Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!hub!6600pete From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac90 Message-ID: <3447@hub.UUCP> Date: 2 Jan 90 17:45:42 GMT References: <1990Jan2.124033.6783@lth.se> Sender: news@hub.UUCP Lines: 215 From article <1990Jan2.124033.6783@lth.se>, by peterm@dna.lth.se (Peter M|ller): > What do I want to see in the Macintosh of the 90's? > That question was adressed under the subject:"What do I want to se in > the Apple of the 90's" but became a war between Mac, NeXT and MS-DOS > almost immidiatly. I want a constructive debate, so if you want to > throw napalm over somebody, *DO NOT DO IT UNDER THIS SUBJECT*!!! [ throwing napalm over Peter... ] :-) > it's very hard to include DMA Doesn't really fit into the memory management model. DMA wants a non-relocatable block. Those are possible, of course, but they thwart much of the utility of the Memory Manager. DMA becomes less and less important as the rest of the machine speeds up... or are people really sold on it? > blitter, As said in previous postings, Apple has people working on it. The problem is that no currently feasible graphics cop can handle Mac's complex region calculation. Imagine how expensive a chip would have to be if it handled MacPaint's lasso in hardware! Apparently, though, the technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper. > co-processors for different tasks Like what else besides a blitter? I'm curious. > - When the Mac first saw the ligth of day, AppleTalk was exiting. Today > it is tiresome, very tiresome. Why not include ethertalk?? You answer this one yourself: > Ethernet is becomming slower and slower (as people gets > connected as well as compared to fiber-optics), I think it's a mistake to include networking on the motherboard. I think it should be dirt cheap, because it's near absolutely essential. But I hate the idea of dead iron in my machine. It would be like buying a '386sx instead of a fast '286. Ick! What I would like to see for networking from Apple is a dirt cheap EtherNet SCSI box with AppleTalk connections in addition to its SCSI connection. Then at least one machine (mine!) could have ridculously fast networking and the rest of the machines on the net could have reasonably fast networking. This, of course, assumes that you wouldn't use Ether for Mac-to-Mac networking. By the time third parties supported Ether, fiber optics'd be here. > this would make the Mac much more interesting for bigger companies > and Universities. Well, probably. But so would stamping "IBM" on the side of it. Are you talking about improvements to the Mac, here, or marketing strategies? > - Include a termoelement-controlled fan to avoid unnecessery noice. I STILL haven't noticed what all the fan noise hoopla is about. Of course, I'm a converted PC geek, so it's understandable. > If a user like the X-Windows style of windows becomming active just > by pulling the mouse inside them - then let them have it! Ack. This is a large-scale OS modification. And it breaks all applications which currently do pointer management. Are you sure you want this option? > If the user like a three-button mouse - not just let him have it, also > give him the support to send specific tasks to different buttons (ie > popup-menu on the rigth button etc.). So you want this bit under the control of the OS? Applications written for three-button mice would be very frustrating to the one-button user, and I think they would take a good swipe at all the consistency good-will Mac has going for it. > OK, I know it would be a big break in the Macintosh conformity, but > the Mac will always be delivered with the one-button mouse and > standard user-interface-look, right? I dunno. It's your idea! :-) I think it's a fine suggestion, assuming applications can't see the second and third buttons. Maybe for System 8.0 the will be software that interrogates the mouse to see how many buttons it has. But apps still shouldn't know, because it would confuse the naive. > Why shouldn't I be able to customize my Mac and its interface? I > already do that with various INIT's etc., but that requires me to > know that those INIT's exist and be able to get them, not "macish"! Yes, but what's the alternative, include them on System distribution disks? Then you have to add four tons of documentation on configuring them, and that assaults Mac's ease-of-installation. > - Develop and support a sort of Command Line Interface... > I think it is a real interesting challenge to develop > such an environment giving it the look and ease of Macintosh OK, this is the first time I've seen this suggestion without an accompanying comment like "like DOS" or "like UNIX", and I'm glad to see it. And I don't see why it can't be done. Have you seen the way MPW does it? The big problem with it, of course, is that it violates the Mac gestalt. Sitting here, I can't imagine what I would want to do with it. Probably I'd end up using filters and pipe-able things with text files. But I would much rather have FKEYs for those anyway. (FKEYs are SOOO easy to write, folks; all we need is something like QuicKeys to assign them to something other than cmd-shift-number. I have TONS of FKEYs, much more than 6, called from QuicKeys. Probably I should write an FKEY that lists all your FKEYs, regardless of ID, and lets you run them; probably there already is one.) > This would also satisfy > many hary-core users who don't feel comfortable unless they have a > hex- display monitoring the state of the computer.