Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!opal!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: <4379@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 26 Mar 91 11:43:31 GMT References: <1991Mar21.024213.9550@amd.com> <1991Mar22.050908.28727@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Mar24.025913.29727@amd.com> <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 59 woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >In article <1991Mar24.025913.29727@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >>woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >>> However, I may suggest that you may wish to limit your comments on >>>to do with uniformity across applications, as this is a development >>>issue, one you yourself have said (privately, I know) was not a concern of >> >>I thought we were talking about consistency seen by the users. >Hmmmm. I guess I need to explain myself better, as I obviously didn't >do such a good job the first time. >1) Operating system support. >This has to do with such mechanisms as to how much code the underlying OS >supports the ability for two applications to cut and paste between eachother, >to present windows and menu items which have the same look and feel, and >other such issues. This is principally a development issue, for if the >OS supports the user interface, it will make it easier (in theory) for the >developer to write code which supports that interface, thus increasing the >number of compliant applications. On the other hand, if the OS doesn't >support the interface (or at least support it well), then the chances are >applications won't use the interface (or at least support it well). >For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far >as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified >than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such >judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and >so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in >theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. >Under Windows it's a little more gross. This is not true. Windows clipboard supports multiple formats, too, so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can choose from supported formats the sending application supports. So far there is nothing which justifies your above comment. To the contrary, Windows concept of a clipboard is superior in my opinion, because it allows clipboard format rendering on demand, where the users action to paste something from the clipboard in a certain format triggers the sending applications rendering the data in the requested format. While this is not visible to the user, it makes it possible to support many different clipboard formats, without consuming resources (memory and time) for seldomly used formats or asking the user which format he wants to use, which is the usual "solution" of having the user do something the computer could perform better. Windows clipboard can do most things the Macintoshs clipboard can do, and more. The difference is mostly hidden from the user, but allows the application designer to do a better job. The delayed rendering feature is based on the fact that there is no (and never has been) a "non- multitasking" version of windows (there is no need to start a multifinder, and from the user's point of view a switch between different applications works more smoothly), so an application designer can - and in fact often does - assume that a user runs two or more applications concurrently. Wolfgang Strobl #include