From: johnsd2@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:20:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.203704.24853@rmece49.upr.clu.edu>, raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez | 802-36-4453) writes:
|> In article <6281.2af56fde@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Oct29.051139.11315@cs.uow.edu.au>, u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
|> |> > 
|> |> > The Mac only has one button, which cripples. 
|> |> 
|> |> Wrong. It enables. Having only one button is a FEATURE. It makes the mouse
|> |> much easier to use because it completely eliminates the confusion over which
|> |> button to press.
|> |> 
|> |> The Mac is MORE POWERFUL because it has only one button. Less IS more.
|> 
|>     I guess that this is the typical case of a new user.  He might find oune
|> button less confusing.  But once you start using the machine, having only
|> one button might actually cripple you.

I think "cripple" is rather too strong.

|>  I consider a good example the Amiga,
|> which has a two button mouse enables you to make multiple menu selections
|> by pulling the menu only once.

I think tear-off menus are a better solution. Also, check out how the
NeXT does it- multiple hits on menus, with only one button.

[deletia- example of how this stuff is handy]
|> 
|> |> > It would be so easy to introduce another mouse button; it could just remain 
|> |> > unused as software is written for it. 
|> |> 
|> |> Like on the NeXT or Windows, where extra buttons are simply undefined -- it
|> |> is up to the applications to use them as they see fit. Hence, applications
|> |> either a) don't use them or b) use them in inconsistant ways hence, c) users
|> |> don't use them.
|> |>
|>    Check the case on the above example.  In my example at least, the meaning
|> on the second button is consistent.

For menus... how bout outside of them.

|> |> > The mac seems incapable of working in real time. I often get frustrated
|> |> > holding down the button on the menu bar waiting for a Mac to produce a menu,
|> |> > often waiting for many seconds if it is busy with screen update or some
|> |> > processor-intensive work. 
|> |> 
|> |> Sounds like there is something functionally wrong with your Mac. Perhaps
|> |> you ought to take it in for servicing.
|> 
|>    Nope, the Mac most likely is working ok.  I encountered the same problem
|> during last weekend.  I was using Mac's IIsi and this happens when the mac 
|> is doing some updates on the screen, appletalk communication and
|> printing/saving.

I supposed it depends what "many" means. 2 or 3 seconds I'd buy.
Perhaps a little more.

|> [stuff deleted]
|> 
|> |> 
|> |> > 8. The Amiga's autosizing scroll bars are much nicer and more intuitive to
|> |> >    use than the Mac's thumbnail scroll bars. I can never tell how much of
|> |> >    the document I am viewing or exactly where in the document I'm at with
|> |> >    the Mac scroll bars.
|> |> 
|> |> Apple studied the use of proportional scroll bars. They found that they
|> |> were NOT intuitive. They confused users. They did this through expensive
|> |> user testing, not some survey of technogeeks.
|> 
|>    They were NOT intuititve, or just NOT VERY intuitive.  I find that once you
|> know the maning of the scrollbars, it is quite a nice feature.
|> 

Apples reseach contradicts you. Mere assertion won't chagne that.
Amiga scroll bars may be better overall (I wouldn't know), however.

|> |> 
|> |> > 5. SW doesn't break every time the OS gets upgraded. 
|> |> 
|> |> Same on the Mac. My software didn't break when the OS got upgraded. Indeed,
|> |> the SECOND version of Smartcom II that ever shipped (summer of '85) works
|> |> under System 7.
|> 
|>    I guess this depends.  I remember that when System 7 came out, it will try
|> to "correct" the other programs to make them workable, and put a "deadline
|> date" on when they will no longer function.  I guess this doesn't happen with
|> all programs.

I have never heard about htis; but apple does say that if you follow all
the rules your programs will never break.
(yeah, thats it)

|> |> 
|> |> >    Commodore puts more
|> |> >    effort into making their OS upgrades compatible with existing SW than any
|> |> >    company I know of. 
|> |> 
|> |> Apple does MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of testing. I suspect Apple spends more on
|> |> testing then Commodore makes yearly.
|>  
|>    I guess this is simply subjective.

I think if you insert the word "yearly' between "on testing" and
"than Commodore" it is not subjective at all- just count the
flat  green things.


-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy