Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Message-ID: <4173@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 28 Feb 91 21:58:44 GMT References: <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> <12608@helios.TAMU.EDU> <91058.234938CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 65 CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >(* Wolfgang Strobl says some non-trivial things about Windows for the PC > being able to do the things that have been touted as major Macintosh > strengths, such as the Clipboard metaphor. *) >Even though Windows may impose a Clipboard metaphor and related features >of the GUI on the PC world now, the Mac has been supporting and refining >that metaphor for what, 5 years? 7 years? More? So does Windows. Windows 1, which had the same Clipboard support as Windows 3, was announced before the Mac came out, and was finally delivered one year after the Mac - five years ago. >Windows is *not* a mature GUI; it simply hasn't been used enough by >enough different people to have settled down yet. What makes a GUI matured? And is beeing matured really an advantage, under all circumstances? The Mac's GUI was designed for a closed 128K machine with a small screen. Some of its concepts are still fresh, but some look a little worn out - Desk Accessories, the implementation of multitasking, even the Clipboard metaphor, to name a few examples. > By contrast, the >Macintosh world (and Apple in particular) have been doing serious >research into human interface questions for years. That's why developers >have access to the Human Interface Notes -- so that there are definitive >answers to questions of "How should I present this concept to the user?" I don't doubt that, but would rather like to discuss the results of that research in detail. >Also: granted that Windows can do these things; what about OS/2? Or >is Windows supposed to be the new standard OS/GUI for MS-DOS machines? >I don't believe IBM would be very happy about that... From a users point of view, the OS/2 Presentation Manager and Windows are nearly identical. In fact, the OS/2 PM is a reimplementation of the Windows GUI on top of the OS/2 kernel. Unfortunately, the situation is not as nice for the programmer, because the Application Program Interface has been changed, partially to serve IBM's intent to integrate features of its GDDM (Graphical Data Display Manager) mainframe graphics system into OS/2, and partially in order to clean up the API and fit it to a more modern operating system. The announced addition of a Windows compatibility layer in OS/2 V2 will probably solve this problem. >OS/2 has some features that are *really* nice for programming, such as >multithreading, and which aren't available on Macintoshes. Yet. But >I have yet to see a debate espousing OS/2 rather than Windows. I'm >really not sure why that is ... is it the price? Or does it have >failings in the GUI that exclude it from such discussions? Users don't care much for what is nice for programmers. They want applications. The problem of OS/2 is that it (Microsoft, that is) tried to make two steps at the same time: moving the user from a CP/M clone to a real operating system, and from a character based UI to a GUI. For the common DOS user, who is quite happy with the performance and functionality of her character based applications, this step is much too big. In short, the main problem was the complete lack of a migration path. The recent success of Windows version 3 was mainly because it offers a usable migration path for the DOS user, for the first time. The current version of OS/2 still does not, but the forthcoming version 2 will. Wolfgang Strobl #include