From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:20:21 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 719080148@convex.convex.com, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <strobl.718754166@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>
>>>I see.  Your own sense of aesthetics says that every program
>>>should use a different menu item to do the same thing.
>
>>No. You say that. I didn't.
>
>Oh?  But that is just what Windows programs do.  I thought you said 
>you found Windows preferable to the Mac.  Have you changed your mind?

Is there some Microsoft guidelines that enforce this ? :)
You seem to claim that all Windows programs use different menu items for the
same thing. While I certainly believe there are inconsistencies between some programs, I think you are overstating the problem. I've seen inconsistencies between mac
programs, too, but I don't conclude that the mac is "inconsistent".

>
>
>>I say that I use the keyboard because I want to use the keyboard,
>>and that I don't want to be forced to use a mouse, just because
>>Apple says it's faster. 
>
>Or because it really *is* faster.
Is EVERYTHING faster with a mouse ? I don't think so.
>
>>I don't want to be forced to use a
>>menu bar far far away at the top of the screen, just because
>>Apple says it's faster (or easier) that way. No thanks.
>
>Or because it really *is* faster.

You seem to confuse "faster" with "better". To me, doing things in a logical
or intuitive way is "better" - "faster" is nice, too, but you seem to be saying
that forcing a user to use a mouse, or putting a single menu bar at the top of the
screen are justified solely on the basis of being faster - and who cares what
the user is comfortable with.
>
>Why do you find it so hard to believe that it really is
>possible to sit down and *measure* these things?
>
>Do you also object to BMW "forcing you" to have a brake
>pedal located exactly where their research shows it's
>fastest and easiest for most people to reach in an emergency?

Well, BMW probably puts the break pedal on the floor near the drivers
left foot - where the driver would expect to find it; it might be FASTER
to have the driver wack his seat with his elbow, but faster isn't the only
criteria.

>
>The Macintosh interface, you see, was designed by people 
>who recognize that what it the appearance affects the
>performance and that the appearance should be designed
>to optimize performance, not simply to be aesthetic.
>
We all applaud the Apple engineers who did this research. But others have
done research, also. You seem to be saying that there is only ONE way
to do a good user interface, and Apple did it. So if another computer doesn't
act exactly like a mac, it must not be as good.
>
>I see.  It's okay if your word processor crashes five times
>a day, losing your work each time, as long as it doesn't crash
>your spreadsheet at the same time.  (Of course, your spreadsheet
>will also crash itself five or six times a day.)
>
>I still prefer software that does what it's supposed to and
>doesn't crash.  I guess that's why I bought a Mac.

Does this mean that your personal experience with Windows was that programs
were crashing 5 or 6 times a day ? And that your experience with macs is that
they never crash ?  Do you think either of these extremes represents reality ?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy