wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (01/05/89)
Peter da Silva writes: > Just being a troublemaker... > What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for? Getting the manual down off the shelf .... I use vi instead of emacs because I learned it first and my fingers know how to do things most emacs-users can't do without keeping the manual around*. But I'd rather use a Macintosh, since I seldom have to remember anything; I can just do the obvious and it works. (It's especially critical since the places I use Macs don't tend to have the manuals handy.) I'd rather have pop-up menus and multi-button mouse, but the Mac is close enough. Most of the Mac-haters I know are touch-typists who don't like moving their hands off the keyboard - the head-mouse may be able to let them get the best of both worlds. When I'm using the Mac for a while, I tend to do most of my work by keystrokes, but pull-downs are still there when I need a crutch. Wish the implementation was better and there were more keys ..... The Mac desktop isn't really enough for me - I've gotten spoiled by large multi-window screens with multi-tasking. On the other hand, multiple fonts and more-or-less WYSIWYG are such a win over 24x80 monospace that I'll happily tolerate it as long as I'm using it as a writing/design tool rather than a programming environment. --- * I'm not trying to restart Editor Wars here - this is just a response to the people who say menus and pull-downs are for people with small brains who won't read the manual. I'm happy to use systems that usually do what I want, so I can use the mental effort on the problems I'm trying to solve, or on the more obscure parts of the work, rather than wasting my time getting the typesetting to look decent. Bill -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # # News. Don't talk to me about News.
maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) (01/10/89)
In article <390@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) writes: ... >Most of the Mac-haters I know are touch-typists who don't >like moving their hands off the keyboard - the head-mouse >may be able to let them get the best of both worlds. ... I'm different: I'm a Mac hater, I'm not a touch typest, and I don't mind moving my fingers off the keyboard. The reason I hate the Mac is its user interface - it forces you to conform too much, ie it is not customisable enough. When I use UNIX I use tcsh (csh+command line editing via emacs style CTRL chars) with >40 aliases, highly customised emacs etc.... - RC /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ JANET: maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu BITNET: maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL ARPA: maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk UUCP: maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995
uucibg@sw1e.UUCP (3929] Brian Gilstrap) (01/11/89)
In article <77@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) writes: > >I'm different: I'm a Mac hater, I'm not a touch typest, and I don't mind >moving my fingers off the keyboard. >The reason I hate the Mac is its user interface - it forces you to conform >too much, ie it is not customisable enough. When I use UNIX I use tcsh >(csh+command line editing via emacs style CTRL chars) with >40 aliases, >highly customised emacs etc.... > Hmmm....I certainly won't argue that the standard Finder-style interface does not provide customization. I also won't argue that customization can be nice (being a unix programmer, I strongly agree). However, the Mac has many options for customization, including several general macro packages such as QuicKeys, Tempo II, and Apple's MacroMaker. Many of these packages let you make your macros apply to all programs or just a particular program. Also, many of programs out now allow you to create macros within the scope of the program. You might want to take a second look at the Mac, if customization is your real complaint. Of course, the die-hard Mac-ites (I'm not one) might argue the appropriateness of using such macros. Personally, I think extensibility is the key to a long software product lifetime, so in that sense I agree with you. However, I own a MacII and I'm generaly quite happy with the applications, so in that sense I guess I have to disagree with you. By the way, this seems to have digressed, so I've directed follow-ups to comp.misc for lack of a better choice ( the ppl in comp.sys.mac[.programmer] have already "got the religion" so we'd get into ego-bashing if we moved there :-) Disclaimer: I'm not affliated with Apple or any company that creates or markets Macintosh software. I am a generally satisfied customer, though I'll be more satisfied when I've got Unix on my machine. :-) >- RC > >/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ >JANET: maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu BITNET: maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL >ARPA: maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk UUCP: maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp >Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995 Brian R. Gilstrap One Bell Center Rm 17-G-4 ...!ames!killer!texbell!sw1e!uucibg St. Louis, MO 63101 ...!bellcore!texbell!sw1e!uucibg (314) 235-3929