)
In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > in article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: >> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. > Please multiply these two matrices: > long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; > Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC you > can buy for the same price. Others can take it from there. Excuse me, but wouldn't two matrices of this size require about 28 Meg (70000 x 50 x 2 x 4 = 28000000) I believe this is beyond the address space of a "vanilla" (68000) Mac, n'est pas :) -- ****************************************************************************** * If what I say is not correct, * Steve Croft, Qualimetrics, Inc. * * then it's not what I meant! * (ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!qmet!sc) * ******************************************************************************
robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (12/21/89)
In article <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes: >In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: >>The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the >>tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." >>PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there >>are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure >>out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it >>is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, >>I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this >[Stuff deleted about how most people want to getthe job done now, so GUI's are > more useful to them.] > On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see >the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going >through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface. They DO end up >doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in >the former camp than at the latter. Actually, MOST good Mac / Amiga / GUI programs are at least as powerful, and usually moreso than their MSDOS / PC-type interface counterparts. The difference is in the ease of getting to that particular advanced function at any given moment. The GUI's have a much quicker learning curve, so in the beginning the user can get to the advanced features faster (he doesn't have to read as many pages in the manual). Later, this time is reduced because the PC-user has begun to learn more about his/her software, and can figure out how to accomplish several tasks with one extended command; however, the Mac / Amiga / GUI user in the same time period has learned the shortcuts available to him/her during the same time period -- which are probably not as individually powerful as the extend commands of the PC-type interface, but collectively are equal or more powerful; they just take longer to enact. Clearly, the best solution is to offer either 1: both interfaces like on the Amiga -- which even though it is more inconsistant in the GUI than a Mac, it is far more consistant than any MSDOS / PC-type counterpart. Or, 2: allow for more command combination in the GUI, and more customizable Menus/commands. Many Mac / Amiga / Xwindows / GUIs offer some degree of user customization, but the true power of the GUI will be limited until complete user customization can be implemented. This will require programmers to overcome the problem of "too much customization", where users customize themselves out of being able to use new software, because they have to customize it to their set-up before they can use it, and to customize it they have to spend hours with the manual. Finally, we must ask ourselves, what are computers good for? Are they intended for programmers, and sysadmin types -- who need to know how to take it apart and put it back together -- or are they intended for business people, students housewives and secretaries? If we choose the first proposition computers will die off eventually, because people will one-day realize that building a machine thats only purpose is to build a newer and better version of itself still gives you a net result of 1 useless machine (even though it may be better, stronger faster, than ever before it is still around to build a new version of itself). One the other hand, the computer is really intended to be used by everyone but "computer people". In this respect, it must be useful from the outset. If I buy a T.V. and have to go to school to learn how to turn it on, and then change channels, and then adjust the volume, etc. I will not find it effort worth the rewards. The same applies to productivity enhancing devices such as computers. If it takes me a month of intensive study to learn how to use it, I could have done 1 month's worth of real work instead. I think??... ;-) +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (12/21/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. > >gary I can double-click on a document which opens the application and opens the document ready for whatever processing the application does. I can use command keys to intiate actions in single strokes that depending on the PC interface, usually requires several keystrokes (arrow keys) to locate the command and execute it there are probably others as well that the interface on the Macintosh allows that speed up certain operations on the Mac over its PC counterparts. And perhaps some vice-versa, though I think this rare.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >If you're not running OS/2 on your PC machine, there are MANY things a Mac can >do better than a PC (the current Mac OS and OS/2 each support the same amount >of memory). > You fail to mention, however, that the current MacOS is a far cry from the functionality offered by the current OS/2 (1.2). The latter is a real OS, while MacOS is more like MS-DOS with menus and big filenames (which are unreadable after you do a "Clean Up Window" by the way). I don't see the point of all these arguments, comparing the latest version of Mac system software against some old version of DOS. If we're talking about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS to OS/2? I strongly suspect that the discussion would have been over dozens of articles ago. > >OS/2 could probably do the >same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, > Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require any more memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB. Less efficient? Let's have some proof, eh? > >and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. > Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to 1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true memory management and protection. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > Too much of everything is just enough --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (12/21/89)
