From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:24:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct1144544@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
> In article <6092.2ac9c038@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Sep30.011703.4998@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>    > 
>    > Um, easier to learn and use. More powerful. More convenient. Less surprising.
>    > More easily generalizable. Better feedback.
> 
>    Easier to learn? GACK! No way. There's little consistancy between applications.
>    Heck, applications can't even decide on a consistant way to stop a program,
>    at least all Mac applications have File / Quit.
> 
> Well, with all the Windows programs I have, that is exactly where the 'quit'
> option is.  Running a DOS app in a window is a bit different, of course,
> but we are talking Windows here, not DOS.

Hmm. Looking in the Windows Application Design Guide, section 5.4.2.1
which describes the standard items in the File menu. The standard
item is supposed to be "Exit" with "x" as the shortcut.

So you see, if all your programs have File / Quit (obviously, no "x"), then
we have a case of inconsistancy between applications under Windows. QED.

>    Less surprising. NOT! Windows lacks consistancy between applications. Quick!
>    What do the middle and right buttons do on the Windows mouse? "Left up to
>    the Application." Faugh. Without guidelines, there's no consistancy. Having
>    vague or incomplete guidelines is even worse.
> 
> Quick!  what do the left and middle buttons do on the Mac?!?   ... :->

Nothing. They don't exist. (My, that was easy)

Remember, having more doesn't necessarily mean it is better. If you think
having three mouse buttons is better than one, why not have six buttons?
Ten? A hundred? Two thousand?

>    >> QUICK! What's the keyboard shortcut for copy and past?
>    > 
>    > I don't have it in front of me (haven't used it in years), but that's in the
>    > Edit menu. Paste will be ALT<EP>, and either cut or copy will be ALT<EC>. The
>    > other will be ALT<EU> or ALT<EO> respectively. The keyboard shortcuts are
>    > uniformally mnemonic for the menu selections. *and* they're displayed on the
>    > screen.
> 
>    Wrong. You bring up a dialog window, and ALT <ET>, ALT <EC> and ALT <EP>
>    (Cut, Copy, and Paste, respectively) won't work. Note that your message didn't
>    even have these correct, or perhaps there's even more variance between apps
>    than I thought.
> 
> Well, maybe I only use a very limited subset of Windows apps (and proud of it
> :->  ), but the Alt-<ET> for Cut and Alt-<EP> for paste worked in all of them.
> What apps do these *not* work in?

Note that Peter got the shortcuts wrong in the text above, so it wasn't right
until I corrected it.

The Alt- shortcuts will work as long as the menu is on top. They won't work
in an dialog box, because the menu is inaccessible from the dialog. You have
to use the alternate shortcuts. (See below)

So, if you get used to using the Alt- shortcuts (as painful as they are),
as soon as a dialog pops up, wham! your carefully learned shortcuts go out
the window. ARGH!


>    No, to use shortcuts consistantly, you can't reply on ALT menu activation.
>    You have to use Shift-DEL, Control-Ins and Shift-Ins for Cut, Copy and Paste,
>    respectively. These will actually work in the dialog box.

What's worse, MS changed the spec! The latest Windows guide stays to use
Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V (I wonder where in the heck they came up with
those choices? They aren't mnemonic at all....)

"Ctrl" is a terrible choice for a shortcut, cause it won't work
properly with terminal emulation software. ARGH!

> 
>    What's more, many important applications don't even support this type of
>    editing. Like the Program Manager or the File Manager. Ugh.
> 
> Now what would you do with this in the PM?  FM, I can understand; the
> nomenclature has switched from cut&paste to move and copy, but...

I want to copy and paste a file name in on a rename. I can do this in the
Finder, I can't do this with FM. ARGH!

> 
>    You proved my point by demonstrating the inconsistant behavior of Windows.
>    QED.
> 
> He did?

Yup. He (and you) got the shortcuts wrong. That proves the inconsistancy of
Windows.

