Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvlx!tay
From: tay@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Mike Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: User interface(was Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!)
Message-ID: <101080012@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com>
Date: 26 Dec 89 21:28:26 GMT
References: <14969@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Planet X
Lines: 51

>   Here is the point again, why are people building XWindow, *View..etc on
> it?  If the innard of UNIX is so intuitive, why bother with these 
> windowing systems?

I think that one of the major advantages that gets overlooked by those who
are not accustomed to using X Window Systems is that they provide a standard
protocol for displaying an application over the network.

I have the opportunity to see the importance of this every day.  For instance,
my company is currently marketing a not yet released software product to a 
certain customer who has a very large installation of competitor's platforms.
The problem is that although the customer sees the product as something they
would like very much, we will not be able to support the software on our
competitor's platforms in the short term.

The solution is that since both our platforms and our competitors support
X Window Systems, the end-user who needs to use the software execute the
binary on our platform and have it displayed on any platform that supports
X Window Systems.  So, the advantage of owning a system that supports 
X Window Systems is having a network transparent windowing system.  The
GUI is another issue.

Motif, Open Look, *View, etc, are all toolkits, which are used on the X
Window System to provide application developers with a means for providing
some standard GUI versus writing your code at the X Window System protocol
level.  If Apple chose to, they could provide a toolkit compatible with the
Mac look and feel.  As I understand, Apple IS working at providing X on the
Mac, but, I will admit that I am new to this notes group and mostly ignorant
about what Apple is doing with the Mac.  I can say that the Mac interface
is at this moment in time, probably the most intuitive, but this is no
reason for Apple to sit content.  There is more to a computer than the look
and feel of it's user interface, as we will certainly see in the '90's.

As far as the terminal-based vs. graphical-based interface discussion, this
is how it is:  Terminal-based (keyboard-only) applications are generally less 
user friendly and generally more flexible.  Graphical-based (mouse and 
keyboard) are generally more user friendly and generally less flexible.

Although I have not used a Mac intensively, it seems that it is generally
targeted for the user who prefers to know as little as possible about the
computer and just wants to get some work done.  While Apple has made landmark
progress in the usability of computers, the Mac interface *is not* the
ultimate.  For the time being, if Apple wishes to extend it's Mac target
market, it will have to consider the lack of a terminal-based interface as
a defect.  I find it hard to believe that such an interface would be 
that technically difficult to achieve if you look at what people really 
need, although, far be it from me to espouse what people need, but I would
contend that a little more flexibility in the Mac environment wouldn't hurt.


Mike "Sold on X" Taylor