In article <2885@d75.UUCP>, robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes: > In article <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes: > >In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: > > > On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see > >the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going > >through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface. They DO end up > >doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in > >the former camp than at the latter. > > Actually, MOST good Mac / Amiga / GUI programs are at least as powerful, and > usually moreso than their MSDOS / PC-type interface counterparts. The > difference is in the ease of getting to that particular advanced function at > any given moment. The GUI's have a much quicker learning curve, so in the > beginning the user can get to the advanced features faster (he doesn't have to > read as many pages in the manual). Later, this time is reduced because the > PC-user has begun to learn more about his/her software, and can figure out > how to accomplish several tasks with one extended command; however, the Mac / > Amiga / GUI user in the same time period has learned the shortcuts available > to him/her during the same time period -- which are probably not as > individually powerful as the extend commands of the PC-type interface, but > collectively are equal or more powerful; they just take longer to enact. Are we limiting our discussions only to Finder/DOS-type commands? It seems like we teeter from talking about the Finder or to the MS-DOS CLI (likewise with the Amiga's dual interface). Something about this bothers me, and it's that application-wise, MS-DOS programs aren't CLI-oriented, either. Okay, let's broaden that "MS-DOS" to include CLI-based OSs, which would bring in the venerable Apple //c (my original machine). In ProDOS, the OS was CLI (not UNIX, but it was better than "LOAD "$",8,1" :-). But none of the programs were CLI-oriented. The word processors had menus (type E for Edit, P for Print...). Same goes for MS-DOS WPs, at least the one's I've seen. A good Mac program allows for command-key equivalents. Lots of them. So that once the user feels comfortable with a program, s/he can choose not to use the mouse if they don't want to. With macro packages becoming so popular, a user can *customize* (oo, that horrid anti-Mac word :-) things to their heart's content, thereby avoiding the mouse as much as possible. > > Clearly, the best solution is to offer either 1: both interfaces like on the > Amiga -- which even though it is more inconsistant in the GUI than a Mac, it > is far more consistant than any MSDOS / PC-type counterpart. Or, 2: allow > for more command combination in the GUI, and more customizable Menus/commands. > Many Mac / Amiga / Xwindows / GUIs offer some degree of user customization, > but the true power of the GUI will be limited until complete user customization See, here I differ. Yes, a DOS-type-CLI would be nice to have at times. But is this the biggest concern? How do you manage multi-tasking in a pure-CLI environment? We don't even do that in UNIX anymore, what with windowing terminals and everything. And once you use a windowing-UNIX terminal, it's *damn* hard to go back to straight 24-lines, 80-columns, that's for sure. For dealing with the DOS and files, yes, I'd have to say the Amiga way is very nice. MPW is a trip (I love it), but heck, it does take up a whole Meg o' memory, and this doesn't count as a viable solution. BUT, if we're talking about GUIs in *general*...is there really any difference in the interface of the Mac, or , say, Turbo Pascal on the PC? You can have plain old ASCII menus dropping from the top of the screen, right? What I like about my Mac (and what I haven't seen on the Amiga - but I could very well (and hope I am) be mistaken) is that the GUI is *consistent* (like you said) throught MANY applications. The experience from one is directly transferable (most of the time) to another application/tool/etc. Perfect? Nah, I won't say that. It would be nice to have the information transferable, too, but System 7.0 is working towards that. Like these UNIX-type windows I'm working with now (and used to on Apollos) - nice for multi-tasking, but *useless* for transferring information. > can be implemented. This will require programmers to overcome the problem > of "too much customization", where users customize themselves out of being able > to use new software, because they have to customize it to their set-up before > they can use it, and to customize it they have to spend hours with the manual. Shouldn't the current push toward OOPs help this customization business? If the programmer doesn't have to worry about things as a whole, but only the objects, and the message they get? (Roger's knowledge of OOP theory = 0.0000005; I claim nothing.) > > Finally, we must ask ourselves, what are computers good for? Are they intended > for programmers, and sysadmin types -- who need to know how to take it apart > and put it back together -- or are they intended for business people, students > housewives and secretaries? If we choose the first proposition computers will > die off eventually, because people will one-day realize that building a machine > thats only purpose is to build a newer and better version of itself still gives > you a net result of 1 useless machine (even though it may be better, stronger > faster, than ever before it is still around to build a new version of itself). > One the other hand, the computer is really intended to be used by everyone but > "computer people". In this respect, it must be useful from the outset. If THIS alone is probably why I bought the Mac. Because IMHO, it was the best example of a "people's appliance computer" around. Which is the way I want to see computers head (mainly because I'm sick of helping my non- programming-type friends, and have them say, "Oh, you're *so* lucky to have majored in Computer Science." Yep. 5 years to learn to read a manual. :-). The Apple METHODOLOGY is what makes it work; you can slap GUIs all over the place (like on the early Apple IIGS), but if everything is random, and nobody follows any consistent guidelines, YOU'RE DARN RIGHT that GUI is just getting in the way. It's kind of like ... vsh (the visual shell, which turned UNIX into a ASCII-based menu-system. Ugh. (IMHO, he types quickly...)) > > I think??... ;-) > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Ditto. Roger rre@ihlpn.ATT.COM
don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) (12/21/89)
In article <627@bogart.UUCP> jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> > >I don't see the point of all these arguments, comparing the latest version >of Mac system software against some old version of DOS. If we're talking >about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS to OS/2? I strongly >suspect that the discussion would have been over dozens of articles ago. Not likely. These things generally are pretty tough to stop. I've never used OS/2, and, no offense intended, you're the first person I've ever "met" who likes it. (Of course, most of the people on the net are Unix junkies who don't want to think that they might have slight compewtition against their favorite OS.) Based on what little I know of OS/2, and my only slightly more limited experience with Macs, I will agree that OS/2 seems to be more of a 'real OS' if by real you mean that it encorporates things like provisions for multi-tasking, IPC, virtual memory, etc. etc.; but as I understand it, OS/2 has no built-in GUI but is almost always used with Presentation Manager as a front-end. It seems to me this is an attempt to become more like the Mac's 'non-OS'. > >> >>OS/2 could probably do the >>same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, >> > >Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require any more >memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB. Less efficient? Let's have some >proof, eh? > Take away DOS comaptibility from OS/2 and you've got a software base slightly larger than the list of this year's best-selling vic-20 programs. (Well, maybe I am exaggerating a LITTLE :-) It seems to me MS-DOS is holding back the development of some very nice OS's & software. >> >>and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. >> > >Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to >1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based >Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true >memory management and protection. > What about the 640K limit for MSDOS programs, which is what most people will be running under OS/2? My 68000-based Amiga 2000 is expandable to 9 megs. The other 7 megs are reserved for access to the custom chips or some such thing. But, since AmigaDOS supports 4 gigabyte addressing, if I could upgrade to the 020/881/851-based 2500/20, the 030/882-based 2500/30, or buy one of the numerous 3rd-party accelerator cards, I would have a much greater expandability (unfortunately, I'm having to dig pretty deep to come up with the money for a used 2-meg board, so the speed increase is a long way off :-( ). Memory management was left out of the original design because the hardware for it at the time would have upped the price of the machine by several hundred dollars. The hardware is there in some of the newer models, but unfortunately very few programs at this time make use of it. Version 1.4 of the OS, though, due out RSN (how about RIGHT NOW, do you hear me Commodore?! :-) will take some steps towards provisions for virtual and protected memory, as well as overhauling WorkBench (the GUI portion of the OS) to make it much more functional and customizable. I've had my 2000 since September, and in that time I've only twice had a crash that interfered with the rest of the system (and, yes I have had the computer _on_ more than twice :-). So while memory management would definately be a very good thing to have (are you still listening, Commodore ?! :-), I seem to do pretty well without it (and will have to get used to not having it until I can afford to upgrade.....). >>-- >>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy >> Too much of everything is just enough >--- >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ >| | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | >| Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | >| | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ This does at least seem to be evolving (slowly) into a somewhat intelligent discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various sytems/OSs rather than a "My computer is absolutely undeniably better in all ways possible than yours, and you're a fool to think otherwise!" conversation. Somebody send me a 90MHz '040, 68883, and a few gigs of RAM for christmas, OK? Please? -- Gibberish .sig for sale or lease. is spoken Contact don@vax1.acs.udel.edu for more information. here. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
jwright@cs.iastate.edu@canremote.uucp (jwright@cs.iastate.edu) (12/21/89)