(*no* flame). Yes, but you're talking about marketing again... > Include some of the most popular INIT's in the System, such as: > * Screensaver (a la "Dimmer", which does the job without fuss) A dozen companies lose a product. Or do you suggest making the one in the System lame enough that people will turn it off and use the third party products anyway? How about this: warn the screen-saver developers this is happening, and give them toolkits so they can convert to AfterDark style screen-savers... wait, that kills AfterDark, doesn't it... Hmmm. > * Command-keys (like "Commander Keys") which allows you to access a dialog > box via the first key in the name of the button you want to click in. (ie. > "p" for "Previous" etc.) This is better. Mark 3 Software will be displeased, but that's only _one_ company. However, there are other problems. Commander Dialog introduces an element of inconsistency. Do keys go to buttons or do they go to editText items? I know there's a rule. But deciding when the rule applies is, well, a decision. *I'm* not confused, but I shudder when I think of users who can't figure out how buttons work in the first place. (Gads, if they were chained to a CLI, they'd just learn their one incantation for their app, and then they'd be even _more_ ignorant, so I suppose I should be grateful.) > * SFVol-INIT (popup menu of disks in SFDialog box) Check out Boomerang. I bet Ray Lau doesn't even use SFVol any more. > * SFScroll-INIT (remember the scroll-position in SFDialog box) Boomerang does this, too. Basically, I think Standard File needs to be reworked. And we hear rumors out of Apple from time to time that it is being reworked. Something about unifying Standard File and the Desktop metaphor through MultiFinder. Sounds good to me... > * Quickeys.(Makromaker). A true masterpiece, but shouldn't that be > included in the OS?? But please add the ability to record sequences as a > complement to build them. Well, MacroMaker IS in the OS. Or at least it is distributed with the OS. I think it will evolve nicely. QuicKeys is still much better, but... > * PopUp Menu (Popup menu anywhere on the screen) Maybe in conjunction with the second or third button on your three-button mouse. But I don't like the pop-up idea. Perhaps if you dumped the menu bar and did this instead, it might make sense. But I don't like the idea of having two places where you can get menus. I'm afraid the naive user will suspect that there is something different about the two places, which ruins the Mac gestalt. > * Rip-off menus supported everywhere It'll be interesting to see how this is resolved with your Popup idea. Seems like you ought to be able to have one but not both. I haven't actually worked with tear-off's enough to say whether I like them, but I suspect my ultimate reaction will be similar to my reaction about Popups from the desktop. > - PRICE. Please don't charge $$$$$ just becouse there are people who can > pay. I don't want to pay the developing costs of a program, I want to > pay what it is worth. A good program could cost becouse it is good Agreed. But third party developers are going to charge whatever they can. Period. And I don't begrudge them it. (That's how capitalism works. Ugly, innit?) > I would like to buy MS Word, becouse I like it... But the price gives me > no alternatives but use a pirat-copy. Shame on me. I hear Microsoft/Europe knocking at Peter's door... > (This is probably most acute in Europe. Almost all computer-related > stuff here is twice as expensive as in the US. Why? I dunno. U.S. technology export tarriffs? I wouldn't be surprised. But is that really justification for piracy? I'm not going to sit here and rail at you for being a pirate, but I think high European prices is a pretty lame excuse. > - Rewrite "Inside Macintosh" so that it includes all Technical Notes > and is up to date. Everybody and his brother agree with you. > - I am sick and tired of this platinum-computer-gray. I want my apple > in apple-tree! Or at least in white, black, red or slate-gray! Give *us* > the chance to choose! PAINT the mother. There are services here in the US that do it for you... :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills