From: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:14:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.033528.26985@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <mcpz53_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> > |> No, I'm talking about a *real* GUI. It's sitton on top of a shitty O/S,
|> > |> but it's really real. Apple could learn a lot from it if they'd try.
|> 
|> > Unfortunately, the shitty OS affects teh GUI deeply, in lots of ways.
|> 
|> Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this argument. 

<grin>

|> > To get past this, you need to be much more specific about what you
|> > want to argue.
|> 
|> I have been.

Then you haven't been clear about it, or Im a dumb putz,
since I dont know what you mean. You sure seem vague to me.

|> > Example: standard file dialogs. If you claim Windows has
|> > a better standard file dialog (say), I could complain about 8.3
|> > letter filenames. Of course that's just because of DOS
|> 
|> Yes, I would expect NT to do better.

Indeed.

|> > |> > But you'll have to tell us
|> > |> > SPECIFICALLY what you are talking about.
|> 
|> > |> I did. The GUI.
|> 
|> > The whole GUI?
|> 
|> The whole GUI. It's easy enough to apply the test "would this feature still
|> exist if you were running this GUI on a Mac (or whatever your favorite OS
|> is) instead of DOS, or running a different application (where the finder
|> equivalent is an application)?". If the answer is "yes", then it's part of
|> the GUI.

Ah, but the finder IS part of the GUI, so far as the user is concerned.
To programmers things are arranged differently, of course.

|> > Then I submit that having the system so compartmentalized is not a good
|> > user interface design.
|> 
|> I'm sorry, this is a non-sequiter. All of the features I've mentioned so far
|> (Windows-style shortcuts, menu bars on windows, application icons) can be
|> imagined on the Mac with no loss of generality, or unification.

So is this. I think we are not communicating too well.

Having the system compartmentalized is STILL bad userinterface,
regardless of how you imaging the MacOS.

Incidentally, you are mistaken about application icons-
that would throw a monkey wrench into the consistent use
the finder makes of icons. (that is, you can drag them, trash
them, double clikc them, rename them etc etc etc...)

|> > The Macintosh is better, with its unified finder,
|> 
|> But the finder isn't unified. You can even run replacements (mini finders).

Yes it is. It is most certainly not devided into a program manager
and file manager, a font tool, a sound tool, etc. That's what
 I meant. You can replace it, but then you could also replace
other parts of the GUI (the window manager, the menu manager) with
patches.

|> > but not perfect since you still have a dichotomy between apps.
|> 
|> Yes. This is one of the places the Windows GUI works better: it treats all
|> applications as peers.

Its just as bad. It does NOT divorce documents from apps AT ALL.
In the macintosh you come a little closer, being able to double clikc
documents to open them.

This dicotomy has nothing to do with whether the apps are peers or not.

[deletia- standard command equivalents]
|> 
|> OK, what's the command for quarter-note, rounded-box, breakpoint, etc...?

What ARE these things?

|> In Windows, if I can find it on the menu I can find it on the keyboard, and
|> it'll even prompt me while I'm entering it.

I know.

|> > You'll notice that all but the last one were rather generic, and you
|> > no doubt use them too. The last one is NOT standard, its one of
|> > Think-Cs own. I use it all the time anyway, because I have to do it
|> > repeatedly. Similarly Command-Y (I think), for check syntax. (note-
|> > Im not sure of that, it may be Command-K. I use it alot anyway, I
|> > just sometimes have to pull down the menu. But I still cant remember
|> > it exactly. :( That's the problem with keyboard equivalents.
|> 
|> That's the advantage to the Windows method. The keyboard equivalents *are*
|> the menus!

So they are long, and often non-mnemonic (since the letter that
u want is often taken)

So why is this usefull? [well, I guess if you really want to use
the keyboard, and like it, its provides a means to do so. But
that aint me. :) ]

|> > |> Your point. Of course, I use an Amiga, so I get to see both of those facts.
|> 
|> > Well, Im not familiar enough with teh Amiga UI to argue about it.
|> > (feel free to enlighten me anyway, tho)
|> 
|> It's not as good as Windows, and a lot "thinner" than the Macs. You probably
|> wouldn't like it. But the underlying operating system is gorgeous. Real-time
|> preemptive multitasking in windows with as little as 256K RAM. You really need
|> 512K to be effective, though.
|> 
|> Oh, if only the Mac 128 had never existed. If they'd started with the Fat Mac.

:)

|> > |> Well, I generally have 3 or 4 programs running concurrently, and don't overlap
|> > |> them much, when I'm using a screen large enough to make a difference.
|> 
|> > But to bring them down to your cursor still requires moving the windows
|> > about.
|> 
|> But that's how I operate anyway. If I didn't, I'd not be using most of the
|> screen.

Sounds like slow, painfull and self-defeating way to bring the menus
to your cursor.

|> > |> I need them. Particularly the menu handling. Not only can you use Windows
|> > |> without a mouse, but it's even convenient.
|> 
|> > I don't. Im surprised you do, but Ill take your word for it. I see no
|> > reason to use the Mac wo/ a mouse, however convinient it could be made.
|> 
|> You don't suffer from repetitive strain injury.

That's right. Do you?

|> > You don't NEED to use them AT ALL. But its often nice to personalize
|> > your system in various ways. Could you get into the gorey details
|> > of this for me? Somebody has already asserted that you CANT do this,
|> > so  Id like to know how you can do it, how common these thigns are,
|> > etc..
|> 
|> Sorry, I've lost trake of which "this" is being referenced here.

:) Extensions. You said Windows can support Extensions that modify
how it does things, like the Mac does.

Sorry about that.

-- 
			- 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.