From: jwright@cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) Orga: Iowa State U. CS Department; Ames, IA daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: | kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: | > Please give an example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. | Please multiply these two matrices: | | long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; Let's see... No assignments, and of course all compilers initialize data to zero, hence the answer is the zero matrix! Oh, I'm typing this on my AT, so that must be faster than the Mac I'm not typing this on. QED Gee folks, ain't computer wars grand? [Of course, it's still an open question as to whether the VAX I'm logged in to or the Sun that handles the news is the more powerful. Time to write a research grant...] -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Amiga * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.amiga
unhd) (12/21/89)
From: rg@uunet!unhd (Roger Gonzalez ) Subj: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design) Orga: Marine Systems Engineering Lab Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). Some GUI's work well. But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-) Some comments: Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for (a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical command sets. They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large command sets and with experienced users. On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without pointing at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this whole section, but whenever I've tried to look at or otherwise hack into things at a low level, things complained noisily because I wasn't using the proper applications. Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). -Roger -- UUCP: ..!uunet!unhd!rg | USPS: Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory BITNET: r_gonzalez at unhh | University of New Hampshire PHONE: (603) 862-4600 | 242 SERB FAX: (603) 862-4399 | Durham, NH 03824-3525 --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Amiga * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.amiga
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu@canremote.uucp (kudla@pawl.rpi.edu) (12/21/89)
From: kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) Orga: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY >2) Deleting a file > DOS era <name of file> > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) And if you want to delete a file three directories down the tree, but want to keep working in the directory you're in, you get to click on three folders, then drag the file icon to the trashcan, then click back up three times. In DOS, you just specify the pathname: Bzzt, wrong answer. Yes, you have to open up the three subdirectories. However, you certainly don't have to close them to resume work in the current window. This assumes that you make a habit of bad techniques such as specifying pathnames rather than using CD. Easy way to lose files accidentally. And of course, Unix does it better because you don't have to hunt for the \ key. >3) Selecting a word in a document. > DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> > Mac <clickety click> You are picking out a single type of WP program and attempting to tar all DOS WP programs by denigrating it against the Mac. Straw Man fallacy. Your arguments are invalid. Oh, really? How many sites are using MSWord or MSWrite? In all my secretarial work, I have found exactly *one* site that does not use WordPerfect, which is probably what he was alluding to. (That one site was a non-profit organization whose PCs were government-granted and MS-Windows was given as a gift/donation.) And WordPerfect isn't exactly user-friendly- if you don't have a function key template, forget it. It would be foolish to dismiss the most popular PC word processor as a Straw Man, don't you think? -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> "Famous? I'm not famous. People come up to me after a show and say 'Hey, Steve!'" -Jon Anderson --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Amiga * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.amiga
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (12/21/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, > NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but > all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > > Robert Actually, one comment I read was to the effect that the reason for the Xerox suit against Apple was that Xerox had started licensing the interface and intended to "take control" of it, similar to the way they have structured the ethernet business. They have already licensed Sun and HP (and I believe NeXT, though I'm not sure about this one). Charles
rsutc@fornax.UUCP (Rick Sutcliffe) (12/22/89)
These kinds of responses contribute nothing to a rational discussion. Please save them for a less public place. Rick Sutcliffe
ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (12/22/89)
From article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y): > In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- > > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? ( [sic]s mercifully omitted, due to the benevolence of the season) The unfriendly text interface was around long before Big Blue got into micros. Apple is as good at overpricing as IBM (possibly even better, since there are no Mac clones). And the command-line interface does have its advantages, sometimes. Read my lips: BOTH THE MAC AND UNIX-STYLE INTERFACES HAVE THEIR PROPER USES, IMPROPER USES, ADVANTAGES, AND DISADVANTAGES. Neither you nor I is qualified to say which is "better" for everyone. > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > {...} > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > {...} It is a fact that opinions can't be facts. Get your facts straight. > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* You're as closed-minded as anyone I've heard in a long time. > Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if..... ... bigoted people like yourself kept your views in alt.flame. Either that, or in comp.sys.mac where everyone will agree with you wholeheartedly. I agree that for the majority of applications, the Mac is viable (and in many cases, such as word processing and desktop publishing, vastly superior). I don't agree that I can push my views on everyone, and force EVERYONE to use the computers I like to use. May Santa leave a lump of coal in your your SuperDrive. Hmph. --- ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu USnail: 115 Nebraska Union BITnet: cosx001@UNLCDC3 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461
admiral@m-5.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) (12/22/89)
In article <624@bogart.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > > I wouldn't make any generalizations here. Mac users, just like PC users, are > a large and varied bunch. Personally, I like both systems, but PC's seem to > make more sense to me, as I can easily buy a UNIX-capable PC with SuperVGA > graphics (640x480x256), a 25MHz processor, and a big disk for less than $3K. > That's less than the base price of a B/W MacToaster WITHOUT A KEYBOARD! I've > got to admit, those IIx's with the 24-bit color cards are nice, but what's > with the stratospheric pricing? > When your the only one who makes the machine you can charge whatever you want. Can you say GOUGE.... I knew you could. P.S. That may change soon as more and more machines have a windows interface and can match or meet the Mac's speed. Which shouldn't be hard. -Mick
LadyHawke@cup.portal.com (Classic - Concepts) (12/22/89)
> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a > pc. Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting > forever for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster > clicking the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. > There ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a > mac than pc. gary In 1986 I had to teach word-processing on a short-term 'crisis' basis to a group of highly educated professionals with minimal acquaintance with computers. This group of professionals had to each submit a specialized resume for an important grant application. The deadline was VERY tight. The office had 1 Macintosh and 5 or 6 IBM-compatibles. MacWrite was available on the Macintosh and Word Perfect and Wordstar and a couple of text editors were available on the IBM-compats. I asked them which computers they wanted to use. One chose the Mac. The rest chose the IBM-compats because they had a little experience with them. None of them had done any word processing prior to this, but they were familiar with the concepts of word-processing and they were fast learners. I started the first person on the Mac (10 minutes instruction-max) and then, in turn worked with each of the people on the IBM-compats. After about 2 hours I returned to help the person on the Mac. She needed a little help with naming the file and operating the printer, but otherwise had managed to figure out most of the menu commands, including cutting and pasting. I spent the rest of the day trying to get the others going on the other machines. The function keys, keyboard commands and cut and paste methods were difficult for all of them to master under time pressure. They weren't getting very far except when I was standing over their shoulders giving individual help and pointing out where to find things in the manuals. When they found out the first person was done, they started, on their own initiative, to line up to use the Mac. Only one person completed a resume on an IBM-compatible. (For your information, I was very fluent in both WordStar and Word Perfect at the time, so I don't think my instruction was at fault.) In other words, I think your criteria for identifying 'speed' and ease of use make about as much sense as identifying birds by counting their legs. \_ )\_ _/ `/)\_ __ // __ _____________________________________________ `\\)\_ / '~// /// Julie Petersen (LadyHawke@cup.portal.com `\\//\\/|'//' /// Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com) (\/Yyyy/' __ /// (Now if they'd had an Amiga, they could /Yyyy/' \\\ /// have used graphic OR text OR both interfaces.) //\\ LadyHawke \\/// ______________________________________________ ///\\\
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (12/22/89)
Sorry if Im a bit late in roasting this kentucky fried nitwit... In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > > > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent > >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). > >-- > > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? Anybody who knew PC's at the time would have had no trouble moving from then standard CPM to Dos, and was pretty good interface for its day. Its ugliness comes from the need to graft features never aticipated onto the old interface. And for a real taste of unfriendly try Prime. Icon based interfaces can never replace text based ones. Its like replacing ehglish with sign language. Sure you can get by with it, but its hardly as good. > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? Shamelessly cheat?!?! I could by two or three machines for the cost of one mac plus. I do not consider a mac plus a good computer, either! > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? Im not even going to bother with this one... > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. Opinion, not fact. But I do agree, especially where novices are concerned. For a power user, someone doing more than writing an occaisional report, They become decicedly unfriendly > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). Not fact opinion. This one is not even a good one. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. Have you even tried? > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? > What is the good judgement? Where are the users? No more risk than does any computer company when introducing a new machine. The point is, Apple sued Microsoft (Of IBM fame) for its graphical interface for the IBM. Zerox is making its point that it had introduced the concept first. > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we > users see the windowing interface so early? > > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* > users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Were Apple not so concerned about making money, maybe some of us users could AFFORD to own macs... Fact is, DOS machines outnumber Macs by insane numbers. My opinion is your a little yuppy in training who never got past the simple Name printing program... :} +I have lived with a computer since the days of 48k Apple II's and CPM monsters, I remember IBM's PC first release, the Lisa, The mac. My roomate bought one of the first Amigas. I also want a Mac IIcx 4/80. send donations to: 142 Weston DR Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graphiti on the wall of civil rights organization in the sixties "There is a town in Mississippi named Liberty There is a Department in Washington called Justice" A more socially aware sort of .sig witting@topaz.rutgers.edu
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (12/23/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- > > This world is unfair! > >Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for >- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? >- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? >- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? At the time, DOS was NOT the (*ugly*, *unfriendly*) interface from hell, it was actually a step foreward in usability (look at the APPLE user interface from that time, IT SUCKed). IBM was merely continuing in the same vein EVERYBODY ELSE was using, and adding a little of UNIX to make it more useable. > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >make things look good and friendly. Agreed, but your grammar stinks. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). 1) Ok, but NuBus, SCSI, etc are NEWER. It is also true that outdoing the *PAST* is *ALOT* easier that outdoing the *FUTURE*. 2) Your Grammar still sucks. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >the manual and learn things fast. Same argument as above, but I must admit your grammar is a little better. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >What is the good judgement? Where are the users? What risk? If it is *OBVIOUS* that the window interface is so much better than the command line, than *EVERYBODY* who saw the thing would say "wow, I really need that". No Risk Involved. Apple merely took the Idea they got from Xerox, and marketed it. Xerox had no qualms about it, so Apple marketed it as THEIR OWN. No Arguments yet from Xerox, but Now Apple sues MicroSoft for getting too close to their adopted baby, and XEROX Sues them for being such weenies about the whole thing. POETIC JUCTICE! > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we >users see the windowing interface so early? No Argument, BUT they should not try to stifle everybody else, LIKE THEY ARE DOING. (Looks like you went back to 3rd grade in this part) > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? If *some* people were not so close minded, and payed more attention to the facts (as well as to their bad grammar), the *rest* of the general populace could get on with life. I Wish XEROX Good luck in punishing Apple. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (12/23/89)
>Much as I like the Mac, its interface is not perfect. This is partly >because of developers who fail to appreciate the effort that went into >creating "the rules", but part is also inherent. Ever try to do pipes >on a Mac? How about real multitasking (MultiFinder doesn't help much >when you're trying to write network daemons and such)? If I could have >an interface as intuitive as the Mac's on a machine with a real OS I'd >be very happy. Fortunately my wait is getting shorter, mainly because >Apple is failing to maintain their chokehold on interface technology. Right this moment I am using what I believe is that extremely nice GUI interface and real OS you are looking for: DECwindows on Ultrix. For those who don't know what this is, it is UNIX (combined versions, mostly BSD 4.3 I believe) with a slightly modified Xwindows interface. I work in a lab with MANY Macintosh machines, and I really do like them but this environment KILLS them with its useablity. It is GUI and UNIX command line driven. The BEST of both worlds. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
keithd@gryphon.COM (Keith Doyle) (12/24/89)
In article <627@bogart.UUCP> jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to >1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based >Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true >memory management and protection. From another angle, why do you think it has taken so long for Windows and OS/2 to make it to the marketplace? Something wrong with Microsoft? No, simply because there are a hell of a lot of snags in developing complex programs in '86 family machine language. Several more than the equivalent developments in the 68K family. Note that Unix was available on the '86 family relatively promptly, also note that Unix was already designed, and most of it is written in 'C', not machine language. Keith Doyle keithd@gryphon.COM gryphon!keithd gryphon!keithd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (01/02/90)
In <89122504041269@masnet.uucp>, kudla@pawl.rpi.edu@canremote.uucp (kudla@pawl.rpi.edu) writes: >From: kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) >Orga: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY [ outdated flames and computer war stuff deleted ... ] Hey! You guys at Canada remote systems! Yes, you! The ones posting more crap to 'Xerox sues Apple!!!'. It's over. Really. We thrashed it all out, and decided that the Timex Sinclair is best. We did it last year. Really! Check the dates on the postings. Do some reading ahead. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) (01/04/90)
In article <969@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >It's over. Really. We thrashed it all out, and decided that the Timex Sinclair >is best. We did it last year. Really! Check the dates on the postings. Do some Wow! Really?? That was my first computer. And to think, I traded down to an Amiga. I wonder if that guy would sell it back to me... -- Eric Kennedy ejkst@cis.unix.pitt.edu
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (01/05/90)
In case ya guys have not noticed. Canada Remote is spewing out previous messages and reposting them as NEW! Just like UDEL or whatever it was does every couple of months! :) - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
