From: charon@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Message-ID: <69229@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 27 Mar 92 12:12:05 GMT
Sender: root@ut-emx.uucp
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 47
Why must Mac make "ease of use" = "lack of freedom". Ok, all the reuesters,
and menus, and everything else are the same?!? What if that is an innefifient
way to do things for an app -- should it stay in Macs poor outdated OS mold
or branch in a new (more user friendly for its purpose) structure?
The mac answer -- stay braindead and have that auto-format tiny app look like
a DTP instead of just opening an icon to have disks dropped on.
And second -- *you cant type*. Thats all you need. What self respecting
computer *user* would use an OS that doesnt even let you type? I think the
user friendlyness is a good option for the novice. But you tell me which is
more *procudtive* (faster).
"lz a dh0:files/docs/* df0:StorageDocs" [dh0 is harddisk and df0 is floppy]
[for the uninitiated]
OR
"click util drawer/click packing util Stuffit/click into dh0/click into
files/into docs/highlight all the docs/click destination df0 etc"
My Amiga is the best of both. I started with icons etc with an occasional
shell visit. Now I find you can get SOOO much more done by keeping a shell
open in the lower corner of you *virtual bench* while using you icons for
everything else. You can't get much more *productive* than that.
For me, an OS is about productivity. And the Mac OS just doesn't give you
that.
ONE MORE THING: For those of you that think the mac has *any* video capability
or that the Quadra is worth anythign more that a doorstop for graphics I must
tell you. I visited le ol microcenter today :) again, just to make sure.
Opened a Quicktime anim. Opened it to full screen (256 colors) and it was *so*
slow. Visible line of refresh comming down about every second. You could
forget about multitasking *anything*. Thats one hell of a productive OS --
especially for graphics. (you guys were the ones that said Mac apps = mac OS,
not me). On my 3000 I have no problem downloaing at 14.4k and rendering and
doing system maintenance from a shell (thats the nasty typing thing).
Ive said it before and Ill say it again. What you can do in an hour on a Quadra
in an hour I can do on my A3000 in less than half the time. Ill let you challenge
me on this. Lets make the first prereq. a 14.4 download since Im always doing
one of those :)
Ciao...
--
WOW! I can use a toaster with my MAC/IBM. Thats great!
"See, I told you the Toaster was compatable...ha!"
Sorta like buying a "ferrari box" and tying your Yugo to it and saying
"I told you it just needed a little work...ha!"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Message-ID: <h_qtrsm@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: jec316.its.rpi.edu
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Information Technology Services, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute.
References: <69229@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 04:01:41 GMT
Lines: 233
In article <69229@ut-emx.uucp>, charon@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:
|>
|> Why must Mac make "ease of use" = "lack of freedom". Ok, all the reuesters,
|> and menus, and everything else are the same?!? What if that is an innefifient
|> way to do things for an app -- should it stay in Macs poor outdated OS mold
|> or branch in a new (more user friendly for its purpose) structure?
The MacOS user interface has been evolving over time, although the changes
have not been radical they HAVE BEEN THERE.
An exaple: the standard file dialog. With the introduction of System 7
[a goldmine of user interface enhancements, this, tho you may argue that
it STILL sucks] the standard file dialog depicts all mounted volues as part
off one el big heirarchy. That is, the only "root" is teh Desktop. You get
into a particlar disk by double clicking it. (or a number of other things,
if you like). I don't remeber them offhand (blah) but there are also
keyboard shortcuts for jumping disk-to-disk. [that is, skipping the desktop]
I could dig up other enhancements, but why waste the bandwidth?
The point is that MacOS apps all stay consistent with each other because
they have a Standard User Interface. This interface is improved by
Apple over time, but the improvement are subtle [trans- you gotta read
the user interface guidelines to know about them]
If you think the MacOSs approach to the user interface is just totally wrong,
go use an Amiga! [so there!] But I assure you that most Mac users like it
very much. It is often a big part of the reason to buy a Macintosh.
|> The mac answer -- stay braindead and have that auto-format tiny app look like
|> a DTP instead of just opening an icon to have disks dropped on.
