phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: |For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far |as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified |than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such |judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and |so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in |theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. |Under Windows it's a little more gross. I believe Wolfgang Strobel described the MSWin clipboard as follows: As I understand it, the paster puts a list of supported formats in the clipboard. The pastee picks the one he likes best and the paster then delivers the actual data. WS, any comments? | In other words, Microsoft doesn't set the standards; instead, it is |the market which determines the operating system standards. And through a |bit of guessing and luck, you may be able to reverse-engineer the standards and |(hopefully) keep future releases of the operating system from breaking. You seem to be reading into Letwin's quote the exact opposite of what I got out of it, unless you're the OS vendor (like Digital Research). MS is saying that if your application does something undocumented and it is popular enough in the market, MS will bend over backwards to support you. If you stick to the specs, then none of this is a problem. You don't have to "reverse-engineer the standards" unless you're writing your own DOS. I'd be inclined to call your reading malicious. | Now tell me which philosophy is going to create a more robust system |in the long run? As long as it works, I don't care what the philosophy behind it is. It may be ugly to you, but it's the results that count and I think my PC with Win3 works fine. MS is promising to me that if my application is used by enough people, they'll keep supporting it even if the app does some unclean things. I think I like that better than not being supported. | Remind me to tell you about the time I posted about how my brother, |on getting his new Macintosh IIsi, managed to put it together in about half- |an-hour, without any help or any computer training (he's a musician in a Believe it or not, I think the Mac has its place. I have even recommended to people that they buy a Mac. But I don't see that the Mac has any inherent long term advantage over the PC. I could open up a shop tomorrow and put together and sell PCs (or PS/2s) with Windows on them. The buyer wouldn't have to configure anything either. I could probably still do it for less than Macs cost. |start using a Macintosh right out of the box." My god, they _researched_ the |problem, and have been _analyzing_ the results, and _improving_ their products |from these experiments! It sounds so simple and obvious to do this for the |manual, or for the software, but for the box the computer comes in??? Good for them. But you know, people still buy PCs and PS/2s. | And when I watched my brother open the box and start assembling the |Macintosh I was almost in tears. I was _moved_ that the box was so well |engineered, so well put together, the proper manuals presenting themselves |as the box unfolded, that it was almost a crime to have to open it. Neat stuff. | And THAT is why I own a Macintosh, and THAT is why I believe that |for the end-user, the Macintosh is currently the only way to go, and THAT |is why I study the Apple manuals on Human Interface Guidelines, Documentation |Guidelines, C Programming Style Guidelines, C++ Programming Style Guidelines |and any other Apple guideline I can get my hands on RELIGIOUSLY. | | Because if I can help create a product which is even half as well |engineered as my brother's Macintosh IIsi, I could then finally die happy, |satisfied that I finally did something that was _right_. I appreciate how devoted you are to the Mac way, but your personal satisfaction doesn't mean that much to most computer buyers. -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/26/91)
I perfer two things in the Mac. First, the file system is much better than MSDOS, for simple things like the length of a file name, keeping the lower/upper case-ness of characters, to more complex things like maintaining seperate resource and data forks, associating icons with every file, and associating a creating application with a file. I also feel that the desktop/icon/running application is much better integrated in the mac (wrote a paper about that...) This has immediate consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon box that says: ---------------------------------------- | | | Microsoft Word is already running | | | | OK | | | ---------------------------------------- On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows time... kartik -- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Research Assistant, (503)346-4408 (msgs) Department of Computer Science, (503)346-3989 (direct) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202
STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.011127.28302@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) says: > >In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> >woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >| In other words, Microsoft doesn't set the standards; instead, it is >|the market which determines the operating system standards. And through a >|bit of guessing and luck, you may be able to reverse-engineer the standards d >|and (hopefully) keep future releases of the operating system from breaking. > >You seem to be reading into Letwin's quote the exact opposite of what I >got out of it, unless you're the OS vendor (like Digital Research). >MS is saying that if your application does something undocumented >and it is popular enough in the market, MS will bend over backwards >to support you. > >If you stick to the specs, then none of this is a problem. > >You don't have to "reverse-engineer the standards" unless you're writing >your own DOS. > Well, obviously MS *is* writing its own DOS (or Windows 3.0 in this case). So they are the ones who have to figure out how someone's "clever" use of some wrinkle in the system is supposed to work. Ever tried to figure out even 500 lines of spagetti code? Because sure as Murphy rules, some klod will manage to write the 500 "clever" lines in some wildly successful Win3.0 application, then leave or fall under a bus, leaving behind no doccy or comments. >| Now tell me which philosophy is going to create a more robust system >|in the long run? > >As long as it works, I don't care what the philosophy behind it is. It >may be ugly to you, but it's the results that count and I think my PC >with Win3 works fine. MS is promising to me that if my application is >used by enough people, they'll keep supporting it even if the app does >some unclean things. I think I like that better than not being >supported. This I find to be a rather frightening attitude, albeit an unsurprising one. This is the attitude for which we have to thank IBM for OS/360, MVS, and CMS. Sure it gets the job done, but a bigger pile of junk (in all three cases) I have yet to see. None of these systems will ever get below a certain level of bugginess, simply because they are too large, unwieldy, and over-extended. MS has a historic opportunity here, to prevent history being repeated. Otherwise they will find themselves running into the quicksands, like the dinosaurs of old. I think that was what Woody was trying to get at, the fact that if MS constrained developers like Apple does then we, the users, will be better off in the long run. Its rather akin to the Amazon - do we cut it down now for a quick profit, or manage it for the long term.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going
back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new
about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double
clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same
message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!"
