From: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:56:04 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <UenwzPO00WBO44_VVG@andrew.cmu.edu>, Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
[deletia- MDI stuff]
|> 
|> OS/2 unfortunately is not that consistent.  Some apps have MDI, some,
|> like the Enhanced Editor which comes with OS/2 and is like Emacs, don't
|> use it.
|> If you have Describe open for example, then all Describe documents stay
|> in one window.  They can be minimized, maximized, resized, but
|> everything stays in the window.  Nothing can go out, nothing can come
|> in.  The same goes in Windows which also has MDI (that includes Word,
|> Excel, 123 for windows, AMI etc).
|> Yeah, I've seen the layers thing, and I like the "hide other windows
|> option," but I like the minimize option in windows/os2 better because it
|> provides a visual/graphical way of letting the user know what's in
|> memory.  With hiding windows, I tend to forget what's there, and I'll
|> eventually go back to Finder, open the folder where it was in, only to
|> find that it was already in memory.

I agree with you there.

[deletia- various WPS manipulations]
|> > |> > Lastly, how do the notebooks work in apps?
|> > |> 
[deletia- how notebooks work anywhere]
|> >  
|> > I understand how notebooks work; I want to know how they connect
|> > to apps. Ar ethey one of the selections you can bring up with
|> > the right button?
|> 
|> I really don't know, not many apps out yet.  Notebooks will probably be
|> used for things like the autosave parameters, page formatting, margins,
|> etc.  If you look in the standard options pull-down menu, a notebook
|> will probably be a unified way to change all the options.
|> The right button will be something used only for objects.  It'll bring
|> up properties that can be changed.

Sounds a LOT like dialog boxes.

|> > |> Anyway, stationary sounds a lot like a template, but a template isn't
|> > |> defined by the application-it's defined by the operating system.  All
|> > |> files have a checkbox for template in their settings notebook.  It gets
|> > |> kind of dangerous though, because you can define a .dll as a template. 
|> > |> Then, when you double click it, the system won't know what created it. 
|> > |> Of course, you're not "supposed" to do this, but you can, and so it's an
|> > |> error.
|> >  
|> > Bleah. Oh well, this could and should be fixed in a revision soon.
|> > (or so I presume.)
|> 
|> Not much of a problem, because not many people will define their own
|> templates.  Apps will do this for them.

Whereas with stationary you define your own. I dont see
why you need this special template thing tho- u couild just
double click the app. Poof, new document. No need for extra
objects.

|> > |>  However, apps which are CUA 1991 compliant should create a new
|> > |> template for its document types in the standard templates folder.  Ex:
|> > |> Upon install, Describe places a Describe document template in the
|> > |> folder.  Dragging from this will let you create a new document.
|> >  
|> > It soudns like installing an OS/2 app spews objects all over the place.
|> 
|> Not really, it only creates a standard template which goes into the
|> templates folder.

Well, if thats all its not so bad. Sounds like that fodler
could get cluttered.

[deletia- how IBM printers work]
|>   
|> > |> This is also how you create new folders:  you drag a new folder off the
|> > |> folder template.
|> >  
|> > This doesnt' sound nearly as convinient as a new folder command. You have
|> > to dig thru folders to use this.
|> 
|> Yeah, that's why if you right-click on a folder or something, it'll have
|> an option, create.  That's a cascaded menu (brings up another menu) and
|> you can choose folder, and you get another folder.  

That doesn't sound a convinient as a new folder command EITHER. :)

|> > |>  Also, if you want to create a new color pallette, you
|> > |> drag one of the color pallette template.
|> >  
|> > What is a "color palette" in this context?
|> 
|> With a Mac, to change system colors, you select what you want to change,
|> and then change the color right?

No. You bring up the colors control panel. There are pop-up menus
there for each thing that can be changed. you can change things
individually tho; if you change window color, its for EVERYTHING.

Changing fonts and so on works the same way, but a different control
panel.

|>  Well, because of drag/drop, OS/2 does
|> it differently.  A color palette in this context is a selection of
|> colors.  It's basically a window of circles of different colors, just
|> like an artist's palette.  Obviously, you can't have 256 or some
|> humongous number of colors out, so, OS/2's solution is to let you create
|> a lot of those palettes.  To change a color in OS/2, you just drag the
|> color off the palette, the cursor changes to a paintbrush, and onto what
|> ever part you want to change.  The same goes for fonts.  If you want to
|> change the fonts in the menu bar from Chicago to Times, then you drage
|> the Times font off a palette, the cursor changes to a pencil, and onto
|> the menu bar.  However, because OS/2 is object-oriented, each folder is
|> an individual object, each with it's own attributes.  For example, you
|> can have a folder with it's title bar font as Times, another with Crypt,
|> another with Chicago.  The Times one can be blue, the Crypt one black,
|> Chicago green.  BTW, fonts are ATM, so it can use Mac fonts, once
|> they're converted with some tiny util.  Or, you can even put a
|> background on the folder, like a picture.

Ok, I get it. CAn these palettes be used on things IN a document?

|>   
|> > |> etc. 
|> >  
|> > Most definitely!
|> >  
|> > |> For a new program,
|> > |> there's a program template.
|> >  
|> > sounds like creating a new program file...
|> >  
|> > |> I don't think Macintosh has an analog to this do they?
|> >  
|> > Yeah, the program itself. In the Apple Desktop Interface (to be
|> > precise about it), if you double click a program it opens up with
|> > a new, empty document. This lets you have your consistent-make-new
|> > -object (file), but only use the known double-click action. This
|> > trick would work for some of these things (new program, new document,
|> > maybe new palette) but not others (new folder).
|> >  
|> > There's no precise analogy.
|> 
|> OS/2 does the same thing, but the preferred way to create a new document
|> is to drag one off the template.  OS/2 is only IBM's interim release on
|> its way to fully implement CUA 1991.  They have to keep the old way
|> there or else people will totally drop it.  In the ideal CUA 1991
|> situation, the user will NEVER EVER deal with the applications.  They'll
|> be there, but a user will always be working with their document, or
|> whatever.  That's a very important idea developed in CUA 1991.  The apps
|> will be hidden from the user, he'll never know what's there (okay, he
|> will, but he won't have to.)  They'll say, "Oh, I'm gonna go install
|> this new Word template into my system and see what it can do."  This is
|> the major philosophy of CUA 1991.  There are other things like the way
|> file dialog is setup, a bunch of other tech stuff, but this was what
|> they're research really came up with. (They did research to find out
|> what a better user interface would be, at least I'm told).

That's very nifty, but it still seems like the extra template
object is just unecessary complication.

|> > |>  Templates are a
|> > |> more centralized idea;  1991 CUA took stationary and generalized them to
|> > |> include basically everything in the system.  Basically, whenever you
|> > |> want to make something new in OS/2 2.0, you drag it out of the template
|> > |> folder.  In a Mac, to make a new folder, you goto the menu bar, install
|> > |> a new printer, go to chooser, etc.  Right?
|> >  
|> > You get a new folder from the menu bar, yeah. You install a new printer
|> > by dragging it to the extensions folder (just drop it on the system
|> > foler and let the system deal with it);
|> 
|> The whole idea behind CUA 1991 was to unify everything, and to
|> generalize it all.  The desktop is simply a huge folder!  It can be
|> scrolled if an icon goes off screen for example.  Smaller folders are
|> consistant in that they too have all the options which the desktop has,
|> you can configure its background color, its font, etc.  Templates were a
|> way to unify creating anything new, from printers, color palettes,
|> documents, folders, everything.
|> Unfortunately, object-oriented means a slow-down in performance, at
|> least in this implementation.  That's because everytime you open a
|> folder for example, the system reads in stuff like background color,
|> title font, icon font, 3d shading color, etc.  In addition, it also
|> reads in the icons, the attributes of the icons, so on.  This means that
|> unless you have a 16 meg system, a fast video card, and at least a
|> 386/40, you won't get the same responsiveness as a Mac IIsi simply
|> because opening a folder on a Mac consists of reading in what icons are
|> in the folder.  Colors are all the same, fonts are the same.  Those can
|> be taken from a central area.  Not so in OS/2.
|> I choose to have an oop system in exchange for a minor penalty in
|> performance.  Besides, the performance penalty is only when first
|> reading the object, if you "hide" the object (close the folder view of
|> the object, but keep it in memory) then it's just as fast as a Mac. 
|> Also, I've got 8 megs of ram, so it's not much of a problem.

Ok, just 2 points- I hear the slowdown aint so minor, and the MAcitnosh
caches icons and such so that if you do close a folder for real, it
still opens quicker. Can't OS/2 do this?

Incidentally, the Macintosh desktop is also a folder. (but internally
the arrangement is odd)

|> Carl Jabido
|> cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
|> 
|> This was a nice way to spend a weekend, talking to a Mac user, imagine
|> that, talking, not flaming a Mac user.  BTW, I went to the Mac cluster
|> today, for the first time this semester.  I still don't like the 640x480
|> graphics.  I say, go for 1024x768, or even better, 1280x1024!!!!

:) Oh no, NOT THAT! TALKING! ARGH! :)

Anyway, nobody is MAKING you use 640x480. Its just a question of whose
monitor/card u r using. Apples like 640x480. I have 1016x800andchange
(but it aint an apple monitor, or card)

Well, ok, your school is MAKING you use 640x480. Shoot them, not me. :)

-- 
			- 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