jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) (05/20/87)
Recently we had a number of articles describing new versions of Word, Finder and System (should we include Juggler?). OK, I agree; Word 3.0 is the most powerful wordprocessor. The same applies to the new generation of System and Finder. Improvements to Apple and Microsoft software usually lead to the inevitable expansion of their functionality, this however has a strange mushrooming effect - growing software size. Do you remember good old times when Finder was less than 40K, System could be squeezed to 150K and Word was around 100K not to mention MacWrite of 50K. Now the new system has to support 64K ROMs, Mac E, Mac+, MacSE, Mac II; the new Word has a spellchecker, stylesheets, adjustable menus, outlines, mailmerge, etc... Now think, how many times an owner of Mac 128K uses DS drives, how many times the new Imagewriter user is going to print on a LaserWriter, how many times have you used a Word print merge, we could go on and on. Now, I ask a question: Couldn't it be easier for the user (not the programmer though) to construct configurable software? We could then construct a system that supports only a Mac+ user with an ImageWriter, who does not want to use AppleTalk, who will always use double sided drives, and who does not have a hard disk to support. We could construct a small Word application which allows wordprocessing and outlining but rids of kilobytes of spellchecking software, quickswitch, mailmerging, hyphenation, flexible amendable menus, and stylesheets. Then your new System, new Finder and new Word would probably fit onto a single disk with lots of fonts, MacDraw, Switcher, and other configurable applications. People who frequently move their applications from one computer to another would have to either construct a new system or to live with a big system that contains everything - they would have to pay for flexibility. Why should everyone pay for unwanted flexibility? PS: It is a bit like taxation, it is either that everybody pays high taxes and everybody gets free but crapy service or you pay lower taxes and you could pay extra to choose between good and bad service.
cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) (05/21/87)
In article <839@goanna.oz>, jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) writes: > Now, I ask a question: > > Couldn't it be easier for the user (not the programmer though) > to construct configurable software? This is a great idea! Of course, this is somewhat the case now, with the Font/DA Mover, but that just doesn't go far enough. Now that you mention it, I'm finding it hard to believe that they didn't do this from the beginning. This idea is so logical. It _would_ mean that just about everyone would have systems and finders which were significantly different from everyone else's, but we've got that anyway, with so many damn system upgrades which some people get and others don't. (Can you believe I saw someone with a Mac+ the other day using Finder 1.1?! I mean, they had to eject the disk and turn the machine off to shut down!) Let's hear from the Powers That Be on this one. cheers, from charles s. geiger ARPA: cgeiger@ngp.cc.utexas.edu cgeiger@ut-ngp.ARPA UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!cgeiger allegra!ut-ngp!cgeiger gatech!ut-ngp!cgeiger seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (05/25/87)
In article <839@goanna.oz>, jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) writes: > Now, I ask a question: > > Couldn't it be easier for the user (not the programmer though) > to construct configurable software? Argh. First, as mentioned, those people who transport their work between a variety of different systems end up having to reconfigure their software alot, or keep different copies with all the different configurations for their firm. ("Well, if I'm on Bob's machine, I have to have this configuration...") The second problem is that they have to KNOW TO CONFIGURE THEIR SOFTWARE. I have to know that Bob's machine is somehow inherantly different than mine and things don't necessarily work the same. It all gets very annoying after awhile ("Do I have AppleTalk? What's an AppleTalk?") I have a PC CAD program and PCs with IBM CGA monitors (resolution of 640x200 with 1 colour), IBM EGA monitors (resolution of 640x400 with 4 colours, I think) and AT&T monitors (resolution of 640x400, 1 colour) and I keep having to reconfigure my PC CAD program for each of these machines whenever I want to use it. Now, it's annoying but not debilitating because I know which machines have which monitors, but some people can't tell one monitor from the other. Third, how do you know what you want. One of the niftiest things about Word 3.0 is, in my opinion, boxes. They're great! However, if anyone had ever asked me "Hey, do you think boxes are important?" I'd've said no. Hell, before I used the Macintosh, I'd've said the same thing about the ability to use different fonts. -- "Follow the brightest star Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP) As far as the brave may dare."
ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) (06/02/87)
In article <839@goanna.oz>, jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) writes: > Recently we had a number of articles describing new versions of > Word, Finder and System (should we include Juggler?). > ... > Improvements to Apple and Microsoft software usually lead to > the inevitable expansion of their functionality, this however > has a strange mushrooming effect - growing software size. ... > Now, I ask a question: > > Couldn't it be easier for the user (not the programmer though) > to construct configurable software? I vote for this solution! I am one of those folks who use a Mac+ with a big ram disk. This gives me, effectively, a 512k mac. This chokes on the GIGANTIC {system, finder, applications} now coming out. Argggg. I suspect that if things had been designed from the start with modularity in mind that this could be done. After all, device drivers are this way. (imagewriter, laserwriter, etc.). Given that the pot has already been stirred, though, I suspect that it would be difficult to unmix things ... (BTW, I am just a UNIX(tm) person here. I have no connection with the making of Mac's SW or HW. These are the statements of a 'customer' rather than an 'apple employee'.) -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (06/02/87)
INFO-MAC V5 #92 (article 8705251616.AA09044@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU) dated
5/25/87 points out you can save 40K stripping a system 4.1 for
a Mac plus only.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel if I ever fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must