Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site rduxb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!rduxb!2141smh From: 2141smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: New Finder Feature.... Message-ID: <350@rduxb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:14:26 EST Article-I.D.: rduxb.350 Posted: Thu Apr 4 08:14:26 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 03:38:28 EST References: <2377@randvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Reading, PA Lines: 24 > Right off the bat let me say that I (believe) "If it ain't broke, don't > fix it"; 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? > > 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. **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!2141smh I hope that you aren't suggesting that the new finder should be designed by the committee of net.newsers. If apple botches up the finder, everyone will buy Jackintoshes and Apple knows this. No vender in his right mind is going to open up a forum which openly encourages people to shoot arrows at a new product before it is on the market. Apple has solicited suggestions and we should respect that openness and not put them on the defensive because they want to be responsive to their customers problems. If Apple can speed up the finder and put it in ROM so we can have a little space left in our discs, I'm sure everyone will jump for joy. However, I have a feeling that Apples main concerns are for the 1986 product year since 1985 was really a rather bleak year for new products and sales.