From: elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliott  MIS x 363)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 16:16:21 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.174430.26370@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >
> >>Likewise... I feel that your statement that "Windows/OS/2 1.x" interface is
> >>one of the poorest implementations of the GUI known, is not correct for
> >>Windows.  In my definition, a "good implementation" is any implementation that
> >>is widely used.  It may not be technically the best, or performance-wise the
> >>best--but if developing for it pays the grocery bills, it's good enough for
> >>me.
> >
> >You seem to have confused good/poor with most/least important.  It's
> >pretty obvious that something that is widely used is 'important' in
> >the sense of the impact that it has on what comes later.  It is not,
> >however, equally clear that that relationship stretches to a thing
> >being 'good' because it is popular.
> 
> No... you have confused the issue.  The point is: "better" or "best" are
> all subjective terms.  I simply don't understand how you can have a
> problem with this.  To me, as I said above, Windows is FAR better than
> OS/2 NOW because I can make MUCH more money developing for Windows (or DOS)
> than for OS/2, NOW.

Part of the problem comes from your saying that Windows is just plain "best"
because you can make more money on it.  "Best" is a modifier, and needs 
something to operate on.  What you Really Mean (IMHO) when you say "Windows
is best" is "Windows is the Best System for Me to make money with", as 
opposed to "Windows is the Best System to multitask DOS programs", or 
"Windows is the Best System to run PandaCalc 89.3 on".  

  And the real question that is being asked, for "Which system is better
than the other?", is not "which system can I make more money with?" but
"Which system would I rather work with, assuming everything else is 
equal?"

> >>>	Do you personally think that the Windows interface is 
> >>>better than its competitors (The WOrk Place Shell, The Mac, NeXT,
> >>>OpenWindows).  Do you? 
> >
> >>Yes.  Because I would rather develop one application (that will run on both
> >>Windows *and* OS/2) than to have two separate development efforts.  
> >
> >>Yes.  Because I do not have a Mac.
> >
> >>Yes.  Because I do not have a NeXT.
> >
> >>Yes.  Because the Unix penetration into my target market is negligible.
> >
> >You seem to be confusing "better for me to implement in" with "better
> >interface".  Once again, this doesn't correspond to the 'important'
> >example you give and I'm afraid just doesn't seem to stretch that far.
> 
> Okay, let's try that again.  If I said my house is "big", I'm saying that
> TO ME, my house is "big"--you may think that 3500 square feet is small.  These
> words are all SUBJECTIVE... meaning that YOUR *Personal* experience is the
> backdrop needed to define it properly.
> 
> An OS is "important" to some (most, in my opinion) directly proportional to
> the chances of someone getting employed to use it.  Ask out of work 
> Forth programmers what I mean by this.  :)
>

Once again, he's not asking you "What can you make more money with?", but
"What would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to use if all other things were equal?"
Can you honestly say that if you could make just as much money developing
for the NeXT as you can with Windows, that you would stick with Windows
because you prefer its interface to that of the NeXT?

-- 
Elliott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
davide@ramrod.lmt.mn.org   |   Did you hear about the cannibal 
elliott@dunky.lmt.mn.org   |   who passed his brother in the forest?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy