From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 03:35:28 GMT

In article <mcpz53_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> |> No, I'm talking about a *real* GUI. It's sitton on top of a shitty O/S,
> |> but it's really real. Apple could learn a lot from it if they'd try.

> Unfortunately, the shitty OS affects teh GUI deeply, in lots of ways.

Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this argument. 

> To get past this, you need to be much more specific about what you
> want to argue.

I have been.

> Example: standard file dialogs. If you claim Windows has
> a better standard file dialog (say), I could complain about 8.3
> letter filenames. Of course that's just because of DOS

Yes, I would expect NT to do better.

> |> > But you'll have to tell us
> |> > SPECIFICALLY what you are talking about.

> |> I did. The GUI.

> The whole GUI?

The whole GUI. It's easy enough to apply the test "would this feature still
exist if you were running this GUI on a Mac (or whatever your favorite OS
is) instead of DOS, or running a different application (where the finder
equivalent is an application)?". If the answer is "yes", then it's part of
the GUI.

> Then I submit that having the system so compartmentalized is not a good
> user interface design.

I'm sorry, this is a non-sequiter. All of the features I've mentioned so far
(Windows-style shortcuts, menu bars on windows, application icons) can be
imagined on the Mac with no loss of generality, or unification.

> The Macintosh is better, with its unified finder,

But the finder isn't unified. You can even run replacements (mini finders).

> but not perfect since you still have a dichotomy between apps.

Yes. This is one of the places the Windows GUI works better: it treats all
applications as peers.

> |> > Now, the reason for having standard command keys
> |> > is to avoid using the menus for certain common commands (quit, save);

> |> But the commands *you* find common aren't the ones *I* find common. In
> |> Windows,
> |> you automatically learn the hotkeys for the commands *you* do.

> I'll dispute this: the commands I find important are "save", "bold", "italic",
> "plain", etc, "New" and "Quit", and also "Run" (I use Think C).

> In order, thats Command-S, command-B/I/T etc (various styles, you know),
> command-N, command-Q, Command-R.

OK, what's the command for quarter-note, rounded-box, breakpoint, etc...?

In Windows, if I can find it on the menu I can find it on the keyboard, and
it'll even prompt me while I'm entering it.

> You'll notice that all but the last one were rather generic, and you
> no doubt use them too. The last one is NOT standard, its one of
> Think-Cs own. I use it all the time anyway, because I have to do it
> repeatedly. Similarly Command-Y (I think), for check syntax. (note-
> Im not sure of that, it may be Command-K. I use it alot anyway, I
> just sometimes have to pull down the menu. But I still cant remember
> it exactly. :( That's the problem with keyboard equivalents.

That's the advantage to the Windows method. The keyboard equivalents *are*
the menus!

> |> Your point. Of course, I use an Amiga, so I get to see both of those facts.

> Well, Im not familiar enough with teh Amiga UI to argue about it.
> (feel free to enlighten me anyway, tho)

It's not as good as Windows, and a lot "thinner" than the Macs. You probably
wouldn't like it. But the underlying operating system is gorgeous. Real-time
preemptive multitasking in windows with as little as 256K RAM. You really need
512K to be effective, though.

Oh, if only the Mac 128 had never existed. If they'd started with the Fat Mac.

> |> Well, I generally have 3 or 4 programs running concurrently, and don't overlap
> |> them much, when I'm using a screen large enough to make a difference.

> But to bring them down to your cursor still requires moving the windows
> about.

But that's how I operate anyway. If I didn't, I'd not be using most of the
screen.

> |> I need them. Particularly the menu handling. Not only can you use Windows
> |> without a mouse, but it's even convenient.

> I don't. Im surprised you do, but Ill take your word for it. I see no
> reason to use the Mac wo/ a mouse, however convinient it could be made.

You don't suffer from repetitive strain injury.

> You don't NEED to use them AT ALL. But its often nice to personalize
> your system in various ways. Could you get into the gorey details
> of this for me? Somebody has already asserted that you CANT do this,
> so  Id like to know how you can do it, how common these thigns are,
> etc..

Sorry, I've lost trake of which "this" is being referenced here.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy