From: craig@ec.uwa.oz.au (Craig Richmond - division)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 2 Oct 1992 04:32:37 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: decel.ecel.uwa.edu.au

slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:

[at least the flames have died down :-)]

>>trash can at which point they are erased.  They can be dragged out of the
>>trashcan before it is emptied if I want them back.

>This is something that the OS/2 shredder does not do. Well, actually I
>suppose that if you have undelete enabled, you can bring stuff back
>but not as easily.

It is easy to fix though probably.

>>I'm sorry you hate macs and I just hope that it isn't just idealogical hate
>>because you prefer PCs.  I would much rather use a macintosh than a PC.

>It is not idealogical hate. I truely don't understand how somebody can
>use a word processor that can't even update the screen as fast as you
>can type (for example). The Mac we have here are that slow and I'm
>sure that this is because they are stuck in graphics mode. I also

You obviously weren't using the right word processor.  Things have changed
recently.  Word continues to get bigger and slower.  The Macs do get
faster, but this isn't much consolation if you only own a plus.  Writenow 3.0
has finally breached the 128K barrier.  Writenow no longer runs on 128K
macs.  If you have a 128K, you are stuck with Writenow 2.2 forever.  Oh the
misery of having to use the worlds second best word processor (Writenow 3.0
is best (I am biassed)).  Writenow 3.0 on a SE/30 is mind boggling fast.
If you have ever used Word in Page View mode, that is what Writenow gives
you as the only option.  It is able to insert text into the middle of
paragraphs, word wraps in real time and gives you proper WYSIWYG word
processing.  It doesn't have a grammer checker or an equation editor
(praise the lord) and runs with a minimum memory allocation of just ~350K
(can't remember exactly).  Microsoft products are slow because they are all
interpreted P-Code.  Nothing but the slowest (but portable) for Microsoft!

Personally I can't handle PC word processing on a text screen because it is
very hard to explain to people how if they are using Times as their font,
and they have to line up colums, then lining up using spaces as padding
just isn't going to work.

>instance I think that TWO buttons on a mouse is not enough. I (like

Another point we disagree on.  More buttons leads to ambiguity.  X-Windows
is a classic example.  You have 3 buttons on your mouse and it is never
clear what the outcome of pressing any of these buttons might be.
Sometimes a button will paste, other times it will close a window.  But
thats OK, because its all user definable so you can configure it and ensure
that anyone else using your setup won't be able to do anything.  My
ultimate system would have 2 buttons.  One you use for doing things and the
other makes a pop up menu appear at the current mouse location.  A lot of
my friends don't agree, but some of them have strange ideas.  Also, I would
ensure that the Pop-up menu button could not be changed to NOT bring up a
menu.  The mac handles multiple button modes, but getting you to shift
click, or option click or hold down the left half  of the keyboard and
click.  Works quite well and most programs obey the guidleines for the use
of these sorts of selections.

>Well, MicroSoft is trying to monopolize the market like Apple :-)
>Maybe they will come out with their own PC to compete with the Power
>PC (g'zz, that is scary!)

I saw this show on TV where they had a big book type thing which was a pen
based computer.  I don't know if microsoft made it, but it was was running
windows with yet another level sitting on top of DOS to let the person use
it.

>That is pretty extreme. IMO, Apple's attepts at look-and-feel patents
>are enough to make me gag at the site of a Mac. Even if I loved the
>Mac, I would not support a company like that.

You should have a look in comp.patents.  There was a wild article in there
a couple of days ago about patents that are held.  The LZRW compression
algorithm is patented.  It was patented a couple of months after it was
posted to the network in one of the source newsgroups.  Run Length encoding
is also patented.  No doubt years after it was first used in the real
world.  Scrolling the screen when you reach the bottom and using XOR to
turn a cursor on and off are both patented by IBM.  It gives examples of
these things and gives the Patent numbers too.  Look and Feel suits (Stupid
as they are) have nothing on these people.

>I think that there are a large number of OS/2 users who never bought
>into the Mac or Windows because they hate being tied to graphics mode.
>Text mode will ALWAYS be faster and ALWAYS be better for alot of
>things that just don't need a GUI. With Windows or the Mac, you have
>no choice, with OS/2 you do. That is the biggest feature OS/2 provides
>for me: Freedom of Choice.

System 7.1 (which will probably cost money at long last :-( ) will have an
available module called Applescript which is a scripting interface to the
operating system.  You will be able to write scripts to instruct the finder
to perform functions for you, instruct applications to perform tasks, etc.
It will probably give you a command line interface of sorts.  There is also
MPW if you are into programming which gives you a powerful command line
interface to the mac as well.  My friend who is a mac programmer complains
about unix command line interfaces because they are not enough like MPWs.

As one final example of the power of a GUI, yesterday this friend and
myself were trying to test a Japanese word Processor under a beta release
of the System 7.1 operating system using the Kanji finder.  Neither of us
know Japanese, but we were still able to perform most of the basic
functions because all of the finder menus were in the same place, all of
the buttons were in the same place and highlighted in a similar fashion.
All of the visual clues that are provided are the same.  Icon types, icons
beside Apple menu items etc.  We could not get the program to run, but we
successfully installed it on a Japanese System without being able to read
95% of the text that was presented to us.  If you were using DOS and had a
Japanese version of DOS, you would be screwed most likely.  Your only hope
would be that all the command.com commands were the same.  If they are not,
how do you type "dir" in japanese?

Craig
--
Craig Richmond.  Computer Officer -  Dept of Economics (morning) 380 3860
  University of Western Australia    Dept of Education (afternoon)
craig@ecel.uwa.edu.au                              Dvorak Keyboards RULE!
     "Only users are allowed to make messes on their computers"  I.M.VI
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps