From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:45:17 EDT
Followup-To: 085209.26824@cs.uow.edu.au>

Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Nov6.085209.26824@cs.uow.edu.au>, u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
>> > The Mac only has one button, which cripples. 
> 
>> Wrong. It enables. Having only one button is a FEATURE. It makes the mouse
>> much easier to use because it completely eliminates the confusion over which
>> button to press.
> 
>> The Mac is MORE POWERFUL because it has only one button. Less IS more.
> 
> But of course!  The fact that there is only one button increases CPU
> throughput by 10%, right?  More powerful?  hahah

Sure it increases CPU throughput. Because the CPU spends less time waiting in
an idle loop while the user decides which mouse button to press!

> Is the next step to eliminate the excess keys from the keyboard?  Surely if
> the next generation of Macs had only a space bar, new users would be far
> less confused.  

This is an ad homenim argument. You are reducing a point to its absurd 
conclusion. You are not dealing with the facts. You deserve no reply.

(But, just for fun, if 2 mouse buttons are good, 3 would be better -- how
about 8? 10? 20? 100? Even better!)

> I understand Apple does everything it can to un-confuse new users, 

Why are only *NEW* users confused? I'm an experienced user, and I've had
my confused times as well. Heck, I know enough to WRITE the doggone
applications myself, and I still get confused.

When will you "experienced" users get it through you head that "less confusing"
is also good for the experienced computer user as well as the "new" user?

> I notice that throughout the Mac's history a control key, cursor keys,
> numeric keypad, an escape key and numerous function keys have been added.  

The original keyboard had a numeric keypad, although it was optional. Apple
has added these other features, but it has a love/hate relationship with 
function keys. You can get keyboards with function keys, but unless you get
something like QuicKeys, you can't use them. Frankly, I think function keys
are next to useless.

> I wonder how long it will be before another mouse button comes into play.

Don't hold your breath. There are already third parties that have come out
with multiple-button mice.

>> Like on the NeXT or Windows, where extra buttons are simply undefined -- it
>> is up to the applications to use them as they see fit. Hence, applications
>> either a) don't use them or b) use them in inconsistant ways hence, c) users
>> don't use them. 
> 
> Like on the NeXT or Windows, but unlike on the Amiga where the right mouse
> button plays a very specific and consistent role.  The right mouse button
> saves one's hand a lot of trips to the keyboard.

But we're back to the confusion over which mouse button to press.

>> > The mac seems incapable of working in real time. I often get frustrated
>> > holding down the button on the menu bar waiting for a Mac to produce a
>> > menu; often waiting for many seconds if it is busy with screen update
>> > or some processor-intensive work. 
> 
>> Sounds like there is something functionally wrong with your Mac. Perhaps
>> you ought to take it in for servicing.
> 
> There is; its disk DMA and pre-emptive multitasking appears to be
> malfunctioning.  Thus, when the disk drive is going, everything stops.  

The Mac doesn't have preemptive multitasking unless you are running A/UX.
Are you running A/UX? No? Well run it and your problem will go away.

>> Apple studied the use of proportional scroll bars. They found that they
>> were NOT intuitive. They confused users. They did this through expensive
>> user testing, not some survey of technogeeks.
> 
> What an expensive waste of time, considering that they came up with the
> wrong result, according to myself and every other Mac user I have talked to
> with the exception of one.

How can they come up with the "wrong" result? Again, they didn't survey a
bunch of technogeeks like you or me. Instead, they tested real live users.
People who haven't necessarily warped their brains to think like computers.
You know -- REAL people. 

These people found them UNINTUITIVE. That's a fact. Accept it.

>> Apple does MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of testing. I suspect Apple spends more on
>> testing then Commodore makes yearly.
> 
> If only they spent it on the right things.  It's nigh on ten years since the
> Mac was developed and the most powerful 68040 Mac still can't format a
> floppy in the background.

The Mac was introduced in 1984. That's 8 years.

And no amount of testing will allow a Mac to format a floppy in the background.
You have to engineer that feature into the machine. Testing only shows you
if what you engineered works or not.

>> This is not an issue with System 7.
> 
> This seems to be an all-too-frequent excuse; why couldn't they simply get it
> right at some stage during systems 1-6?

I don't understand. Apple has recognized a failing of their system software
and fixed it. Now you complain they didn't fix it soon enough?

I suppose when Apple has a preemptive microkernal OS that can format 
floppies in the background, you'll complain they didn't deliver it 
soon enough. 

Sheesh. Get a life.

-- 
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