NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/16406

Text File | 1992-09-11 | 6.2 KB | 136 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!convex!ewright
From: [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:32:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <92239      <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>      <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>    <[e-mail]> <922 <ajross.715985399@husc10> <[e-mail]> <jochenw.716044100@akela> <[e-mail]> <jochenw.716212015@ikki>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 120

In <jochenw.716212015@ikki> [e-mail] (Jochen Wolters) writes:

>>Yes, I can.  All I need to do is sit down with a user and a stopwatch.

>  This might in fact be true if that user has never used the machine
>in question before. But as soon as you got used to whatever interface
>you are using, it depends on what you got used to, right?

No, it doesn't.  This is true whether you're comparing novice users
or users who have used the machine a thousand times.

>If, for example, a die-hard UNIX user would sit down at a Mac... He
>cannot use "instinctive" actions that would come naturally when using
>a CLI.

There are no instintive actions involved in using a CLI.  Pointing
at something is an instinctive reaction.  Even animals can do it.
(Proof: Some researchers have written a couple of Macintosh
applications, called KokoPaint and KokoWrite, for use by gorillas
in animal-communications experiments.)  Composing a command-line
takes place at a completely different level of the brain.  It is
a more "difficult" brain task.  To put it into computer terms, it
uses more brain cycles.  Paradoxically enough, some people have
fallen back on the argument that graphic interfaces are inferior
because they use more machine CPU cycles, but never consider the
amount of work that the brain has to do.  Apparently, they believe
the computer's CPU time is more valuable than their own!


>  I do agree that a GUI may be superior over (word?) a CLI for a beginner.
>But what do you do if s/he doesn't like the look and feel? He might never
>find out about that ease of use and consistency of the interface, if
>he doesn't want to use it due to simply feeling uncomfortable.

And if a user believes that the Yugo is the greatest car in the
world and refuses to test-drive another car, he may always believe
that.  So what?


>>Which is why you guys are spending so much time trying to tell
>>us that "MACS COST TOO MUCH," right?

>  Maybe you have a reading problem, but if you (try to) read that paragraph
>again,

Apparently I can read better than you can.  I can even read the
subject line of this note stream, which is Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!).

>Maybe your reaction only proves that you're not actually interested
>in discussing the topic "GUI vs. CLI" after all, but prefer to happily
>flame away :-(

Again, read the subject line.  It will tell you the topic
we are discussing.


>>No.  The fact that actual measurements show that CLIs are
>>slower means that they are inferior.

>  The fact that my Bronco II is far slower than a BMW 750i
>doesn't mean that it is inferior at all! Just try to drive
>through a mud bog with that BMW 750i and you'll see that
>speed isn't everything!

Bad anology.  The Bronco II has the advantage of being
much faster than the BMW under certain conditions (boggy
mud).  The CLI does not have the advantage of being faster
under any conditions.


>  Every computer has an interface. The acronym GUI doesn't
>have anything to do with importace, it just points out that
>we're dealing with a GRAPHICAL interface in contrast to a
>simple TEXT driven one. That's all.

The word "Macintosh" also tells you that we're dealing
with a graphical interface.  It has the advantage of
being a real, English-language word instead of geekspeak
jargon.  GUI ("gooey") is a term that people working on
other graphical interfaces invented to slime the Macintosh
by lumping it in with their systems.  ("See, they're all the
same, really -- they're all just GUIs.")  Of course, this
ignores the fact that the Macintosh, unlike Windows, etc.,
is not just a graphical interface but a graphical *operating
system*.


>  No, in other words it would say: who gives a damn about the scientific
>facts if s/he's happy (and productive!) with what s/he's got!

Again, read the subject line.  This entire notes stream was started
by people who said that users should not buy Macintoshes even if
they are happy and productive with them because "Macs cost too much."
So, right back at you, guy?  Why shouldn't people be able to use
Macintoshes if the facts show that the Macintosh interface is much
more productive and the user is happy with it?


>  *sigh* Guess at what type of computer I'm sitting at the time. (Hint:
>it says SPARC on the name tag) I know the command "find" and if you're
>used to using it you simply remember the options you need and off you
>go. *Flaming_Back* I'd love to see you dealing with a unix machine. :))))

Oh, dear, your flame thrower has just blown up in your face.
Just what  type of machine do you think I'm writing this from?
Perhaps, before you try to tell people something about how easy
UNIX or MS-DOS or Windows is, you should make sure you aren't
talking to someone who can actually test your claims.


>  Simple question, simple answer: because that s*cker Bush still
>believes that the USofA are the police of the world and that it is
>kind of fun to play cowboy and fool around with state-of-the-art
>weapons. Remember Iraq?

Yeah, my heart really bleeds for Iraq.  Sounds like you believe
that Germany (or maybe just you, personally) should be the policeman
of the world, telling other countries who their leaders should be.
Remember what happened to the last German who got that idea.