Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0!
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.042105.10578@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 14 Feb 91 04:21:05 GMT
References: <1991Feb4.012848.13868@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Feb8.035953.20963@NCoast.ORG> <1991Feb9.052424.214@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 49

In article <1991Feb9.052424.214@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes:
>(as for the cars comment, well i'd say it won't be long before
>you see cars around that do stop you from doing this, if they
>don't exist already)
	They do, it's called an automatic transmission. BUt the problem is
just what it the right situation for the machine to decide? Best economy?
Best performance? I can easily envision a car with two computer chips,
one with settings for performance, and one with settings for economy that
let you switch between them at the touch of a button.
	The first thing I have always done since GM (and Ford) started putting
a data chip in their vehicles is to replace the chip with one designed to
produce more power at the cost of fuel efficiency. My complaint about
your complaint is that I don't think that the machine should ever try and
out think what the human wants to do, as human being are ittational, and
may want to do things (intentionally) that are not logical. Until machines
are like HAL, and can be overidden to the extreme, they should mind their
place and interfere as much as possible with what users want to do, even if
it is a stupid action (Maybe a confirm requester when the "Quit" option is
selected? (But NOT when the CloseWorkBench() call is made, since obviously
there is some other program running to be able to make the call).

>
>I don't care about this object orientated rubbish. (I still use
>C not C++ :-) .  Think about the user not the programmer.  They double
							    ^^^^^^^^^^
>click on the trashcan to see what's in it when running low on space.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The window opens and has file X in it (the window is selected).  They
>decide they don't want it, so they go up to the menu and select 
>Empty Trash, and it doesn't work!   People didn't buy 7 million Macs
	Yes it does! Think about what you said! If they have doubleclicked
on the trashcan Icon, the icon will be selected, and the window will be
opened (if it wasn't already) so they can see what is inside. If they then
select the "Empty Trash" option, all the icons in the trash can will be
deleted, as expected.
>Empty Trash, and it doesn't work!   People didn't buy 7 million Macs
>because they are power object orientated machines, they buy them 
>for the software and because any idiot who knows nothing about computers
>can use them.  C= can't do much about the software (except pay out
>huge sums to Microsoft etc.) but they can make the machine easy to
	Ugh. I hope I never see another Microsoft product on my Amiga
again. Using AmigaBASIC on my old 1000 was bad enough. Having to use
MS-DOS at work occasionally is too much.
>not all the time :-)   After seeing the others I still bought an Amiga
>though.
	Hurray! You made the right (and intelligent :-) choice!


				Dave