barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (01/08/90)
In article <Q8Y8K9xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >They don't need to be convinced. They're happy with the UI. That's why >I'm opposed to Open Look or Motif... it's forcing a single (new) UI >on folks who are already happy with the one they have. Quite a statement. You have critized Open Look for 16 months, yet you still haven't read the style guide. How do you know what Mac users will say? Especially the power users, where the market is. I know for a *fact* that some Mac users LOVE the features of Motif and/or Open Look. Have you considered that either one (or both combined) might be a SUPERSET of the Mac interface? You have proposed a universal toolkit. One that would work with the native window system of the PC, Amiga or Mac, as well as X or NeWS. >Or are you saying that if you can't afford a 5-10 grand workstation you >aren't worth paying attention to? What commercal reason would a vendor have for creating such a useless toolkit? -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/08/90)
> You have proposed a universal toolkit. One that would work with the native > window system of the PC, Amiga or Mac, as well as X or NeWS. > >Or are you saying that if you can't afford a 5-10 grand workstation you > >aren't worth paying attention to? > What commercal reason would a vendor have for creating such a useless toolkit? I don't know. I guess I'm totally out to lunch. It's just my imagination that many very large companies have spent zillions of man-hours developing software for sub-5-grand workstations. Microsoft Windows 1.x (a nice UI in many ways) runs usably fast on a PC/XT with 256K of RAM. How about the fact that there are several million such machines out there? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org> \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (01/09/90)
In article <5V++88ggpc2@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >How about the fact that there are several million such machines out there? Well, how much money is Dec, HP, Sun, etc. going to make by developing a toolkit usable on a 1 Meg machine? Besides, they don't want a toolkit that is comparable to the Mac/MS Windows. They want one that is better. Why buy a 5 grand machine when you can run the same software on a $2,000 PC? One of the advantages of Open Look and Motif is that it can do things that the Mac/PC cannot do. If a Unix workstation doesn't have a better toolkit, then it will be tough to get Mac/PC users to switch. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/09/90)
Now we're getting somewhere... Subject is: A UI that's common to PCs, Macs, Amigas, and... UNIX. > >How about the fact that there are several million such machines out there? > Well, how much money is Dec, HP, Sun, etc. going to make by developing > a toolkit usable on a 1 Meg machine? I don't expect Dec, HP, or Sun to do so. It's in their best interests to make the toolkit as large as is needed. Even if they can't make *much* money selling memory, it certainly doesn't hurt the balance sheet. > Besides, they don't want a toolkit that is comparable to the Mac/MS > Windows. They want one that is better. Well, from my experience with $10,000 machines running X, from a performance basis alone they've got a lot of catching up to do. Adding a larger and more complex toolkit sure isn't going to help. > Why buy a 5 grand machine when > you can run the same software on a $2,000 PC? Multitasking, protected memory, and so on. After all, the current situation they have is that their 5 grand machine can't run as much software as the $2000 PC. They still manage to sell a few. Actually, my $1000 PC has better performance and more software (on a title-count basis) than your typical $10,000 UNIX box. I'd expect that the motivation would be the other way around: to develop a toolkit so that the $5000 workstations are capable of running software written for $2000 PCs. There's more software like that than the other way around. > One of the advantages of Open Look and Motif is that it can do things > that the Mac/PC cannot do. That's debatable. UNIX can, yes, bt that'll be true no matter what the toolkit, or the UI. But from a UI viewpoint, what does a $5000 DECstation buy you that you can't do with a $2000 Mac? 2 extra buttons? I hate the one button mouse, but I wouldn't pay $1000 a pop to add more. People buy computers to run software, not to pin menus in place. Don't make it hard to write and port software. > If a Unix workstation doesn't have a better > toolkit, then it will be tough to get Mac/PC users to switch. If the toolkit keeps people from porting PC software, it's not going to help. The big boys will go over. You'll get Lotus. But what about the small-scale vertical market software? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org> \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (01/11/90)
In article <YF.C71xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Well, how much money is Dec, HP, Sun, etc. going to make by developing >> a toolkit usable on a 1 Meg machine? > >I don't expect Dec, HP, or Sun to do so. It's in their best interests to >make the toolkit as large as is needed. Even if they can't make *much* >money selling memory, it certainly doesn't hurt the balance sheet. Who else is left? If someone wants to make a new toolkit and give it away - fine. > >> Besides, they don't want a toolkit that is comparable to the Mac/MS >> Windows. They want one that is better. > >Well, from my experience with $10,000 machines running X, from a performance >basis alone they've got a lot of catching up to do. Adding a larger and >more complex toolkit sure isn't going to help. You need more experience, I think. X is not a good comparison, anyway. Perhaps a Sparcstation with GX running openwin is a good start. (Read comp.windows.x for speed comparisons) Expect cheaper machines in the future. >> One of the advantages of Open Look and Motif is that it can do things >> that the Mac/PC cannot do. > >That's debatable. UNIX can, yes, bt that'll be true no matter what the >toolkit, or the UI. But from a UI viewpoint, what does a $5000 DECstation >buy you that you can't do with a $2000 Mac? 2 extra buttons? I hate the >one button mouse, but I wouldn't pay $1000 a pop to add more. Want a list of a hundred things that are difficult to do with the Mac interface? (I'm not counting all of the add-on DA's, FKeys, etc. that change the basic UI. You can improve any window system by patching the code.) Again, if you used both the Mac and some of the better toolkits, if would be obvious how inadequate the Mac UI is. Even for simple things like resizing/moving windows, starting up programs, and selecting filenames. I find it amusing that with all of the hoopla about the Mac UI, they still haven't extended the desktop analogy to anything other than a directory and trashcan. The metaphor should extend to *programs*, allowing you to drag a file to a printer, tape drive, text editor, etc. Apple plans this for the System 7 release. Sun is shipping this now. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/12/90)
> Who else is left? NeXT, for one. Most of the large corporations and universities in the country. All of the small ones. All of the private individuals. The Free Software Foundation. Andy Tannenbaum's growing gang of MINIX maniacs. User groups. > If someone wants to make a new toolkit and give it away - > fine. > >But from a UI viewpoint, what does a $5000 DECstation > >buy you that you can't do with a $2000 Mac? > Want a list of a hundred things that are difficult to do with the Mac > interface? Important things? How about 100 things that are easy to do with the Mac interface... starting with the ability to monitor a background activity: something that X toolkit based stuff just can't handle. And how about Microsoft Windows, Intuition, and so on? The Mac is just an example that you're most likely to be familiar with. > Again, if you used both the Mac and some of the better toolkits, if > would be obvious how inadequate the Mac UI is. Even for simple things > like resizing/moving windows, starting up programs, and selecting filenames. No, the Mac is a sort of starting point for me. As you know, I much prefer Intuition. Intuition runs on a machine that's even cheaper than the Mac. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
lerici@SUPER.ORG (Peter W. Brewer) (01/14/90)
>No, the Mac is a sort of starting point for me. As you know, I much prefer >Intuition. Intuition runs on a machine that's even cheaper than the Mac. > Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> Amiga is the cheapest of all and it starts and ends with color! {Add sound to the IFF format and its pretty complete protocol.} Multitasking the whole schmeel now why would anyone want system 3 xenix or the Dumb Operating System DOS? -- The other Peter Peter Brewer |||| ||||| ||||||||| |||||| //|||||\ |||||| lerici@super.org || ||__ || || || || || THE Supercomputing || || ||^^^^^^\\ || || || Research Center ~~~ |||||||| ||||| || || ||||| \\|||||/ ||||||