>    > On the Mac, can you move the menu bar down to where you're working on a large
>    > screen?
> 
>    Nope. The menu bar stays up at the top of the screen where you can get to it
>    accurately (even in the face of Fitt's law) because vertical overshoot is
>    absorbed by reaching the top of the screen.
> 
> I'd have to agree here.  One of the worst experiences I've had in Windows
> is trying to pull down a menu but instead grabbing the title bar of the
> app and dragging *it* down the screen.  The better point of this is that
> the menu bar is more closely associated with the application than if it were
> at the top of the screen.

The Xerox method of using a separate button for a menu is a much better
strategy, in my opinion. If you need to have menus all over the screen, this
will put the menu wherever you are. You don't need to target a specific
location on the screen.

The problem, of course, is the neverending confusion of which button to press,
plus the need to select menus hierarchially. Both are difficult for
beginners and experts alike. The single-button mouse is a better solution,
particularly if the mouse uses accellerated movement. (I always set my
mouse to "FAST")

>    >> Perhaps you meant the programming interface.
>    > 
>    > That's what I said. Of course, the Mac program interface is pretty icky too.
> 
>    True. It is more mature, and that helps a lot. There's also a number of
>    mature development tools for applications. From class libraries like MacApp
>    and TCL to interface building tools like Prototyper, AppMaker and Prograph.
> 
>    Windows doesn't (yet) have tools of this caliber.
> 
> Well, Borland products have the Prototyper.  There are quite a few neat toys
> listed on the back of Borland C++.

That's the problem. Class libraries exist, but they are currently in the "toy"
stage. It will take some time for them to mature enough for serious 
development.

>    I wouldn't be so generous. Remember that MS has 70% of the Macintosh 
>    Applications market. 
> 
> What do you mean here?

The original comment was pessimistic about MS, particularly about Xenix. I'm
even more pessimistic about MS.

> BTW, I would tend to disagree.  I view Excel as their only noteworthy product,
> Windows as only an environment from which I can run Excel.

Just remember where Excel came from, OK? (Hint: Excel first shipped in 1985,
and it didn't run on Windows until recently)

>    > Hey, you want to stop that *quit buying Microsoft products*. 
> 
>    Heh, heh. I don't own any MS products. At work, I have MS Word 4.0 because
>    I have need for it. Other members in other departments aren't so enlightened,
>    and I have to look at their files. (I prefer WriteNow)
> 
> This really has little to do with the discussion, but (in the hopes of this
> becomming a bash-MS newsgroup) about the saddest quote I ever read was
> (I forget who said it) "I know, Turbo-C is far superior to Microsoft C,
> but I use the MS product because it is industry standard."  Truly pitiful
> that 'industry standards' are valued more highly than innovation and
> efficiency, IMO.

Our Tech Writers have standardized on MS Word. I only use it when I absolutely
have to look at one of their files. Fortunately, due the consistancy
of Mac applications, I can actually do this (even with an MS product).

I also decry the "industry standard" issue. But it's human nature. If you
had the choice between a moderately featured product, and a highly featured
product that could both do the same job you needed to do, you'd buy the
highly featured product. After all, you might need some of those extra
features someday. Nevermind the fact that you'll never figure out how to
use even the basic features fully.


>    > I don't think so. They sold the Xerox Star office system for quite a few years,
>    > and it was also significantly better than the Mac.
> 
>    UGH! I actually had the priviledge of USING a Star (back in 1983, before
>    there ever was a Mac). 
> 
>    It wasn't better than the Mac. I'd say it was barely usable. The Help system
>    was awful. And many times there were hidden modes were you couldn't do 
>    something that wasn't obvious.
> 
>    The Star wasn't better than the Mac. Not by far. It wasn't even better than
>    the Lisa, aside from being more expensive.
> 
> These are opinions, not facts, and subjective to boot.  To paraphrase yourself,
> 'How are you going to proove it?'

Well, I'm just speaking from my personal experience. I was trying to judge if
the comment that the Star was "significantly better than the Mac" was from
actual experience, or from reading a magazine or other apocryphal information.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy