Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!limbo!taylor
From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Student Writing: Can the Machine Maim the Message?
Message-ID: <1022@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 20 Jul 90 16:52:04 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Lines: 49
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

[Note: Due to a mistake by the moderator, a recent article by Jesse W. 
 Asher incorrectly attributed to Ken Weiss a comment that was actually
 made by C. Irby.  Sorry! -- Dave]

Jesse W. Asher writes:

> Ken Weiss asks:
> 
>> It is reasonably obvious that this paper was not critiqued before 
>> release, or if it was, it was by people with a leaning towards DOS...

First of all, *I* said it... I don't know where you get your quote...

> Nowhere in the article did the author suggest that the study was 
> scientific in any way or that it should be taken as gospel...

Any time someone publishes something in a professional magazine, they *do* 
suggest that it is scientific and that it "should be taken as gospel."

The article in question has been quoted in several places (including my 
workplace) as being proof that Macs are not "serious computers."

Hogwash.

The only real program the classes used was a word processor.  Do you 
really think there was that much difference between them?

> I thought the article was very interesting and thought provoking - exactly 
> what it was intended for.  I did see inconsistancies, but once again it was 
> not a formal study with proper controls or proper consideration of other 
> causes of this supposed difference in writing ability between those that 
> use Macs and those that use PCs.

By publishing, the author suggested that there *were* some controls.
None existed.  The entire article was based on the personal perceptions
of the author and the small handful of people involved.  

The point is... she never proved herself *right*.  

Read the follow-up article. Or do your own research.

There are several papers and studies out there that show - with *real*
statistics - that GUIs enhance the use of computers.  For the average user,
a GUI is easier.  That's the real difference...

One last thought... why does IBM offer OS/2, and Microsoft sell Windows?
Ever heard of X-Windows?

C Irby