The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows
time...
Hasn't it been out since 1985? How much time do you want? Isn't the
IBM community moving towards OS/2? DOS weenies are the source of my
frustation. Too many stupid users who should own Macintoshes but
trust those three letters: IBM. Oh well, sooner or later their
ignorance will hit them.
-Mikeakm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/27/91)
In article <me5G_sb91@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >(in reply to my article...) > The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows > time... > >Hasn't it been out since 1985? How much time do you want? Isn't the >IBM community moving towards OS/2? DOS weenies are the source of my >frustation. Too many stupid users who should own Macintoshes but >trust those three letters: IBM. Oh well, sooner or later their >ignorance will hit them. One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of paramount importance. Calling users stupid does not show any respect for them or their needs. If they trust IBM, then obviously there is some need that they have that IBM satisfies, and you can't ignore that. Also, if your role is to help users, if you believe they are stupid, you can't satisfy that role. Mac users calling DOS/Windows/OS/2 users weenies and vice versa is, IMHO a waste of time, and it shows a level of almost religous bigotism that is not productive. Much better that we learn from one another. I use both Macs and PCs extensively and am aware that there are advantages and problems with both systems/software platforms. And I think that the argument that "the IBM community is supposed to be moving towards OS/2" quite meaningless. A while back, the world was supposed to be moving towards UNIX. There are people in my department who would not use anything that can't support X-Windows, but we get along fine realizing that our needs are different. cheers, kartik -- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Research Assistant, (503)346-4408 (msgs) Department of Computer Science, (503)346-3989 (direct) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/27/91)
STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes: >This I find to be a rather frightening attitude, albeit an unsurprising one. >This is the attitude for which we have to thank IBM for OS/360, MVS, and CMS. >Sure it gets the job done, but a bigger pile of junk (in all three cases) I >have yet to see. None of these systems will ever get below a certain level of >bugginess, simply because they are too large, unwieldy, and over-extended. You're overlooking the fact that there is a clear upgrade path from DOS to Windows to OS/2. Win and OS/2 have DOS boxes and they are good enough. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that the Mac is not bug free either, so let's not live in glass houses and throw stones. -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. DDE or somesuch (OLE) should still allow windows to do this same thing. Being separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming along. -- * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> * Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + * (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/27/91)
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made >programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of >paramount importance. This would have been GREAT if some programmers hadn't gone ALL the way to the other side and considered that the needs and perceptions of users (who really did not know WHAT they wanted in most cases) were more important than functionality, robustness, usefulness, and efficiency. >Calling users stupid does not show any respect >for them or their needs. That is true. I believe that the issue is honesty. Some users ARE stupid, not in the sense of low intelligence, but in the assumption that getting or using a computer means that they don't have to learn one whit about what they are using. Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is willing to learn the machine. My $0.02 anyway... -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh In a meadow, the King shot an arrow at a deer but missed. "Bravo!" a Fool shouted. The King became angry and snapped "So! You're making fun of me, eh? I am going to punish the life out of you!" "My word of praise was not for His Excellency, but for the deer."
