From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:26:09 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep25.200914.8471@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Last post on the subject of "best"--this is starting to get dumb.

Well, I thought it started rather 'dumb', personally, since to most
English speakers an unqualified 'best' generally refers to quality of
product and not profitability of supporting it.

>In article <1992Sep25.174144.21195@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>No, the point is that they really are NOT all that subjective, until
>>you start talking about "best for me to learn to develop for" or
>>something of that order.  You're not describing which is a "good" GUI;
>>you're describing which is an economically good GUI for you personally
>>to develop for.  No matter how hard you try, that simply isn't the
>>question being referred to when someone refers to a GUI as 'good'
>>(without qualifiers).

>It is subjective.  I think PC's are "good computers"... Mac users tend to
>think they are "poor computers."  When this thread started, it was with
>the fragment "Good Implementation"--and I said, in essence, "the best
>implementation is the one that makes me the most money."  My definition,
>obviously, and not yours.

You keep on with this.  Everyone here apparently understood the
original question (which has since been lost in the fog) except for
you.  So, where would you think the problem lies; with everyone else,
or with you?

>If a person says refers to a GUI as 'good' (without qualifiers) it is an
>OPEN statement.  And 'good' becomes ambiguous without a frame of reference
>such as "for developing for" or "for real time applications."

It is only an 'open' statement to a degree.  You seem to be saying
that because it wasn't specified, you can make it mean ANYTHING, and
that simply isn't so for people who learned English as a first
language. 

>>
>>>I don't really care about development ease, or threads, or REXX, or any
>>>such arguments.  The bottom line is if I can't sell the product so I can
>>>pay the mortgage, the technical underlying implementation is next to
>>>useless.
>>
>>Once again, you are answering a different question than the one that
>>referring to something as a "good GUI" refers to.

>Nope.  It's just that some people (I shan't name names) can't see that there
>are different perspectives other than the opinion that those people, narrow-
>mindedly, defend.

No, I think the problem is that some people (I shan't name names)
don't want to answer the question that was asked, so they try to
redefine it through the use of semantic quibbling.

>>
>>>You are free to have your own definition of "good implementation", of course,
>>>I'll stick with mine.

>How can you read this statement and not understand?

How can you read the ORIGINAL QUESTION and not understand?

>>

>[stuff deleted about why or why not Next, Motif, System 7.0 GUIs are/aren't
>'good' implementations]

>>>>
>>>>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.

>Of course, since the original thread didn't qualify it, I interpreted as
>"the best xxxx FOR ME"--which DOS/Windows is, by far, thus far.

No, you interpreted it even more narrowly than that.  However, your
'interpretation' would seem to generally exceed the latitude that a
native English speaker would find in the question.  So, once again,
this seems to be a case of someone who DOESN'T WANT TO answer the
original question, for whatever reason.

>Same goes for "important OS."  To me an OS is/is not important based on
>whether or not I will/will not work on it.  Not that "it implements
>virtual machines" or "it has good security features"--but whether or not,
>again, I can pay my mortgage.  This is how *I* define important--you define
>it differently, of course, and you are free to do so.

Uh, excuse me, but last time I checked what I wrote, I didn't disagree
with you about this.  In fact, your reasoning here makes relatively
good sense.  It is your effort to equate 'important' with 'good' that
doesn't make sense.

>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Except that you're answering a different question than the one that is
>>even referred to.  You can try again all you want -- the issue wasn't
>>"which is the best GUI for you personally to develop for".  The
>>question was "is the Windows interface better than its competitors".

>Again, I feel that the interface that will sell me the most copies of a
>program is the best interface.  If NT is technologically superior
>aesthetically or intuitively (again subjective)---but people prefer
>OS/2, I would think that "OS/2 has a better interface than NT" and would
>therefore develop for it.

Well, then, I guess that we'll just have to leave you in your little
world with whatever language you're speaking.  However, I always
thought that the 'standard' language on the net was English.  Did you
not get the word, or what?

>>One is sometimes left wondering why it is people decline to address
>>such questions.  Perhaps because they don't like the answers they
>>arrive at if they do?

>My answer:  Windows+DOS is the best interface.  My personal income has
>broken six digits because of it (and boy does Uncle Sam know it! :).  Is
>that "declining to address your questions" enough for you?  :)

No, and you can color me unimpressed about your income.  Hey, look how
much money Dan Quayle makes, after all.

>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

>Didn't we have a similar (ridiculous) argument about CD-ROM technology?
>Sheesh.

Probably.  I suspect the problem there was your lack of facility,
whatever your income, with the English language.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.