Huh? Pardon moi but what do you mean. Im so confused... auto-format
tiny app? DTP? opening an icon? <whimper>
|> And second -- *you cant type*. Thats all you need. What self respecting
|> computer *user* would use an OS that doesnt even let you type? I think the
|> user friendlyness is a good option for the novice. But you tell me which is
|> more *procudtive* (faster).
Oh my, you mean that nice expensive keyboard is nothing but a hood ornament!
WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY TELL ME! ARGH! [note DRIPPING sarcasm]
You probably are thinking of a command line interface. If so, plese say
so. The MacOS has lots of keyboard shortcuts, but that's not the same
thing and I do know it.
CLIs do have one serious advantage. You can write script files (or batch
files or WHATEVER you wanna call 'em). This is a nice feature that Apple
promiced some time ago and has never delivered. Boo, hiss! I want it!
however, if Apple does deliver on its promice the scripting language
will have the nice ability to control apps on teh fly (give the orders
while they are running, and very complex ones too).
But this is all just vaporware now, and so does not count. [well,
you could go out and BUY this technology from a 3d party, but its
not a standard feature]
|>
|> "lz a dh0:files/docs/* df0:StorageDocs" [dh0 is harddisk and df0 is floppy]
|> [for the uninitiated]
|> OR
|> "click util drawer/click packing util Stuffit/click into dh0/click into
|> files/into docs/highlight all the docs/click destination df0 etc"
|>
My gues sis that you are uncompressing some files? If this is what you are
doing, here's how I'd do it:
Drag the icon for the file(s) to unstuff onto the "DownLine" icon [a
decompression utility that support this, which is why I use it]
Go do something else while it unstuffs the files automatically.
Yes, you can use the Mac. It multitasks. Some programs actually DO that.
Its not done FOR the programs (alas), but some programs let the rest of the
system have time. This is one. Sure wish more did. This one multitasks
very smoothly too, tho not all apps can claim this.
Incidentally, this senario assumes you have downline sitting on the desktop
somewhere. I don't, I have it in my apple menu. I can still do this, because
I have a little utiltiy thingumabob that lets me drop thing on items in the
Apple menu. However this is not a standard feature, so I guess it doesn't count.
You may ask: "is this 'faster'"; well for ME it is because I don't have to
go looking for the file names. And since I use LONG file times, I also
do not have to type it in. (my Hard drive fer instance is "Dan's IIcx Hard Disk")
I never ever have to type these (once they are set up), so there's no
problem with having long file names. There is an advantage to having
long file names however- u do not have to remeber what dh0 is. Or,
more importantly what (as in which floppy) df0 is.
However, it would not be faster for me if I was not adept with the mouse.
Would that command be faster for you if you were not adept with the keyboard?
I'd be surprised.
I would like to point out that for ME at least, its rather faster and
less error prone to just drag the file(s) I want to where I want it
than to type in commands. This is because I do not have to type in the
name, or worry about getting it right. Or worry about the current
directory. [best point- typos are a non-issue! yay!]
|> My Amiga is the best of both. I started with icons etc with an occasional
|> shell visit. Now I find you can get SOOO much more done by keeping a shell
|> open in the lower corner of you *virtual bench* while using you icons for
|> everything else. You can't get much more *productive* than that.
|> For me, an OS is about productivity. And the Mac OS just doesn't give you
|> that.
|>
Well, maybe it doesn't give *YOU* productivity, but it does give *ME*
productivity. Honest, honest :) Would I lie?
I don't know that much about the Amige cli and workbench combo, so if I may
be permitted to diverge a bit, I'll just say that I find the Mac Finder
much faster to manipulate the the Unix Bourne Shell. I use said shell
on a SPARCstation IPC running X-Windows & TWM. So I can have a shell
window open, plus my choice of file managers. Unfortunately, NONE of the
availiable File Managers is even CLOSE to the Finder- they are all slow and
short on features.
Whats worse is that they are poorly integrated. That's just cuz Unix was
designed around a CLI. I presume the Amiga (which was not, right?) does not
have this problem.
