Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: New Finder Feature....
Message-ID: <2377@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 02:56:00 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2377
Posted: Tue Apr  2 02:56:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:04:06 EST
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 51

"Oh that,"  he said.  "That's not a bug, that's a feature..."


    To the gentleman from Apple:

    First of all, let me thank you for responding to the complaints on the
    net.  It's good to know that someone Up There (i.e., Cupertino) is
    listening.

    Right off the bat let me say that I'm of the "If it ain't broke, don't
    fix it" school;  thus, contrary to the tone of your message, I tend to
    expect
    explanation and justification from those who propose changes,  as opposed
    to those satisfied with the status quo.  So,  let me turn the question
    around on you and your colleague:  Exactly what are you buying by
    making non-foldered items non-items?

    Granted, the current Finder is slow; how much speed will this change
    garner us?  Will it result in a reduction in the size of the Finder
    of, say, 75%?  If not, then I really don't see what purpose such an
    alteration will serve.

    For the last two-and-a-half years I've been deeply involved in one of the
    more ambitious applications software development efforts around,  and the
    one brutal lesson I've learned is that changes for the sake of changes,
    or the sake of the developer's personal aesthetics, are invariably poison.
    So please,  since you've graciously opened this dialogue,  go the next
    necessary step:  tell us what the user is going to gain from this change.

    In closing, let me suggest that the most distinctive, and most valuable,
    quality of the Macintosh is its transparency;  you get to concentrate on
    the problem you want to solve,  rather than the problem of communicating
    the problem you want to solve to the computer.  Any changes which put
    arbitrary obstacles in that man-machine interface inhibit this
    transparency,  and thereby decrease,  in my opinion anyway,  the intrinsic
    value of the computer.  So think carefully, please, before you add any
    "rules" to the Macintosh game.  Without it's front end,  the Mac is just
    another overpriced number-cruncher.

    So tell us:  what's the gain from the proposed change?  We're the client;
    we're the ones who sell Macintoshes,  not TV ads, or Computerland sales-
    people (I've had mine two months and sold eight more in that time).
    Convince us that we want the new Finder,  or re-think the changes.  In
    my experience, that's the only way to avoid grief in the long run.

    Thank you for you attention. I think I speak for most of the net in
    saying that I look forward to your reply.

    Cheers.

						    --- das