Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!ncsuvx!news
From: rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Market Research
Message-ID: <1989Dec18.185131.3160@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 89 18:51:31 GMT
References: <14289.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle>
Reply-To: rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher)
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 48

In article <14289.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle> mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.COM (Mark Munz) writes:
>In-Reply-To: message from rnf@shumv1.uucp
>
>
>Adding an "easy interface" would kill the program from day one! Plus,
>you lose a nice hunk of speed that you'd gain from using the 816 the
>way it should be used!!

The interface has very little to do with the speed of the program.  It
will not affect search and sort algorithms, disk access, etc.  The interface
only determines how the program will present data to the user.  Quick text
handling can be done in the graphics interface (check out the word processor
in AWGS).  Many of the slow programs you see are the result of programmer
inexperience with the toolbox, as they become more familiar with it their
code gets faster.  Sure a text oriented system will always draw to the screen
faster but you lose fonts, DA's etc.  With system 5.0 you are waiting less
anyway.  The text screen may be five times faster but what's the difference to
the user between a .1 sec wait and a .5 sec wait?  Since a disk oriented 
database (a powerful database would have to be disk oriented) is going to be 
speed limited by disk searches, the interface won't matter.

BTW who decides how the '816 "should be used"?

>
>Doesn't anybody use Text based programs anymore??  I mean, graphics are
>nice, but come on, it slows down most of my work (and I've got a TWGS,
>and Hard Drive).

I you consider the time it takes to manipulate the menu system on text sys-
tems I think you'd find that the windowing interface is about as fast, not
to mention easier.  Apple did a fascinating study on this and found that the
perceived speed of the interface was slower, but the actual speed was the same
or faster because the "intellectual involvement" of the user was much less
with the windowing interface, ie using the mouse required only low level motor
control functions of the brain, menu interfaces require a high degree of
operator concentration to remember commands, move to menu selections etc.
That forces the operator to put brain power into operating the computer that 
should be going into the task at hand.  Because the operator could operate the
machine almost unconsciously, they perceived time lags to be greater than they
actually were in comparison to other interfaces.

Some people like text interfaces, but maybe nobody uses "text interfaces 
anymore" because they are a pain for people that aren't like us in that
they don't use computers all day.  It's not their job to remember a lot
of commands or syntax nuances, that's what programmers get paid for.

Rick Fincher
rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu