From: larry@lablues.UUCP (Lawrance A. Schneider)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: More about my survey
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:58:37 EST
Organization: L/A Blues BBS - Auburn ME (207) 777-3465 & 7782

THOUGH IT WAS NOT PART OF MY PAPER, WHEN I PRESENTED THE PAPER
TO THE CLASS, I ALSO GAVE THEM THIS:

---------------

Robert Hardman: "I do not think the WIMP interface is appropriate 
for anyone older than 12.  Using pictures rather than words is an 
evolutionary and sociological step backward--and probably promotes 
illiteracy.  It's also a very limited control method."





From: Robert Hardman
  To: All
  Re: Speed Trials Redux

These are the results of a generic version of a test MacWorld
ran when comparing the various Macs.  There may be some time
differences because of the change, but I tried it both ways and
didn't find anything particularly noticeable.
It's an interesting test because it uses a fair bit of memory
moving, addition and such boring but very common things.
 .
Slowest to fastest results of globally replacing 1300
occurrences of "123" (their test: "Mac") with "123456789"
("Macintosh"):
 .
 Clock/Computer       Word Processor      Time in seconds
                                          (rounded up to integer)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 8 MHz Macintosh SE   MacWrite II         85 secs (approx.)
 7 MHz Amiga 1000     TxEd Plus 2.2       75 secs
 8 MHz Atari 1040ST   Wordwriter 2.00     73 secs
 7 MHz Apple IIgs*    AppleWorks 3.0      34 secs
 7 MHz Apple IIgs*    AppleWorks GS 1.1   29 secs
33 MHz 386/33         Freemacs            25 secs
 8 MHz Atari 1040ST   MicroEMACS 3.8i      5 secs
33 MHz 386/33         MKS toolkit 'ed'     5 secs
33 MHz 386/33         VDE                  5 secs
33 MHz 386/33         WordPerfect 5.1      3 secs
 7 Mhz Apple IIgs*    FreeWriter           2 secs
 .
 * 7 Mhz access of 8K cache RAM, 2.5 MHz for other memory.
 .
Imagine how fast a real 16-bit AW 3.0 would be, given that AWGS
is 5 seconds faster despite being bogged down by graphics.
This test obviously reflects differences in WP complexity, which
is why Freewriter outpaces WP 5.1 (but then Freewriter is pure
8-bit code; imagine the 65816 version that could be written).




As you can see by my "Speed Trials Redux" message, this is not accurate.
AWGS (which scrolls slower than an 0.5 MHz IIe) blew the doors off most
68000/WIMP WPs.  The one it lost to was non-standard (shades of FTA).

I hope you never get caught in a time-critical situation with your
graphics based word processors.

So what's the advantage -- that they look nice?  I've been trying to
find a nice looking font since I got the computer and Shaston is the
only one to turn up.  That they're "intuitive"?  I've run
into too many incomprehensible icons to believe that.

There's precious little sense in these programs, either. Requiring the
use of the mouse when there are dozens of unused Apple+key combinations
is idiotic; using pictures when words are better is more so.

Yes, there are reasons to use graphics-based word processors -- e.g., you
need to see graphics on the screen.  Most of the time these reasons do
not apply.  I snicker every time I contemplate how much time my old
college history teacher wasted cranking out a document that could have
been done in thirty seconds as opposed to five minutes.  (Pure text
document.  No reason to do it in graphics mode at all.  Apple won't tell
anyone this of course.)

Ah, this is digressing.  I'll just point out that there's no reason in
the world that SoundSmith should be graphics-based; the whole thing
could be done in MouseText if Huibert Aalbers is particularly enamoured
of mice.  (No wonder Apple fired Gassee, he started insinuating that a
particular solution can't be applied universally.)






>Matt Deathrage is speaking of the truth from his perspective. Apple
>does not have a policy of 'killing' the AppleII. They also do not
>have a policy of supporting the AppleII.

 Robert Hardman:
In other words, although Apple is not deliberately trying to run
over the child who is wandering across the superhighway, Apple is not
trying to rescue it either...


