Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!sjl
From: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac
Subject: User Interface Consistency
Message-ID: <2077@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 17:53:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.2077
Posted: Thu Oct  3 17:53:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 07:11:39 EDT
Followup-To: net.micro
Distribution: net
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.micro:12226 net.micro.amiga:309 net.micro.atari:1266 net.micro.mac:2841

There has been a fair amount of discussion about the relative merits
of the Amiga, ST520, and the Mac.  However, little of it has covered
what I consider to be a fundmental issue - user interface consistency.

One of the most important aspects of the Macintosh is the predictable
nature of the user interface presented by applications.  I own almost
all of the Microsoft products (Multiplan, Chart, Word, File, and as of
yesterday Excel), MacDraw, MacProject, MacTerminal, MacPascal, Mac C 4.0
(Consulair's fine C compiler), and I have more Public Domain packages
than I know what to do with.  With some relatively minor exceptions they
all follow the user interface guidelines that Apple established.  This
means that I can transfer between applications without having to learn
a completely new set of commands or conventions.

I do not plan to discuss the wisdom of the user interface that Apple
choose, but I do believe that this uniformity is vital.  It allows me
to become productive with a new piece of software in a fraction of the
time that is needed on other systems.

Now coming back to the Amiga and the ST520.  What will the software for
these machines look like when it is available?  I do not doubt that they
currently offer more hardware bang for the buck than the Macintosh.  I
also do not fault them for having a less mature set of applications -
they are, after all, much newer.  However, I am concerned that they may
never offer the kind of environment that the Macintosh now offers.

I see no sign of Atari or Commodore making a vigorous commitment to a
uniform interface.  When the Mac was released Apple provided MacWrite
and MacPaint.  These programs, while not perfect, provided a very good
example of how the interface was meant to be done.  To the best of my
knowledge no such examples exist for the ST520.  As the Amiga is not
yet available I cannot determine what it will provide.  Unfortunately,
I have heard comments attributed to the Amiga designers indicating that
they are not in favor of a standard user interface.

On the basis of the reasoning above I continue to recommend that friends
buy the Macintosh rather than the ST520 or the Amiga.  Comments from
other users of the net would be welcome.

Sorry for the cross posting, but it seemed necessary to reach those who
might be interested.  I have included a Followup-To line directing
discussion to net.micro, as this appears to be the correct place for
general discussion of the issues I have raised.
-- 
Stephen J. Langdon                  ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl

[ The article above is not an official statement from any organization
  in the known universe. ]


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com