Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!cod!rupp
From: rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple's commitment
Message-ID: <1236@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 3 Oct 88 17:44:23 GMT
References: <8809201111.aa15129@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> <8XD6mly00VA-AUlUgI@andrew.cmu.edu> <8604@smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 22


  In article <8604@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
  >Another serious error on Apple's part is the apparent corporate commitment
  >to the Macintosh desktop as the ideal user interface.  I won't give detailed
  >
  >
  >  The single biggest problem is that it is too
  >difficult to provide a totally different interface that better suits a
  >particular application; 
  
Whether one agrees with them or not, it is probably appropriate to keep in mind
that the folks at Apple specifically wanted a common user interface when they
created the Macintosh.  Personally, I feel that that is a good idea.  While
different applications will inevitably differ somewhat in "look and feel" due
to their different functions, it is very nice to have at least a minimum
common denominator that ties all Mac programs together.  That is one of the
big drawbacks to MS-DOS software in my opinion.  When I first encountered the GS
I had very little trouble using the GS' user interface because it so closely
resembled the Mac's.  And what trouble I did have could be attributed to
*differences* in the two interfaces.

Bill