Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: id AA12898; Tue, 7 Feb 84 17:25:46 est
Message-ID: <1685@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 19:32:45 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1685
Posted: Wed Feb  8 19:32:45 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:25:19 EST
References: <311@tesla.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 90

>     Most of the arguments we have heard articulated against the Mac indicate
> to us that some people are missing the import of this machine.  The Macintosh
> is intended to be an appliance!  That's it.  Not a mainframe, not a super-mini,
> not the answer to every hacker's dreams.

I agree 100%; and it turns out that a lot of the resistance to these
"new-style" systems seems to be based on familiarity with the "old"
command-language interfaces and unfamiliarity with the new desktop
interfaces.  I find I can get things done very quickly on our Lisa (modulo
the speed of the underlying machine) once you get adjusted to it, and
the commonality of the user interface ideas (pointing, dragging, selecting,
etc.) makes it easier to figure out how to do something new without even
looking at the manual (often it takes a lot of time just to figure out where
to look in the manual).

> 2.  Lack of control key?  Are you kidding?  It is quite precisely the point of
>     the Mac interface to eliminate the control key.  However, the funky
>     "cloverleaf" (called the "command") key performs a similar function for
>     expert users.  In fact, there are several "short-cuts" permitted in the
>     user interface.  Double-clicking replaces the menu selection for "Open"
>     and command key combinations are provided to short-cut frequently pulled
>     menu items, for example.  Apparently, not even Apple can remain completely
>     true to the faith.

Nor should they remain "true to the faith."  Such shortcuts *are* necessary
to make the machine usable by people who have learned how to do a number
of common operations.  After a while, it *does* become a pain to go to the
menu to open things; the double click to open a file becomes almost second
nature and you can open and close objects quite quickly, almost automatically.

>     While Apple intends the Mac to be a "toaster", it is a heavy duty toaster.
>     If a Differential Equation solver is needed, it will run on this baby,
>     faster and easier than on any other stock PC.

I don't know if I'd go *that* far; without a 68881, I doubt a Mac could
solve a differential equation faster than an 8088-based PC with an 8087
(although without the 8087, the 8088 would fall behind the 68K).

    b).  The point-and-press dialogues can be quite rich.  They don't "go back
    to first grade mentality."

Amen.  (Besides, if you open/close/move/delete objects by "point-and-select",
you make fewer typographical errors than doing so with commands, simply
because you don't type as much.  There is still the possibility for
error, but I *know* I have to correct typos in commands more often than I
have to correct mis-selections.)

    c).  As for the problems of abandoning home row on the keyboard, we too
    were skeptical at first.  We can only suggest that the current skeptics
    try producing a document of some size using this technology.  It takes
    a short while to understand the tradeoffs involved, but you'll like the
    mouse a lot once you get used to it.

Besides, a lot of cursor pads require you to take your fingers off the
home row anyway; I find that even working with our function-key-heavy screen
editor, moving off the home row doesn't slow me down much.

    The thing about compatibility is that a software developer has to aim for
    the least common denominator machine of a given class.  It would be 
    foolish to market an MS-DOS product that wouldn't work on nearly every
    MS-DOS machine out there.  It may be that Macintosh's so-called lack
    of expandability will benefit the Mac's owners, since all software will
    be configured and tuned for his exact configuration, and not castrated to 
    run on the look-alikes.  (There's no difference between a high-end Mac 
    and a low-end Mac.)  

YES.  However, one could develop a system with most, if not all, the
quality of the Mac on a "more conventional operating system" (MS-DOS, UNIX,
etc.), although some things may be slower or more awkward.  NBI uses 4.2BSD
as the OS for their System One Integrated Work Station, for example.
However, one has to beware that just because a package runs under UNIX doesn't
mean it will run on every UNIX box in creation; there's a *lot* of software that
runs on a Sun workstation that won't run on an IBM PC/XT, for instance.  Just
because you are using UNIX as an OS for a machine or a base for an application
doesn't mean you *have* to target it to the "generic UNIX" market, although it
would be foolish to write a spreadsheet solely for the Sun, given that the
market for such a beast is rather small.  But if you built a system of the
class of the Lisa which runs UNIX, it would mean you could pick up third-party
software for it even if it isn't the best sort of software you can get for
the hardware.  Presumably, though, you'd supply a lot of the software
yourself or have it written specifically for that class of machine; the trick
is you wouldn't have to have it *all* written specifically for your machine
(although it's interesting to note that Interleaf, Inc.'s all-singing-all-
dancing multi-font what-you-see-is-what-you-get word processing software,
which currently runs on the Sun, is being ported to the Cadmus as well, so
even "new generation" software can be made portable among "new generation"
hardware which runs UNIX).

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy