From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:56:06 GMT

In <ewright.718666344@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <strobl.718589224@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>I for my part do not intend to adapt my personal preferences to
>>any kind of Interface Guidlines, Human or not. I have my
>>own tastes and opinions, indeed, and I have my own sense
>>of aesthetics. 

>I see.  Your own sense of aesthetics says that every program
>should use a different menu item to do the same thing.

No. You say that. I didn't.

I say that I use the keyboard because I want to use the keyboard,
and that I don't want to be forced to use a mouse, just because
Apple says it's faster. I don't want to be forced to use a
menu bar far far away at the top of the screen, just because
Apple says it's faster (or easier) that way. No thanks.

> And
>that the keyboard equivalents for those items that do happen
>to be the same should vary from program to program.  

Of course not!

>And that
>command key equivalents should take several keystrokes instead
>of just one, 

I don't understand what you try to say with that sentence. If
you refer to Windows keyboard interface to menu bars, that's
correct.

>often using the function keys or other keys that
>are hard for a touch typist to reach. 

Well, I'm a touch typist, and I don't like function keys
for heavily used operations, because of that. Fortunately,
I can operate Windows menues with the keyboard, without
touching a single function key (I press the Alt key with
my left thumb, as probably most people do).

> Well, you're perfectly
>welcome to do so.  Nobody told you not to buy Windows.

Ahem. I'm in the wrong newsgroup, then? ;-) 

>Of course, it will take you much longer to do simple tasks
>than it would if you'd bought a Mac.  But, that's okay.

I doubt it. One single Mac for a whole family? 
That's more than I can afford. ;-)

>"Aesthetics" are all PC users care about, right?    

I didn't start to talk about aesthetics, *you* did.

>>I seldom managed to get more than one program to run
>>on a Macintosh, without crashing the system. 

>Maybe you should find a Mac that's been upgraded to Multifinder. :-)

In order to crash multiple programs, at the same time? :-)

>>On Windows, I can open more programs than I have memory for.

>Oh, wow!  Windows not only allows you to play sound files without
>sound hardware, it allows you to open more programs than will fit
>in logical memory!

Yes, indeed. 

Btw, what is "logical memory"? I know real memory, virtual
memory, perhaps linear and segmented memory, but "logical"? 
Next time you will spread the rumour that Windows sucks
because it depends on "illogical memory"! 

>Oh, you forgot to mention that Windows allows you to connect
>to Ethernet without having an Ethernet connection.  And gives you
>24-bit color on a monochrome monitor.  :-) 

You mean, similar to people running arround and telling other
people that the networking on the Mac comes for free, because
it's all builtin? 

>>Crashes are the result of good memory protection. Don't blame the messenger.
>No, crashes are the result of bad software.  Blame the programmer.

Can't. Don't have memory protection.

>>>The real solution to program crashes is not memory protection.
>>No. Program crashes are the result of memory protection.

>Well, I guess that's a cultural difference that separates the
>Mac world from the PC world.  We like software to run; you like
>software to crash.

No, it's: you like software to run, even if it contains serious
bugs. I *don't* like software to run, as long as it contains serious
bugs.

>>>It's for programmers to write applications that don't crash.
>>Exactly

>So?  Why don't you demand that PC developers write programs
>that crash as infrequently as those on the Mac?

Given an OS with memory protection, I don't have to demand
it.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy