Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Sun's Competitive Strategy (Was: Re: P1754 Message-ID: <3005@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: 6 Dec 90 13:55:07 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov25.194404.3376@dircon.uucp> <1635@unix386.Convergent.COM> <1990Dec2.014554.3491@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2760@cirrusl.UUCP> <2764@cirrusl.UUCP> <76095@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Distribution: na Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 53 In article kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: | That's right you. You like the Mac and well, good for you. Diff. strokes | for diff. folks. I like the openess of the PC arch. I also like the | NeXT but I don't go around bashing Atari's, Amiga's and Mac's. The Mac is an example os "central planning," while X-windows is an example of "free market" design. On the Mac all applications look the same, and having learned one you have a start on learning others. In X you choose a window manager which makes the universe look the way you want it. There are good and bad points to both approaches, and a belief that either is superior in all cases will not give a useful view of the situation. I'm going to assume that user interface design is a valid topic, even if a lot of stuff before has just been flamage. The Mac approach presnts a consistant interface, with reduced user training. Unfortunately, if the user doesn't *like* that single unchangable interface, s/he is just out of luck. The idea is that the designers know best what's good for the user, and the user should adapt or die. The X approach assumes the user will find an interface which enhances productivity. In at least some cases this isn't true. The user will spend a lot of time with various interfaces, never learning any one enough to be productive. The up side is that the typical user will choose an interface, and use that window manager which matches the way the user's mind works. That's a big boost to productivity. The power user may use various interfaces for certain tasks, and will benefit from the best parts of all of them. Let's stop worrying about which is better, because neither is perfect and they reflect two approaches to delivering resources, and do not compete, in that they solve diferent problems, even though they may look like the same problem to the user. I really believe that if Mac, X, NeWS, and Windows3 had all started even, at the same time with no installed base, and portable, that a clear winner would have emerged, and neither X nor Mac would not be the winner. X because the promise of cheap dumb terminals is false, the CPU and memory to run X will also run NeWS at a lower bandwidth between client and server, and Mac because it lacks a command interface for those cases where there are too many choices for a comfortable menu. This is my opinion, feel free to discuss it, but don't flame me about it, I never claimed it was the only true truth, just that it looks that way to me. If Mac hadn't been first, they would have had another Lisa on their hands. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com