From: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:59:39 GMT

In article G5t@math.uwaterloo.ca, fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Fred Bent) writes:
[deletia- 'bout Wordperfect]
>>even run on most of them).
>>
>>Anyway, my wife's machine is a PS/2 model 70 with 2 megs of Ram.  The first
>>thing I noticed was that it ran very slowly (compared to the way it runs on our
>>8 meg + OS/2 machines).  Next, I discovered that she was having no end of
>>problems - often simple things that really stressed her.  For example, program
>
>You problem is that you only have 2 megs.  Try increasing it to at least
>four!  With four megs Windows should have OK performance.

Id obnoxiously chide Windows for requiring 4 megs, but system 7 is
much the same way. Dammit, I never get to have any fun. :(

[deletia- HP printer problem. I dunno whats wrong]
>I think that copy has switches to handle binary files.  Off the top of my
>head try:
>
>COPY /B FILE.TXT PRN
>
>and see if this works.

Waitasec. What does the /B flag do? Why should COPY care
what its spewing to the printer?

Me confused.

>
>>
>>Next, the windows interface is really messy.  How could a new user possibly
>>learn to set up groups etc without a lot of explanations.  The Macintosh and
>
>How can you learn to setup folders (naming them is tricky)?

Aw, naming them isn't so bad. Its a bit of a tradeoff here; that
little delay that trips you up while renaming (but not me! :) ) 
give you time to drag the file or double click or whatnot- on the name.
Wo/ that, it would have to treat these things as textedit operations.

So, would you rather have naming or dragging work "right"?

>  How are you to know that you must empty the trash?

The metaphore is supposed to step in here; you know you have
to emtpy the trash since you have to empty it in Real Life.

Not to say that it works, but that's the idea.

>  What about that alarm? :-)

That's also just like Real Life- you can't find the swich to shut it up. :)

Perhaps apple is carring the desktop metaphore a bit to far? :)

>
>>OS/2 interfaces are far better in general.  Furthermore, they are generally
>>consistent, so when I learn something, it applies all the time.  in fact, my
>
>I don't find that all apps in MAC world are consistent. Try Word for MAC.

No thank you! My feeling of MS apps is that they are horribly done,
at least the Mac versions are. They need serious UI work. Done with
a chainsaw.

Its a good thing MS isn't the only company making Mac apps.

>When you are spell checking, and it can't find the dictionary....
>How that for a helpful dialog box?! :*)

I haven't seen that, and don't plan to. :(

>Any interface is only as consistent as app developers let it be.
>However, Microsoft is encouraging developers to use the
>Common Dialog Boxes.

Apple does that too. And it has been doing it longer than MS has-
right from day one of the Mac. So there! :)+

>>biggest problems on the Mac are Microsoft products which do their best to be
>>non-conformists with a standard interface.  I find Microsoft love gadgets -
>>they love to have some obscure feature on a tool bar with some obscure icon,
>>and use it to sell a product which is basically very ordinary (although often
>>better than many other products).
>
>Of course if every word processor had the same interface, and the same
>features then they would not stand out from each other.  As for the tool
>bar, if you don't like it then you can get rid of it. Word4Win is TOTALY
>customizable, you can change anything and everything in the interface
>using WordBASIC.  (not to sure about the ToolBars thought :-))

I do not believe the Mac version HAS WordBASIC in it. I think they
left that part out. I dislike MSs fondness for modal dialogs more
tho. You are supposed to use those things rarely, if at all!

>>
>>I've come to the conclusion that Windows is more trouble than it is worth for
>>new users.  Macintosh is my prefered desktop interface, but this still requires
>>training for new users (how to use a mouse etc - have you tried explaining a
>
>Yes, about two months training IMHO.

Doesn't usually take me that long to start someone on it. Takes me
a few days, at worst. But then I have never tried to start anyone
who didn't already have SOME experience on SOME computer.

>  It is not very intuative, no GUI is.

I agree completely.

>  But once you know how to do something in a GUI or any environment
>it then becomes obvious :-)

Well, it SHOULD. IMHO, the Mac manages this trick.

>  It's just that DOS has a small user interface.

By the DOS UI I pressume you basically mean the shell; but this is not
good enough for anything much. Programs must invent their own UIs, and
there goes the above trick..

>>complicated mouse maneouver to a computer illiterate over a telephone?).  In
>>general, Dos is less hassle for new users.  I can set up their machine to boot
>>in a given manner, and write a list of things that they can type to achieve
>>given results, and provided they type is exactly as it is written, you have no
>>problems.  My wife got to the stage where she could find her way around Dos in
>>a couple of weeks, and in general, i can help her over the telephone.
>
>This is because there is not such a steep learning curve for command line
>interfaces.  You simply have to remeber a handful of commands.

Which do not apply outside of the DOS shell. :/

>>
>>In my opinion, the ultimate environment would be the OS/2 kernal with a
>>Macintosh user interface, but I hear that Apple and IBM are in bed with each
>>other... watch out Microsoft.
>>
>
>I still cannot see what makes the MAC interface soo easy to use.

Hmmm. I presume you mean by "soo", "sooooooooooooo <sarcasm dripping
from every o> ooooooooooooooo"... :)

>  You
>simply use the Finder to open folders and start apps.  Same as in
>Windows, except that the desktop is always there.

Uh, nope. You are not quite right. In the Mac you "simply" use the
Finder to open folders, start apps, open documents, make folders,
move/copy file/folders, format disks, shut down the computer see how much
memory is availiable, search for files, installing fonts, and other things I
dont feel like going into now.

In windows you dont use the Finder at all (of course), you use the Program
Manager to open groups, and start apps. Opening documents is a hassle to
do in progman since you must create an icon for it. You can also create
groups and delete icons in progman. You also shut down Windows with it.

You use the File Manager to open folders (directories), move/copy files/folders,
format disks, make folders. I think you may be able to open documents, if
they have a distinctive extension (which I should hope the would), you can
start apps if you like (but progman is easier for this)

If you strech it you can also say the finder can handle switching between
apps, and hiding and showing apps. Thats if you say the application
menu belongs to the finder. Which is probably pushing it.

> Each MAC app steals the main menu bar when it is active.

I prefer the term "politely snarfs it up"

>  Windows each app has its own menu bar.

Yeah, I prefer this approach as I find that the one menu bar approach
is very, very, confusing to new users. They dont realize they have
left apps running if those apps have no windows open, and there is
no visible clue to the fact that they have.

However, the one-menu-bar approach is not without its charms. It
has a speed advantage in that you dont have to aim vertically. (this
would eventually be offset if your monitor is big enough, but Ive never
met an monitor that big myself)

>  When you "minimize" a MAC app you have to use the silly icon on
>the right of the Bar to maximize it (make it active).

The Civilized Machead terms are "hide" and "show" btw. And the icon
you refer to is a menu (teh application menu). Its very much
more convinient that the Task List is, imho, for pulling up a buried app.

>  The desktop does not change.

That is so. Why should the desktop change? In windows does your
desktop turn purple if you iconize an app? :)

>  In Windows the active app "jumps to the top of the desktop".
>Windows makes an icon for the minimized apps,

Yes, it does. To do so on the Mac would be bad, as icons on the desktop
are files, folders or volumes. (ie, finder icons). This is very handy
for drag-n-drop type stuff, but it means that task icons placed
there would need a large number of new abilities- youd have to be able
to stick them in other icons,  get info on them, find them with the
finder's search routine, rename them, etc.

It would probably be a wonderfull addition to the Mac to DO all that,
though. I can see it now- a folder of suspended tasks to be resumed
at a double-click; you can terminate any task by tossing it in
the trash. Etc.

> MAC simply adds it to the menu of the apps that are running.

Huh? It was already there... all apps with user interfaces that
are running are there.

>Both have sound effects for events.

Not quite; the Mac does not have anythign like that except
for being able to play a startup sound by putting it in your
startup items folder. But nothing else wo/ a 3d party addition.

(not that this is terribly relevant to the UI)

>Mac only has one button on the mouse.

That's actually supposed to be a feature. You never have
to wonder which button to push; I find that to be a constant problem
on X-windows systems w/ 3 buttons anyway, but on windows its not a big
deal as you can get away with the left button only.

---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2673 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2628