From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being disc
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 14:59:16 GMT

In article <8456.168.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>CL = Charles Lasner
>
>CL> .>It sounds like Apple has done something right.  Making a computer easy en
>  > .>to be used by the average layman isn't wimpy, it should be the goal of al
>  > .>us.
>
>CL> .I totally disagree that this is the purpose of a computer or a goal
>  > .of *any* of us.  Applications some dipstick can use is one thing,
>  > .but making *our* task of using the computer for the *process of
>  > .creating* the means for the dipsticks of this world to use
>  > .their applications is a totally different matter.  I profoundly
>  > .wish that various groups would stop "helping" me in the creative
>  > .process.
>
>What is it that you find offensive about software-controlled power, or
>disk drives that can eject their contents automagically?  Is it more
>sensible to grope the case of the computer for a widget to shut down the
>computer?  Why isn't it a better idea to start a shutdown process that
>saves files, machine state, or whatever, and then kills power?  This is
>closely analogous to Toshiba's "resume" mode, and I find it highly
>beneficial.  Wish I had it on _all_ my machines.
>
>Why, if it's appropriate to remove or change a diskette, shouldn't the
>software be able to eject the current contents of the drive?  What does
>this hurt?

Not my point at all.  I am talking about machines more approachable via
user-oriented GUI than programmer-oriented CLI and related objects.

>
>What is it that you find offensive about the concept that a machine
>should be easier to use for EVERYONE.  Why are developers a special
>(apparently non-human) breed that doesn't need to take advantage of any
>technology newer than the PDP-8?

Again, not my point at all.  Developers have totally different requirements
while developing from users while using, presumably where the applications
actually make sense to be GUI-driven, which I will *not* totally accept
as a given anyway, but will only admit it's possible, but also possibly
somewhat contrived.  (BTW, for this definition, GUI= pointer device that
is driven by your hand (either one; your choice) that is used to drag or
move something from a point on the screen to elsewhere on the screen, and
thus requires that your hand be removed from the keyboard where it formerly
was a second earlier.)

What does PDP-8 have to do with this?  There are newer machines than PDP-8
that provide CLI-type interfaces, etc.  Moreover, GUI was available on
the PDP-8 in 1965 using the type 338 vector display which consists of the
following:

1)	30" oscilloscope tube
2)	Vector line, dot, character generator flicker-free into a
graphic space of 4096 x 4096 with no jaggies whatsoever.
3)	Trackball.

There are similar vintage interfaces for the PDP-9, -10 and -15.  Some of the
earliest Project Mac demos where done on this hardware back then, etc.  But
the developers avoided these toys do avoid non-productivity for the
*development* of the software for it, etc.

BTW, the 'scope in question is the symbol for DECUS, or at least an icon
based on that tube.

>
>CL> .cj "probably more productive as a programmer with a card punch than with a
>  > .GUI" l (but prefer a CLI and an editor!)
>
>At least you said "probably", implying that you haven't spent much time
>developing under a GUI.  'Taint so, Mr. Lasner.  A GUI is not an evil
>device to frustrate developers.  It's a tool that can be used properly
>or improperly.

Glad you said "can be used" implying you haven't really asked a significent
number of people who have seriously had experience either way what their
preference was.

>
>Consumer computers should be designed for consumers.  They should be
>easy for the average person to use.  If it offends you to use a
>"friendly" environment, use EMACS and a cross-compiler on your PDP-8 for
>development.  I'll continue to take advantage of multi-window
>environments which have indeed increased my productivity.

When computers are sold as clearly indicated *as* for end-luser consumers, 
then maybe I will merely ignore them instead of participate in threads
such as this.  When are you going to lobby for warning labels on them:
"The Surgeon General has determined that only end users can safely accomplish
anything useful on this device.  No developer interface-serviceable
components inside."

cjl

BTW, some people's definition of multiple windows can be done on a 
text-only screen, and has been for years.

Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18703 comp.arch:12123 comp.sys.intel:2919