SANTAROS@UWF.BITNET (08/11/89)
in Article Aug 9, 1989 MessageID: 16163@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Vince Lee writes... > What I want to see is auto-shrinking of icons in interlace... I agree with you here, but..... >One of the biggest problems with the Amiga is that most of the developers >I know have absolutly NO artistic talent. The AMiga TOPAZ font and the >"insert workbench" hand....what most people see is the incredibley cheezy- >looking workbench with its c64-looking icons. When they compare this with >with the sleek, professional-looking Mac....no wonder Amiga's penetration >into the business market is near nill. Whoa Vic, are we comparing the Amiga's workbench to the Mac's? And as far as the Business World, how come the PC's CHEEZE LOOKING UI is not on you *hit list? Nor is MicroSofts, nor SUN's nor X nor anything but Amy's! There is form and function and then there is cute and constraining. When the Mac first came out it was considered cute because the art in its GUI was considered nonfunctional and thus a waste of CPU horses. As far as flexability I consider the MAC to be far from that. I can use ResEdit to change Icon pics but the program is soooo buggy that in the hands of a novice (if he can get it) is like using sweating dynamite! (pun on the MAC BOMB!) OTHER STUFF 1) CBM may have been rushed to get the first Amigas to market. 2) If workbench had started life too cute then Apple may have sued CBM 3) Time's a wastin', things a' changin', quit complain' and do somthin' constructive rather than GRIPE! ;-) Flexably Later, <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> John Preston Preston Enterprises Pensacola Fl (904)9682232 CBM DEV <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (08/11/89)
In article <8908110338.AA15004@jade.berkeley.edu> SANTAROS@UWF.BITNET writes: >One of the biggest problems with the Amiga is that most of the developers >I know have absolutly NO artistic talent. The AMiga TOPAZ font and the >"insert workbench" hand....what most people see is the incredibley cheezy- >looking workbench with its c64-looking icons. When they compare this with >with the sleek, professional-looking Mac....no wonder Amiga's penetration >into the business market is near nill. Whoa Vic, are we comparing the Amiga's workbench to the Mac's? Why not? The Workbench and the Finder are two very similar programs that pretty much try to do the same thing. And as far as the Business World, how come the PC's CHEEZE LOOKING UI is not on you *hit list? Nor is MicroSofts, nor SUN's nor X nor anything but Amy's! First of all, the PC doesn't *have* a standard user interface. Aside from that, Microsoft Windows is very conservative-looking (exactly what you need for a business environment), but it is far from ugly. By far, X is the ugliest windowing system I have ever seen. That largely stems from its "policy-free" philosophy which doesn't dictate how people should make X applications look and behave, combined with the complete lack of graphic design talent on the part of X developers. Hey, people can't do everything. Anyway, because this is the Amiga group, I would expect complaints about the look of the Amiga UI to be filed here, not complaints about the MS Windows, SunView, or X. There is form and function and then there is cute and constraining. When the Mac first came out it was considered cute because the art in its GUI was considered nonfunctional and thus a waste of CPU horses. A visually appealing, well designed user interface makes it easier for the user to figure out what is going on, and reduces mental fatigue. There are a lot of people who fail to fail to realize that in many respects, the medium is the message. Apple realizes this -- that's why they have spent lots of money and hired graphic designers to make their interface clear and visually appealing. It's a major reason they've become the standard of comparison for GUI's, despite the flaws in their system software or their user interface. Designing a good-looking user interface is a matter of graphic design, not CPU cycles. Back at Carnegie Mellon, when the Andrew Window Manager was being developed, they brought in a consultant from the University's Design department to study the window manager they had recently developed and suggest ways to make it visually more appealing. This person spent several weeks studying the workstation display, watching people use the machine, and taking notes. After this time, they asked him for suggestions to improve the appearance of the window manager. He offered only one suggestion: increase the number of pixels in the borders between the windows. Amazingly enough, that one little change resulted in a much nicer, less tiring display. The point of this story is that a lot of trivial factors contribute to making an interface visually appealing. Most software developers don't have enough artistic or design talent to appreciate these factors, myself included. As far as flexability I consider the MAC to be far from that. I can use ResEdit to change Icon pics but the program is soooo buggy that in the hands of a novice (if he can get it) is like using sweating dynamite! (pun on the MAC BOMB!) IconEd isn't hot stuff either. I've never had it guru the machine, but it's not exactly Dpaint (though I am not trying to say it should be). OTHER STUFF 1) CBM may have been rushed to get the first Amigas to market. True. And they were (and still are) definitely understaffed. 2) If workbench had started life too cute then Apple may have sued CBM Not true. If Workbench had started life as a clone of the Finder then Apple may have sued CBM. It is possible to design a good looking GUI without cloning the Mac. See the NeXT machine for just one example. The windowing system on my Personal Iris is very pretty, and it is far from a clone of the Mac. 3) Time's a wastin', things a' changin', quit complain' and do somthin' constructive rather than GRIPE! ;-) I understand that CBM is giving Workbench a drastic overhaul for 1.4. One can only hope they'll give it a facelift as well. --M -- Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. portuesi@SGI.COM
johnhlee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Vince Lee) (08/13/89)
In article <8908110338.AA15004@jade.berkeley.edu> SANTAROS@UWF.BITNET writes: >in Article Aug 9, 1989 MessageID: 16163@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU >Vince Lee writes... > >Whoa Vic, are we comparing the Amiga's workbench to the Mac's? > >And as far as the Business World, how come the PC's CHEEZE LOOKING UI is not >on you *hit list? Nor is MicroSofts, nor SUN's nor X nor anything but Amy's! Sorry, but; even though MSDOS isn't pretty or functional, I think it does look more PROFESSIONAL than the standard workbench's (what new buyers see) cartoonish colors and klunky icons and fonts. MS Windows's EGA is much more readable than Workbench interlaced or not. A non-interlaced WB looks too low-res, while an interlaced one flickers and everything is squashed. "Professional" doesn't necessarily mean "Pretty". Even a green MSDOS prompt can look more professional (to some) than the Amiga because it doesn't have really badly-chosen colors to distract you. (Blue and orange are too bright) >OTHER STUFF >1) CBM may have been rushed to get the first Amigas to market. TRUE >2) If workbench had started life too cute then Apple may have sued CBM Who won't they sue. It's a fine line. Maybe C= thought "if we make the Amiga really toyish-looking, the lawyers will be too busy laughing to do anything!" >3) Time's a wastin', things a' changin', quit complain' and do somthin' >constructive rather than GRIPE! ;-) I am being constructive. I am trying to get C= to make changes in 1.4. You mean something else? Gee, I dunno what a Mechanical Engineer can do in this case. Commodore, wanna hire a consultant? -Vince >John Preston Preston Enterprises Pensacola Fl (904)9682232 CBM DEV ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>