Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!twltims From: twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Well written Macintosh overview (comments on comments) Message-ID: <7551@watmath.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 21:59:12 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.7551 Posted: Mon Apr 16 21:59:12 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 07:22:06 EST References: <12177@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1349@sdccs6.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 142 From: ir44@sdccs6.UUCP . . . I'm one of those mentioned who tried the Mac with great interest and reacted negatively. It is set up to appeal to the very large market of novices who are not at ease in slamming a keyboard. I think you are correct in saying that Apple's *marketing* is designed to appeal to novices. However. . . For me, and I'm a user, not a tech type, I am a tech type (and a user: If I can do something with a computer rather than on paper, that's how I do it. I have slammed keyboards for years.) the mouse seemed more of an encumbrance rather than a facilitator except in Macpaint. The approach seemed gimmicky, designed to impress the computer-wary that all you need to know is where to point. and I went to have a little fun with a Mac. I wasn't able to pull myself away from the machine for four hours. In those four hours I was able to convince myself that I would be able to do many valuable things on the Mac faster and more elegantly that I can do them on most other systems I have seen. Pointing to a pictograph seems to me regressive. Novices drawn in by such devices will find, as soon as they want to do anything serious with their computer, that there is far more to learn than they ever suspected. You are the first person I have ever heard call the iconic interface ``regressive''. I suspect that it will be a great productivity booster. What do you mean ``there is far more to learn?'' It strikes me that there are different ways of learning. With troff, I switch fonts using baroque commands that I must memorize to be efficient. With Mac, I can still switch fonts, but I use the same procedures to do it that I use to change point size. And if I forget the name of a font, it doesn't matter. My total font handling effort on a Mac is noticeably lower. And I have been using troff for 4 years. For real word processing, the built in stuff on ROM will soon be left behind for one of the usual packages. As far as I know, the built in stuff on ROM is fairly general. I think a variety of editors could use them, and provide significantly different ``looks''. Macwrite is a toy editor, but still useable. The Macintosh editor I would avoid like the plague is the one that will look like Vi. ``Usual packages'' rarely impress me. VM/CMS and Fortran are examples of popular ``usual packages''. One used to using a good terminal will feel constrained by a 9" screen. Wrong. I am a living counterexample. It's just fine. Having windows is also somewhat a gimmick when they are too small to hold enough to be useful for many serious uses such as writing a new draft from a previous draft, independently scrollable. Nonsense. I am an Emacs fan, and I use it on a 24x80 terminal. It's incredibly useful, even though a window takes up the entire screen width. On the Mac, one can generate small windows with messages, statuses, commands, etc. that won't collide with your main text windows. Gimmick indeed. How can you call variable sized, instantly creatable, overlapping terminals a ``gimmick''? I'd have no trouble with the revision of a rough draft in another window. I know: I've done it. The article does not mention the limitation from lack of true multitasking- more and more used in sophisticated packages. The Mac doesn't lack multitasking, per se. Since it doesn't have much of an operating system it doesn't have much of an operating system to implement multitasking in. Applications that need multitasking, or program environments that would like to exploit it, can do it themselves. Lack of color is mentioned but passed over though its use seems to be increasingly important in consumer software. It's lack, though I am not much interested in color myself, may severely limit the Mac's appeal for a computer that is so graphically oriented that it runs in a constant graphic mode. The author did point out the limitations in treating text (invariably) as a graphic. I suspect that people are overly concerned with color. The point is that the ``gimmicky'' windows and ``regressive'' icons are so valuable to folks like me that we willingly overlook color in order to gain them at a reasonable price. Apple ]['s have color, but who cares? I'm not particularly interested in defending the IBM PC-- I don't own one (yet). It is a puzzlement that the company that gave us the Selectric typewriters, should produce two keyboards that have evoked such critical derision. But IBM's conservative design produces a micro that is fairly easily expandable and upgradable. And completely uninteresting. I can get that sort of interface in spades on the UNIX systems I have access to. Any computer that I buy is going to have to offer me something I can't get for free. I know (after a lengthy test-compute) that a Mac will be a joy to run (mostly) and a productivity booster *worth the price*. An IBM PC represents yesterdays understanding of computer<->user interaction. It is evolving as various more powerful and special purpose boards become available. If I were a PC user, I would feel reasonably reassured against quick obsolescence or getting left out of the next major improvement in the PC-- e.g., an x286 based upgrade and a move to Unix. Can an IBM XT owner, for example, expect to be able to upgrade to the next level of PC development? . . . Ted Schwartz, Anthro UCSD And for every piece of software written for it you will need a different hardware configuration. In contrast EVERY Mac program knows it gets a bit mapped display, fonts, mouse, sound and more. An excellent level of support on every single Mac. I do not know Ted Schwartz, so the following comment obviously cannot apply to him. So far, I am aware of two reactions to Mac. Some people like it, and others don't. Here at the University of Waterloo, among people who are persuing computer science as a profession (or way of life!) the Mac has generated amazing enthusiasm. Many of my friends (tech types with lots of years sweating at keyboards) are scheming to get one. This reaction seems fairly common in CS people. Also, in people who really are novices, there is a strong appreciation of a machine that can be quickly used without years of study. The people who I have heard objecting seem to be crossover folk: people in other disciplines who have enough awareness of computers that they are not simple users but who still do not make computer science their profession. Perhaps their sense of achievement with computers is threatened with the advent of cheap and effective metaphorical interfaces that *any old joe* can handle. Whadda *you* think? Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730