Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!akgua!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!wucs!sbc
From: sbc@wucs.UUCP (Steve Cousins)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
Message-ID: <1765@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 10:42:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: wucs.1765
Posted: Fri Sep 12 10:42:58 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 21:33:31 EDT
References: <7608@tekecs.UUCP> <3500016@uiucdcsp> <322@mit-amt.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: sbc@wucs.UUCP (Steve Cousins)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis
Lines: 24

In article <322@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> mob@mit-amt.UUCP writes:
>... It  is useful and
>manipulable but didn't look  intended to be  programmed by anyone just
>off the street.   If you want  to  learn the  internals  of  the  user
>interface, _then_ i'll grant you four days (and more).
>
>--Mario O. Bourgoin

I think you could argue that *no* machine (AI or otherwise) can be programmed
by anyone just off the street :-).  I haven't used the Symbolics, but my
view of the Dandelion has changed drastically since taking a course on it
by Xerox.  The interface is very powerful and well-integrated, but the
"infant mortality curve" (the time to get good enough not to crash the
machines) is somewhat high.  [Disclaimer:  These machines are supposed to
be much better when networked than stand-alone.  My changein attitude
occurred just as we got ours on the network, and I'm not sure how much
to attribute to the class, and how much to attribute to the network].

I like the Dandelion now, but the first 4 days did not give me a good 
impression of the machine.  There is a lot to say about learning a new machine
from a guru...

Steve Cousins			...ihnp4!wucs!sbc or sbc@wucs.UUCP
Washington University