zoroaster@oak.circa.ufl.edu (03/27/91)
(RE {blah} is already running in ms Win3)
That's odd- I always get a another program session. Maybe you're using the
fabled MacWindows ( :-) ?)?cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/27/91)
From article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, by dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes): > akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made >>programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of >>paramount importance. > > This would have been GREAT if some programmers hadn't gone ALL the way to > the other side and considered that the needs and perceptions of users > (who really did not know WHAT they wanted in most cases) were more important > than functionality, robustness, usefulness, and efficiency. > Anybody ever run a BATCH file on a MAC. Better yet, anybody ever use that input queue to his advantage in getting ahead of the machine? On a MAC, YOU wait for the machine, no if's and's or but's. Batch processing is not a bad word, quite the contrary. It has its purpose, and this purpose is not filled by MAC's. Therefore, in answer to the article subject, the MAC is NOT better than DOS machines, just more demanding of user input. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/27/91)
In <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes: >THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >willing to learn the machine. Perhaps the philosophy is that people should be spending time learning their application instead of learning the machine. This seems to work since Mac users find time to learn 5-6 different applications. The Mac machine has a small set of skills to learn and they are of utility in every application. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually runs the application. On running the application a second time, the application can at that point choose to allow a second copy to run at the same time, or to abort the second copy. This causes Windows to put up the message 'no cigar'. Your friend can figure out what's running by clicking in the desktop; though I don't have a Windows machine next to me, I do believe that this will pop up a modal dialog which lists all the programs which are currently running, and will allow you to select one of them. -- See, I may be deeply imbedded in 'Mac Zen', but I still know a little bit about Windows... ;-) -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
njacobs@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.165101.10570@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes... >for them or their needs. If they trust IBM, then obviously there is >some need that they have that IBM satisfies, and you can't ignore >that. A striking non-sequitur in an otherwise sensible posting. IBM's success in the PC world is due to its superb marketing - which creates irrational wants. Any "need" that an IBM PC satisfies can be satisfied at about half the cost by a good clone. Nick <standard disclaimer>
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. > >THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >willing to learn the machine. OK, I'm forced to respond. I learned to program in 1963, and discovered I loved it. I've long since lost count of the number of machines I've used and the number of programming languages I've written in. I got a doctorate in Computer Science, taught CS for a few years at a university, and I'm currently an AI researcher at Unisys. In other words, I am NOT an "unwilling user," not by any stretch of the imagination. But I AM a user, as well as a "computer professional." I spend as much time using other people's programs as I do writing my own. You say that, according to the Macintosh philosopy, "no respect is given the user who is willing to learn the machine." I think this is completely bogus. Let's turn it on its head: "Respect IS given to the user who wants to get things done, but isn't a professional and doesn't want to become one just to work his computer." Programs are, you will certainly agree, very complex entities. In my view, a certain task (e.g. word processing) requires a certain minimum complexity to get it done. A software engineer can meet the user halfway, providing the necessary functionality and expecting the user to master the remaining complexity; or the engineer can meet the user MORE than halfway, providing not only the functionality, but attempting to absorb as much as possible of the complexity into the program, so that the user doesn't have to work as hard or learn as much. To achieve this, the engineer has to (1) learn principles of good user interface design, (2) put a hell of a lot of work into the interface, often substantially more than into the basic functionality itself, (3) test the program with real users, being as open as humanly possible to complaints and suggestions, and (4) revise and test in a seemingly endless cycle until the interface and functionality are "right." Macintosh programming is some of the hardest programming I have ever done, and I'm still not good at it. But it's also the most rewarding (and I certainly don't mean in a financial sense!), because I feel I can create a program of substantially higher quality. The Macintosh toolbox makes this possible, but it doesn't make it easy. Resentment is natural when people are forced to do work they wouldn't otherwise have to do, or feel is unnecessary. In this case the pressure of the marketplace for higher-quality user interfaces is putting a lot of programmers into this position. Yes, users have learned to expect more and demand more, just as they do from any field that is advancing. But no, it isn't pandering to work to meet those needs; they are legitimate. I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. Those are the facts of life. Macintosh gives me, my wife, and my four kids what we want in a computer: ease of learning and ease of use. I think this shows that the designers respected us and our needs; you seem to feel the opposite. In addition, I personally have always been a technophile, and want to live in the future; Macintosh was and is a pioneer in software, and is still years ahead of windows. I'm "religious" about them because, with the possible exception of NeXT, their software is years ahead of the competition. But I'm not religious in the sense that I'll jump ship in a minute if something better comes along. Other users have other needs: they need to spend less, or they can afford to spend more time learning the system. Novice users don't know the differences, so they often make the "safe" choice (and similarly, no one was ever fired for recommending that his company buy IBM computers). And that's my nickel. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) I don't speak for my employer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | | were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | | cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | | and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | | color TV, too. | | Now there's Windows 3.0. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/28/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >|For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far >|as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified >|than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such >|judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and >|so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in >|theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. >|Under Windows it's a little more gross. >I believe Wolfgang Strobel described the MSWin clipboard as follows: >As I understand it, the paster puts a list of supported formats in the >clipboard. The pastee picks the one he likes best and the paster then >delivers the actual data. >WS, any comments? Correct. I would like to add that the paster has the choice, either to put all the data into the clipboard during cut/copy or shortly after that (the method of the Macintosh), or to do it much later, on demand, and only for the requested format. For small amounts of data it is simpler to put everything into the clipboard immediately. But it is quite usefull that an application can announce a format for which it has to generate the actual data only if there is somebody (another application, that is), who actually requests it. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/28/91)
