Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:10168 comp.windows.ms:10850 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!burdvax!dave From: dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Message-ID: <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> Date: 27 Mar 91 18:34:30 GMT References: <1991Mar26.011127.28302@amd.com> <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> <1991Mar26.165101.10570@cs.uoregon.edu> <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Sender: news@PRC.Unisys.COM Organization: Unisys Corporation, Paoli Research Center; Paoli, PA Lines: 93 In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. > >THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >willing to learn the machine. OK, I'm forced to respond. I learned to program in 1963, and discovered I loved it. I've long since lost count of the number of machines I've used and the number of programming languages I've written in. I got a doctorate in Computer Science, taught CS for a few years at a university, and I'm currently an AI researcher at Unisys. In other words, I am NOT an "unwilling user," not by any stretch of the imagination. But I AM a user, as well as a "computer professional." I spend as much time using other people's programs as I do writing my own. You say that, according to the Macintosh philosopy, "no respect is given the user who is willing to learn the machine." I think this is completely bogus. Let's turn it on its head: "Respect IS given to the user who wants to get things done, but isn't a professional and doesn't want to become one just to work his computer." Programs are, you will certainly agree, very complex entities. In my view, a certain task (e.g. word processing) requires a certain minimum complexity to get it done. A software engineer can meet the user halfway, providing the necessary functionality and expecting the user to master the remaining complexity; or the engineer can meet the user MORE than halfway, providing not only the functionality, but attempting to absorb as much as possible of the complexity into the program, so that the user doesn't have to work as hard or learn as much. To achieve this, the engineer has to (1) learn principles of good user interface design, (2) put a hell of a lot of work into the interface, often substantially more than into the basic functionality itself, (3) test the program with real users, being as open as humanly possible to complaints and suggestions, and (4) revise and test in a seemingly endless cycle until the interface and functionality are "right." Macintosh programming is some of the hardest programming I have ever done, and I'm still not good at it. But it's also the most rewarding (and I certainly don't mean in a financial sense!), because I feel I can create a program of substantially higher quality. The Macintosh toolbox makes this possible, but it doesn't make it easy. Resentment is natural when people are forced to do work they wouldn't otherwise have to do, or feel is unnecessary. In this case the pressure of the marketplace for higher-quality user interfaces is putting a lot of programmers into this position. Yes, users have learned to expect more and demand more, just as they do from any field that is advancing. But no, it isn't pandering to work to meet those needs; they are legitimate. I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. Those are the facts of life. Macintosh gives me, my wife, and my four kids what we want in a computer: ease of learning and ease of use. I think this shows that the designers respected us and our needs; you seem to feel the opposite. In addition, I personally have always been a technophile, and want to live in the future; Macintosh was and is a pioneer in software, and is still years ahead of windows. I'm "religious" about them because, with the possible exception of NeXT, their software is years ahead of the competition. But I'm not religious in the sense that I'll jump ship in a minute if something better comes along. Other users have other needs: they need to spend less, or they can afford to spend more time learning the system. Novice users don't know the differences, so they often make the "safe" choice (and similarly, no one was ever fired for recommending that his company buy IBM computers). And that's my nickel. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) I don't speak for my employer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | | were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | | cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | | and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | | color TV, too. | | Now there's Windows 3.0. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------