THOUGH IT WAS NOT PART OF MY PAPER, WHEN I PRESENTED THE PAPER
TO THE CLASS, I ALSO GAVE THEM THIS:

---------------

APPLE II WARS   The following commentary was aired on Sound Bytes, a
"""""""""""""   public radio show originating in Rochester, NY.  It is
copyright (c) 1990 by Nick Francesco.  Permission is granted to 
disseminate
it in any form, as long as the wording is not changed, and this copyright
notice accompanies it.

     DOS and Mac people have been at each other's throats since the
introduction of the Mac in 1984.  Which machine is better;  which machine
is more fun.  As religious wars go, it's somewhere in the middle:  worse
than the Crusades, but not as bad as the Inquisition.  No one on either
side has been willing to take prisoners, and Silicon Valley is littered
with its victims.  Like the Crusades, no one was ever really persuaded to
change sides, and like the Inquisition, people who did change sides did 
so
only under extreme duress.

     Up until now, of course, most of the ammunition has been on the Mac
side.  Lots of studies have come out about how easy it is to learn to use 
a
Mac, and how Mac people know and use more different types of programs 
than
DOS people.  No less prestigious a company than Microsoft (all rise) has
released the information that their support lines prove that the Mac is
easier to learn and use.  They provide less support per package sold on 
the
Mac side, proving that a Graphical User Interface is better.  Of course,
they didn't release this information until they had their own Graphical
User Interface on the market, but I'm sure it takes a long time to 
compile
the results of this sort of study.

     The DOS people had to content themselves with intangibles (it's
slower), and appeals to the compu-macho in us all (real users don't use
mice).

     Now, however, from the hallowed halls of the University of Delaware,
comes Dr. Marcia Peoples Halio (trumpet sound).  Dr.  Halio (no relation 
to
the graphics package, I'm sure) has released the results of a five-year
study that suggests that Mac people are shallower, more illiterate, and
less likely to have sex than DOS users.

     She did this by looking at the grades of a basic composition course.
You see, as each student entered the University of Delaware, he or she 
was
required to take a writing course in basic composition.  Each student was
also allowed to decide if he or she would rather use a Mac or DOS.  And
over five years, Dr.  Halio discovered that Mac people got lower grades,
picked shallower topics, and (gasp!!!) had more spelling errors than DOS
people.  The obvious conclusion?  DOS people are fine, upstanding, moral,
right-thinking people you would be proud to call your neighbor.  And Mac
people... well, you wouldn't want your daughter to marry one.

     Of course, this begs a few questions.  Do the Mac people start out
stupid, or is it something to do with the user interface?  Is there
something about a DOS command line that builds strong minds twelve ways?

     And what about a control group?  If you took a few of these DOS
Ubermenchen and put them in front of Macs, would they turn into drooling
idiots?  And if you could prop some of these Mac people up in front of 
DOS
machines, would they suddenly start speaking in complete sentences and be
able to get dates?

     We clearly need more study here.  We need to delve deeper into this
obviously fascinating mystery - I sense a Time-Life Books series coming 
on.
Do DOS people eventually burn out and buy Windows?  Do Mac people find
themselves reduced to pointing at pictures in the menus at Denny's?

     And what about their future?  Do DOS people end up becoming dry
academicians, arguing about Edwin Newman's latest column and living on
stipends while praying for tenure?  Do Mac people spend their evenings
standing around fern bars in double-breasted Armani suits, talking about
convertible debentures and vacationing in the Azores?

     I am prepared to devote my life to this study.  All I need is about
five million dollars from Apple Computer, and about twenty million from
Bill Gates (that's a fair assessment, based on their respective net
worths).  John, 





larry@lablues.UUCP
FidoNet:  1:132/300 Larry Schneider

     / 7: " Wovon Man nicht sprechen kann,  |  Larry Schneider
    /        daruber muss man Schweigen."   |  Bright Software
   /                                        |  P. O. Box 120
  /          Ludwig Wittgenstein            |  Exeter, ME
 /      Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus      |       04435-0120
(___________________________________________|  207=379-3181