Sullivan@cup.portal.com (sullivan - segall) (01/07/90)
> >Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people >feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). > Gee, thanks! :) >Some comments: > >Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do >things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to >do is line things up to pixels. I like objects that recognize >themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like >"attach to endpoint". > I don't know of any GUI's which require pixel precision pointing. What I really hate are joystick, and keyboard arrow (ala Freelance) interfaces. >In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics >if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu >driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for >(a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical >command sets. They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large >command sets and with experienced users. > The Amiga GUI is IMHO the best of both worlds. There are some flaws that I'll point out in a bit, but to summarize what I mean by the BEST: * The desktop is optional. I only use it for loading programs, reading readme files, and other one-item only jobs. I never use it for disk maintenance, copying or installing programs, editing, compiling, or other command line option intensive tasks. * Each icon is a separate file, all programs which are runnable from the desktop can also be run from the command line interface (CLI) without the icon file. The CLI itself exists under intuition, so it can be resized, and can use different fonts, can be put on top of, or under other windows, etc. The CLI includes all of the commands that you would expect to find, so you can type (eg.): del #?.bak to delete all filenames ending in ".bak". Filenames are not case sensitive, and can be any length (no eight letter plus three letter extension limitations.) * Icons for project type files (like text files) include a default tool. The default tool can be easily changed, or can be loaded into another program without changing the default tool by SHIFT- CLICKING on the desired tool. * The operating system is highly customiseable. User tasks can be inserted instead of operating system tasks almost anywhere the user would like them. Public domain input handlers, mouse accellerators, screen blankers, macro key expanders, system beep replacers, and other custom programs are very common. Problems: * Since the right mouse button is used to select menu items, you might expect the menus to be selectable from anywhere on the screen. Although some applications have implemented this feature, normally pull down menus are only available from the top of the screen. However, using a second mouse button for menus means that you can completely ignore the right mouse button (intuition takes care of menus for you) and only get left mouse button events. This makes programming the Amiga much easier. (Of course, you can ask intuition to give you right mousebutton events transparently if you don't want to use intuition menus. * Since the desktop isn't required to use the machine, it isn't the cleanest GUI in the world. Although the machine is multitasking, the desktop is not. While a directory is being opened, the desktop input is blocked, so files can't be selected and opened until the process has completed. (Of course the CLI is still available assuming that you have one open.) Each CLI is also monotasking but as many CLI's can be opened as you like, and there is a DOS command to run CLI commands in the background without opening a new CLI. * Some of the niceties of the MAC were designed into the Amiga, but ignored by almost every developer. The prime example of this is the clipboard. To cut and paste text between applications you have to get a PD utility like SnipIt which uses character recognition algorithms to convert from screen text back to ASCII. (Of course some developers *do* support the clipboard, so it isn't always neccessary to do so. Keyboard maps are also only sporadically supported. Although normal input is interpreted through the keymaps, many programmers use raw-key codes to determine when special keys have been pressed, and then forget to translate normal keys. This can make using a Dvorak keyboard, or a foreign alphabet keyboard extremely annoying. >On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the >string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without >pointing at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. > By default the Amiga uses "#?" as a match all. Several replacement CLI's or replacement DOS commands support "*" as well. It has frequently been argued whether or not the "#?" is more powerful. The "#" means 'match any number of'. The "?" means 'match any character'. One could just as easily write "#a" to match filenames with any number of "a"'s. >...so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently. They say >"There are objects, and there are tools. Use any tool you want on >any object. It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the >job." I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more >powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, I think > Whether or not it is better, it is certainly possible to use project files ignoring their default bindings. However since it isn't neccessary to use an icon with a file, users frequently delete them. Once the icon has been deleted, it can only be accessed from the CLI until the icon is replaced. (Adding icons for files can only be done from the CLI.) >Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used >one). -Roger Many of the problems listed about the Amiga desktop are scheduled to be fixed in version 1.4 of the operating system (which is due this year.) The desktop will (from early accounts) include a facility for manipulating files without icons, and will be multitasking. There is also a freely distributable replacement for the desktop which already fixes these problems (but which is somewhat buggy as yet, but is also only a beta release). --- Sullivan@cup.portal.com