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >I perfer two things in the Mac. First, the file system is much better >than MSDOS, for simple things like the length of a file name, keeping >the lower/upper case-ness of characters, to more complex things like >maintaining seperate resource and data forks, associating icons with >every file, and associating a creating application with a file. All this is not a sign of quality of a filesystem, but of features a filesystem has. Those you mention are quite useless for a filesystem which is used mostly using a command driven interface. They aren't very hard to implement. Adding robustness, support for very large files, support for efficient direct access etc. are much harder to realize. I agree that the MSDOS file system is poor, given todays standards. But it performs quite well for the purposes it was created for. >I also feel that the desktop/icon/running application is much better >integrated in the mac (wrote a paper about that...) This has immediate >consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two >icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the >desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and >you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon >box that says: > ---------------------------------------- > | | > | Microsoft Word is already running | > | | > | OK | > | | > ---------------------------------------- >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. Not so. Its a bug in WinWord, in my opinion. The normal behaviour of Windows is that you can start as many copies of your application as you like. Opening two documents is usually done by starting two copies of the application. This is no problem from a technical point of view, because all instances of an application share their code, so only one copy of the code has to be in memory. In addition, there is a simple mechanism for these multiple instances to exchange data. Some applications prefer to exist only in one single instance, for some reason or another. WinWord is one of them, obviously. Such applications (which are a minority) have the problem you describe. It could easily be solved by having any secondary instance of such an application send an open request to the primary instance. Cooperation from one of the Managers (file/program) isn't necessary. Why Microsoft didn't implement it that way, who knows. (My theory is that it applies mostly to applications they have to support on both platforms, but I could be wrong). The point I want to make here that this problem is not an architectural deficiency in Windows. Multiple instances make it difficult to decide to which running instance of an application a document to be opened has to be attached, if this operation is performed from the outside, in some manager. But on the other hand, they have advantages. Of course, the problem can be solved by crippling the whole system so that it only allows one instance of an application, i.e. by copying the Mac architecture. This makes the system simpler in some areas (you described one), but makes it more complicated in another (you have to implement multiple document support in each and every application, for example). Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) wrote: >consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two >icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the >desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and >you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon >box that says: > | Microsoft Word is already running | >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/28/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. > >OK, I'm forced to respond. [ extremely well-written response deleted. GO READ THE ARTICLE! NOW! ] David, your arguments should be required reading for all computer jocks who lose patience with those annoying users. :-) I've never seen a clearer and more persuasive statement of the Macintosh philosophy. Made my day. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/28/91)
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. >You say that, according to the Macintosh philosopy, "no respect is >given the user who is willing to learn the machine." I think this is >completely bogus. Let's turn it on its head: "Respect IS given to >the user who wants to get things done, but isn't a professional and >doesn't want to become one just to work his computer." THe two aren't the same thing. How about if I word it another way: "Respect could be given to the professional who is willing to sacrifice ease-of-learning for interface throughput speed." >complexity to get it done. A software engineer can meet the user >halfway, providing the necessary functionality and expecting the user >to master the remaining complexity; or the engineer can meet the user >MORE than halfway, providing not only the functionality, but >attempting to absorb as much as possible of the complexity into the >program, so that the user doesn't have to work as hard or learn as >much. However, in absorbing that complexity you more often than not wind up denying flexibility, speed, or even usefulness. There are the interfaces designed to be easy-to-use and then there are those designed to be quick-to-use. Most of the time these are two different camps...and current trendyism tends to favor the easy-to-use. My suggestion is that these two camps be fused...so that an interface is easy to use at first, then as it is mastered it becomes quick to use. So often I see people using EZGUIs work at least 1/2 as fast as those using keyboard interfaces or quicker GUIS (if there IS such a thing). The solution and the better way is to slow everybody down? >Resentment is natural when people are forced to do work they wouldn't >otherwise have to do, or feel is unnecessary. YES! Now you understand why some of us professionals HATE these GUI interfaces! For example...WHY should I have to move my right hand to my mouse to get something done that used to take a keystroke? >I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. That they may be for you...I feel everything is negotiable into a happy medium. >Macintosh gives me, my wife, and my four kids what we want in a >computer: ease of learning and ease of use. I think this shows that >the designers respected us and our needs; you seem to feel the >opposite. Exactly correct. I feel the designers have neglected my needs for fast throughput and complex powerful constructed commands from a simple orthogonal command subset. Different strokes for different folks. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone asked. "Because I am a Fool" "Why don't you then fill other people's bags with your own wheat?" "Then," the Fool answered, "I would be more of a fool."
mtang@sgi.com (Man Kit Tang) (03/28/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. > >OK, I'm forced to respond. > ... <much stuff deleted> ... > We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. I couldn't agree more on this. So, let the market declare who's the winner. -mkt
JEB107@psuvm.psu.edu (Jonathan Baker) (03/28/91)
Pardon me for asking this, but....
Is all this Apple <--> IBM bashing really necessary?