It may nonetheless be that the Amiga IS the best of both world. I do not
know enough to judge this. You don't seem to either. I think we'd have to
compare notes just to determine this issue between the Mac and the Amiga.
|> ONE MORE THING: For those of you that think the mac has *any* video capability
|> or that the Quadra is worth anythign more that a doorstop for graphics I must
|> tell you. I visited le ol microcenter today :) again, just to make sure.
|> Opened a Quicktime anim. Opened it to full screen (256 colors) and it was *so*
|> slow. Visible line of refresh comming down about every second. You could
|> forget about multitasking *anything*. Thats one hell of a productive OS --
|> especially for graphics. (you guys were the ones that said Mac apps = mac OS,
|> not me).
Perhaps it has not occured to you to think what you are asking the MacOS
to do for you, when you play that movie like that. This is probably because the
MacOS is designed specifically to keep you from having to think about such
details. That's part of the user-friendly business, which as you can see has
its disadvantages.
From what I have seen of the Amiga (rather limited) its animations work by
taking over the screen, switching to whatever video mode fits and blasting
stuff onto the screen. If I am wrong, please correct me!
The MacOS is doing this:
(1) decompressing the image [its JPEG compressed in this case]
(2) streeeeeching everything out to full screen sized. Mind you, if you just
blew it up ALL the way, it wont be able to do any nifty optimizations.
Next time (a) don't strech or (b) hold down the option key so it will
only grow to "nice" widths. At these "nice" widths the scaler has cool
optimizations working for it, and its rather faster. Not as fast as
unscaled, tho. Also, if you did what I think you did, you also changed
the aspect ratio of the silly thing. That slows it down even more.
(3) dithering from whatever the thing was recorded in down to 8 bits.
I understand 16 bits per pixel is the usual. BTW, it is dithering
the streched image. So it has a big (screen sized) picture to dither.
It must do all this in real time, for each frame. And possibly also sound.
And it has to keep them in synch. And if you move annother window on top of
the movie, it has to CLIP the movie so that it doesn't overwrite the window
on top of it. [I mention this because it probable happened while you were
trying to make it multitask]
On the bright side, it does cashe this stuff to RAM. But the uncompressed,
screched out, dithered imaged you were producing must have been pretty
big. I doubt many would fit.
If you want it to be even slower, you could try running it in 16-color
mode [its not very good at dithering this, I'm afraid]. Or how bout splitting
it between two monitors?
Basically, you are asking it to do a lot more work than you think you are
asking it to do. The MacOS just tries to hide all this pesky detail I just
described from you. In this case, it didn't hide it very well did it?
BTW I do agree Mac apps= Mac OS, to a large extent anyway.
one last incidental point. The reason mac-heads are oooohing and aaahing
over teh Quadras video is because they have built-in 24 bit color support.
You know, like the toaster but without the export-to-real-video ability, or
the cool software. Alas, you need to go out and buy some extra video-ram for
this to work.
It alledged (by Apple) to be very fast. But then, what'd ya think they alledge,
that it's slug-like? :)
|> On my 3000 I have no problem downloaing at 14.4k and rendering and
|> doing system maintenance from a shell (thats the nasty typing thing).
|>
I'll take you word for this! :)
|> Ive said it before and Ill say it again. What you can do in an hour on a
|> Quadra
|> in an hour I can do on my A3000 in less than half the time.
Now, doesn't this depend what you are doing? Or do you claim to have
comparitively tested all the apps out for the Mac vs those for the Amiga?
If not, I'd say you wouldn't know. But don't worry, neither do I.
|> Ill let you
|> challenge me on this. Lets make the first prereq. a 14.4 download since Im
|> always doing one of those :)
|>
Hey, if you'll donate the modem and software! :)
|> Ciao...
|>
Tah tah.
|>
|> --
|> WOW! I can use a toaster with my MAC/IBM. Thats great!
|> "See, I told you the Toaster was compatable...ha!"
|>
|> Sorta like buying a "ferrari box" and tying your Yugo to it and saying
|> "I told you it just needed a little work...ha!"
<grin> I like the analogy. I'd buy the idea more easily if the Toaster was
standard equipment on the Amiga.
--
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0