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