I had assumed, for a while, that most of the people who participate in
these discussions are professional, or semi-professional computer
literate people. However, from the amount of anit-computer system
mail out there, I guess I would be mistaken.
I had, about 6 months ago, a chance to argue with a dedicated (and
I mean REALLY dedicated) Big Blue enthuiast, who told me all about
why IBM should be the monopoly in the market (along with all of
the clone makers, of course). This was sitting in a shop, with
the guts of about 3 IBM's sitting around useless ("I can't get
the right parts for them").
Right across the hall, was a student Macintosh Lab. Not too nice
(It really didn't get much support), but usuable. In this lab
sat a dedicated 'Apple should be gods!' enthuiast, who said
almost exactly the same things the pro-IBM guy did, in reverse.
I blew it off, thinking it was the result of these people being
stuck in a backwater campus, unaware that there were better
things out there.
I guess I was wrong. I always thought that the idea of computers
was to help the user, user stupid or user bright. It was
the general idea that, if you liked it, you bought it (remember
the idea of market competition?) and then you could always
change your mind.
Nowadays, with the advent of the LAN, WAN, GlobalAN, etc...
I figured that the computer community would be imagining
all kinds of new ways to get all these computers to work
together, and let each show it's own strengths, and
weaknesses. Hey, if you had to so DTP, use a Mac/NeXT.
If you wanted to work in WordPerfect (if you were used to
it), then use an IBM. Great, huh?
I guess not. With the same general stupidity that gave
us racism, the computer 'professionals' out there seem
to have a great time telling each other just how BAD the
other guy is.
(All exceptions to this rule, please forgive me. I am trying
to make a point)
So, I guess we are just as bad as the users, huh?
Jonathan Baker
Penn State Universitycms2839@isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) (03/28/91)
stop it .
this idiotic thread is making the
general level of discussion in alt.sex ( no flames ) look positively
philosophical . it all adds up to dozens upon scores upon ... of
irrelevant analogies , atypical examples , and just plain shitty logic
from the collection of idiots who profess that one computer and one
operating system is perfect for the world in general . and we haven't
ever heard from the Amiga and CoCo/OS-9 followers yet .
believe it or not , there ARE people who
use these groups to answer their questions about and enhance their
productivity on the corresponding systems . might i suggest USING them
instead of debating which is better ? i use and program Macs ,
Dos/Windows , and straight DOS . i've found that the experience gives me
flexability and skills that cannot be matched by someone who refuses to
step beyond the safe walls of their pet system . no argument for either
system is going to convince me that i won't have a need to use the other
in the future , and dogmatic bullshit will do me no more good in that
situation than it does these newsgroups .
find a system that you like and do what
you can with it . but realize that the fact that it fits you does not
mean that it axiomatically applies to the rest of the earth .
how about getting back to the subject ?
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @
@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
@ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu @dinda@cat59.cs.wisc.edu (Peter Dinda) (03/29/91)
In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is >the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or >Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was >annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does >really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it >is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where >with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I >spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps >together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using >the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly >loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming >along. >-- Simple solution: Run your apps maximized and switch between them using SWITCHTO on the system menu - voila: instant multifinder task list! It is also rather interesting that you should mention DDE, a feature Windows has had for a number of years now and that Apple is finally getting around to emulating. If you also throw IBM's raison d'etre operating system, OS/2, into the fold, you realize that the 'space race' between Macs and PCs is quite close. Certainly, if you look at bare hardware, you would think PCs are a whole new generation! >* Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + >* SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> >* Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + >* (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force
korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) (03/29/91)
In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: > The other thing I like about the MAC is >Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. Actually, I find that one of the most annoying Macintosh traits. Everything wants to use the whole damn screen. In MS windows I can be programming in one window while looking at reference docs in another, while glancing over at an ASCII table in another, while looking at the number that has just popped up in the calculator. I don't have to click in the upper right corner to change apps. IMHO, multifinder doesn't come close to MS windows when it comes to running multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) /\ korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu Internet /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar29.002307.9456@agate.berkeley.edu> korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes: >In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >> The other thing I like about the MAC is >>Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >>a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. > >Actually, I find that one of the most annoying Macintosh traits. Everything >wants to use the whole damn screen. In MS windows I can be programming in one >window while looking at reference docs in another, while glancing over at >an ASCII table in another, while looking at the number that has just popped up >in the calculator. I don't have to click in the upper right corner to change >apps. > >IMHO, multifinder doesn't come close to MS windows when it comes to running >multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but >not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is >out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) > > /\ korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu Internet > /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet > / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet > (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela> What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make active? Jess Holle
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.034441.25349@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: > >What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say >you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make >active? > Answer 1: There is only one menu bar! Simple copy from one app and paste into the other -type commands are a pain. Edit-copy, then click on the destination window, then Edit-paste. I find it much easier to be able to hit the destination's menu bar directly, thus activating the app and the menu at once. It's also nice to be able to tug an app and all its windows off the screen temporarily, or have just its title and menu bar appearing at the bottom of the screen to do cuts and pastes to/from. Answer 2: How many compact macs have a burnt-in stripe across the top of their screen because of the menu bar always being there? Almost all I've seen do. Screen savers work, except it's hard to work when the screen saver is activated! Apple standard response: The gods in our Human-Computer Interaction labs have decreed that the one menu bar at the top is more efficient. Why? Because you can overshoot the bar when moving the mouse and the fact that it's muched against the top of the screen will prevent overshooting it. Wouldn't similar reasoning suggest smunching all common controls against the screen edges? I just want to know how much more efficient it is to have to activate, then access the menu bar, instead of doing both in one click. For that matter, it's probably *most* efficient to use Alt-<letter> to access the menu! [Side note: I was involved in a rather lengthy discussion with some folks from comp.sys.mac.religion.gods.sys.misc or whatever on this exact point about a year ago. I think Apple is trying to justify a poor decision made when the original Mac interface was cast in stone, but this is my opinion. It's *very* interesting to note that the company that most recently said they'd successfully cloned the Mac ROMS is using a Motif-like interface, with the menus in each apps window right where they belong.] Actually, one thing I really like is the ability for an app like Windows Help to spring forth with its own menu bar--on the Mac the alternatives are to have a bunch of silly buttons or pop-up menubutton thingies or to take over the global menu bar. Sorry for the digression... Aaron Wallace
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: > The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different names, and then starting each of them. But so what? I can recall only one occassion where I needed to do that in the last three years, and that was with a "quick hack" type program that had almost none of the normal capabilities. The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, what's the point of running several copies of the same program? John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. > >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? Ah, but on the Mac you get two entirely separate programs, each eating up its full share of memory. Under Windows all the code is shared, so the second copy is much cheaper than the first. >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? The key word is "most." MacDraw for years didn't have multiple windows. Most games don't. Most DAs don't. Many toy shareware programs don't. Running two copies would be a good fix to this limitation. Many Windows apps don't support multiple windows because they don't have to--they get it for free through Windows. I mean, let's say you want to have two versions of a chess game running at the same time or whatever. Most, if not all, games don't support multiple windows--nor should they really have to. With Windows this isn't a problem at all (unless the silly program can't run multiply, which means it was written poorly). Other reasons: some programs like to have "global" (i.e. across windows) settings. Multiple copies allow one to have different copies with different settings. Aaron Wallace
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: > >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? > Admittedly it isn't all too common, but it does have its uses. If you have a sound player program, or a image display program, you might want to have multiple sounds/pictures displayed at once. You might have two or more serial ports and want a communications program running on each. Same with printing via parallel ports. You get the idea. It isn't rampantly useful, but it can be used. >John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 >Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (03/30/91)
>>What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say >>you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make >>active? >Answer 1: There is only one menu bar! Simple copy from one app and paste into >the other -type commands are a pain. Edit-copy, then click on the >destination window, then Edit-paste. I find it much easier to be able to >hit the destination's menu bar directly, thus activating the app and the >menu at once. It's also nice to be able to tug an app and all its windows >off the screen temporarily, or have just its title and menu bar appearing >at the bottom of the screen to do cuts and pastes to/from. At the risk of throwing more acetone on the fire, I'd like to say that I'm pretty impressed with the way the Next menus work. No, not the separate ver- tical menu bar that always appears in the same place, and I do HATE the close button on the top right (I suppose they did that to avoid a MacLawsuit). I refer to the ability to bring up the menu bar whereever the mouse cursor is by simply hitting right mouse button! I suppose someone will eventually write some kind of utility that will let us do this in Windows.. 8-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. > >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? The reason why multiple instances of an application is desirable under Microsoft Windows is that under Windows it's generally 'one instance -- one file'. That is, if you have two text files to edit, you open two copies of your text editor, one for the first edit file, and one for the second. On the Macintosh, applications are *supposed* to be able to open and edit multiple files. In other words, you need only one copy of your editor to open several files at the same time. The Windows model is easier to program. After all, as each instance behaves as if it is it's own private model, with it's own globals, you can be lazy and stick the contents of your text file (or whatever) into a global data structure and use it there. But I find the windows model is a bit awkward to use; after all, if you want to open three text files, you have to open three instances, then find the text files... I have not found a fast and easy way around this, and I would love it if someone could tell me a quick workaround. The Macintosh model is harder to write programs for. Not too much harder, though, as you basically need to create a structure which stores all of the 'globals' associated with each 'window', and access those structures as messages are passed to your windows. However, when I want to open a second text file, I can either double click on the text file (as in Windows), or I can simply select 'open' under the ever-present 'File' menu, and open a second text file in my application. With the Macintosh model there is no need, therefore, to be able to run multiple instances of an application, when a single instance will do. (And before letting me know about the applications out there on the Mac which don't allow editing multiple files, please realize that there are applications out for Windows which won't let you run multiple instances.) -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/30/91)
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? I can recall >only one occassion where I needed to do that in the last three years, >and that was with a "quick hack" type program that had almost none of >the normal capabilities. Why would one want the ability to run more than one program or open multiple documents at all? It's much simpler to have multiple copies of the computer on the *real* desk, each running its own copy of the operating system. How many applications do people want to run concurrently? Three, four? No problem: arrange four Classic Macs in a row on the desk, and you have still space left to use a fifth one as a paper-weight. :-) >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? Most commercial Mac programs have this capability, because they have to. The Macs operating system does not have the built-in capability for multiple documents, so applications have to implement it. I prefer to have the feature built right into the OS. (I don't doubt that there is some support in the Mac OS for implementing multiple documents in an application. My point is that the application has to do it, instead of relying on a more general OS feature.) What is the point of running several copies of the same program? Simplicity, in my opinion. Many programs which allow more than one open document support more that one type of document (different views, different components of a workspace, etc.). So usually there is of mixture of documents visible on the desktop, some of them looking similar, some of them looking different. The distinction between different open documents belonging to one application and differnt open documents belonging to different applications seems highly artificial to me. It's a technical detail, and nothing to bother the user with. If there is support for instancing and code sharing in the OS, and if the inter-program communication support is good enough, it is even something not to bother the programmer with, most of the time. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
dinda@cat55.cs.wisc.edu (Peter Dinda) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar30.084515.18789@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >The reason why multiple instances of an application is desirable under >Microsoft Windows is that under Windows it's generally 'one instance -- >one file'. That is, if you have two text files to edit, you open two >copies of your text editor, one for the first edit file, and one for the >second. Take a look at Winword or Excel sometime... Multiple Documents within the same program. >On the Macintosh, applications are *supposed* to be able to open and edit >multiple files. In other words, you need only one copy of your editor >to open several files at the same time. Sorry. On the Mac, you have to jump through hoops to provide multiple open documents. It's one of the reasons Macwrite never did! Under Windows it is also hellish, but the OS gives you a boost: There is a Windows API called MDI (Muliple Document Interface) which simplifies the programming. >The Windows model is easier to program. After all, as each instance behaves >as if it is it's own private model, with it's own globals, you can be lazy >and stick the contents of your text file (or whatever) into a global >data structure and use it there. But I find the windows model is a bit Yah. This is known as a BADLY WRITTEN PROGRAM. Ideally the code is written to be reenterant and the data is stored in non static memory you ask Windows for. >awkward to use; after all, if you want to open three text files, you have >to open three instances, then find the text files... I have not found >a fast and easy way around this, and I would love it if someone could >tell me a quick workaround. It seems like you are talking about NOTEPAD here. Multipad (comes with the SDK) is an MDI equipped NOTEPAD. Alternatively, use WinWord or Ami - or (gods forbid!) open a DOS box and use LIST! Peter A. Dinda see also dinda@VMS.macc.wisc.edu
robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar27.061300.7636@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" Exactly. The computer knows what's going on, so why can't it remedy the problem and help her get work done ? Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually runs the application. The real problem is that Windows does not define higher-level mechanisms for things that the Macintosh does already. See, the way it ought to work is that the File Manager ought to notice that an instance of Word (or another other MDI application) is already running, and then sends a DDE message to it (with standard semantics and a standard interface) to open up a new file. I actually submitted on OnLine SR about this a long time ago, but it never showed up in Windows 3.0. Basically, it would involve extending the currently anemic file association mechanism. Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. As a developer, I find that Windows, especially Windows 3.0, has a somewhat more robust and clean API, especially in terms of memory management and dialog boxes. (Some of the difference is surely due to the fact that Microsoft could learn from Apple's mistakes.) On the other hand, the coolest stuff still appears on the Mac. Many Windows programs betray DOS lineage: ugly or gratutious use of color, lack of direct-manipulation interfaces, and deviation from Windows/CUA user interface guidelines are much more common than in corresponding Mac applications.
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (04/02/91)
In article <ROBERTK.91Apr1171818@lotatg.lotus.com> robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.061300.7636@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: > > In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: > > > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going > >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new > >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double > >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same > >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" > >Exactly. The computer knows what's going on, so why can't it remedy >the problem and help her get work done ? Because "the right thing to do" is not clear. Windows can't always tell if the app allows multiple instances or not by examining the .EXE file. So, should Windows throw the file at the existing instance or start another afresh? Remember, an app that is otherwise multiple-instance compatible could still allow only one instance for whatever reason. > Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a > problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; > each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually > runs the application. Windows *can* do it the Mac way--why Microsoft didn't choose to add the functionality is beyond me. I put it in an editor I'm working on and it took about 10-20 lines of simple code. You basically get the handle of the previous instance and send it a message with the file to be opened. >The real problem is that Windows does not define higher-level >mechanisms for things that the Macintosh does already. See, the way >it ought to work is that the File Manager ought to notice that an >instance of Word (or another other MDI application) is already >running, and then sends a DDE message to it (with standard semantics >and a standard interface) to open up a new file. But what if you really want a second instance? I think this is something best left to the application to worry about; the command line provides the communication channel between the shell and the app; the app can do whatever it pleases to effect the correct behavior. >I actually submitted >on OnLine SR about this a long time ago, but it never showed up in >Windows 3.0. Basically, it would involve extending the currently >anemic file association mechanism. Seems to work fine for me--throw the file at the program, and if it wants to hand it over to a previous instance, it can. If it wants to keep it to itself, no problem either. In my editor either behavior can be defined; you can also have a dialog box ask what to do with the file. And none of it involves any hacks as described below; it's all simple IPC. >Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions >is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching >down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, >at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. Anyway, all I really want to see is more programs that don't act like Word. Launching the second instance is ok. Passing the file to a previous instance is fine. But the Word reaction is silly; Word *should* know better. Windows doesn't have to: it told Word to open a file using the well-established command line interface. Aaron Wallace
whir@orbit.cts.com (Rick Allard) (04/02/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: > >To achieve this, the engineer has to... >(3) >test the program with real users, being as open as humanly possible to >complaints and suggestions, and (4) revise and test in a seemingly >endless cycle until the interface and functionality are "right." > In my day-to-day use, especially of Microsoft stuff -- only partially accounting for scale, I cannot believe houses do nearly enough of this. Yes, software is complicated, but it doesn't vary statistically like an auto nor is it difficult to test. Just do it sufficiently many times, and *listen* and watch closely. Think of the 100,000 or million times we all go down the same dumb path of some idiotic menu, and how that got left in! ... >I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. Since Microsoft has a near monopoly they can operate on inertia, and it is clear to me, who must use there products, that despite their capability to be sensitive to their customers, they do not practice this most important rule (3 & 4 from David). ooooooooooooootter#spoon in bowl !!!!!!!!!!!!& RooM & !!!!!!!!!!!!R oooo M
gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (04/03/91)
In article <ROBERTK.91Apr1171818@lotatg.lotus.com> robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes: >Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions >is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching >down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, >at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. With System Seven, the Finder uses AppleEvents to tell applications what documents to open or print, to ask them to quit or to tell them they have just been launched (so that they can open a new untitled document). This is much cleaner. >As a developer, I find that Windows, especially Windows 3.0, has a >somewhat more robust and clean API, especially in terms of memory >management and dialog boxes. (Some of the difference is surely due to >the fact that Microsoft could learn from Apple's mistakes.) On the >other hand, the coolest stuff still appears on the Mac. Many Windows >programs betray DOS lineage: ugly or gratutious use of color, lack of >direct-manipulation interfaces, and deviation from Windows/CUA user >interface guidelines are much more common than in corresponding >Mac applications. I am not (by far!) a Windows expert, so my request is informative only. I don't wan't to launch yet another Flame war: in which way is the Memory management better on Windows. I find the Mac model quite clean and powerful (except for this stupid story of MultiFinder partitions maybe). As for the dialog boxes, I can imagine quite easily how they can be better on Windows :-) Could you however elaborate... Arnaud. -- /======================//==========================================/ / Arnaud Gourdol. // On the Netland: Gourdol@imag.fr / / // Via AppleLink: Gourdol@imag.fr@INTERNET# / /======================//==========================================/
kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (04/03/91)
korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes: >multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but >not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is >out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) Hey now! :-) I've got a 21" monitor and it looks great. Windows all over the place. The interesting thing is that the demo that I was given to show me how good the monitor was was delivered on a Mac II something or other. For my money Windows looks better (but then I have eye problems):-) Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) (04/05/91)
But my daddy has a bigger car than your daddy. -- /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (USR HST/V.32, 24h/d) */ /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
rcook@grumpy.helios.nd.edu (04/09/91)
|> DDE or somesuch (OLE) should still allow windows to do this same thing. Being |> separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is |> the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or |> Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses |> a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was |> annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does |> really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it |> is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where |> with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I |> spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps |> together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using |> the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly |> loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming |> along. |> |> |> -- |> * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + |> * SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> |> * Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + |> * (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force Personally, I find this to be a huge fault with the Macintosh interface. You can't show more than one program on the screen at once. In windows, you have a choice, just maximize all the running programs. Either click in the maximize box, or more easily double-click anywhere on the title bar. Switch to the next program using ALT-TAB. Hey the computer now acts like a mac. Robert Kelley Cook U. of Notre Dame '91