Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Bennetts family
<flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1n9h7tsckbf6fbj7f...@4ax.com...
> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
Probably the only thing they have done to advance the world of computers
(and full credit to them, they did get computers out into the home).
> Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
> right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
> was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
> of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
> and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
> particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite.
> My kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and
> so forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
WMP7 is a bloated turdpile. On my last Windows install I tried it, and got
sick of it very quickly, and I returned CD playing duties to the basic,
standard Windows CD Player. CDDB sucks. This install, I left Media Player at
6.3/4. Much better, and leaner.
> Now contrast this with Linux XMMS, about the best player (and that's
> all it does) that Linux has to offer.
> Take a good look at how boxy and shitty it looks.
> Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even read the
> lettering.
Ever seen WinAmp, which is the thing XMMS clones off? Not particularly
bright, either.
> This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
> about the user and putting some fun in computers.
MP7 is distracting and a waste.
> Linux cares about.......? Well who even knows....
Programmers, and anyone else who wants to get work done (whatever that work
is).
--Chris
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>
><flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1n9h7tsckbf6fbj7f...@4ax.com...
>> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>
>Probably the only thing they have done to advance the world of computers
>(and full credit to them, they did get computers out into the home).
Woz did much more to achieve that than Microsoft did, as did
Phoenix and Compaq. Microsoft is just good at taking other
people's credit.
[deletia]
>> Take a good look at how boxy and shitty it looks.
>> Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even read the
>> lettering.
>
Then go to WinAmp.com and download some better ones.
>Ever seen WinAmp, which is the thing XMMS clones off? Not particularly
>bright, either.
FreeAmp is much better in this respect. Themes aren't just a
color scheme, they change the whole look and feel of the
interface and get away from the crampedness which is the
Winamp style.
>
>> This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
>> about the user and putting some fun in computers.
No, they just the credit for others' ideas and you were
happy to give it to them...
>
>MP7 is distracting and a waste.
[deletia]
freeamp and gqmpeg can be just as distracting.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
.
> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
than windows, and much easier to learn.
> Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
I'll just email IBM, Bell Labs, Caltech and the NSA and let them know.
-----.
Martin Eden
> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
No question that is true.
>
> Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
>
If you say so.
> As an example, take the latest Windows Media Player which is V7.x.
> After delaying my upgrade til MS got the bugs out, which have all been
> fixed, I finally got around to downloading and using it.
>
> Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
> right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
> was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
> of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
> and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
> particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite.
> My kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and
> so forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
>
You *must* be kidding.
Windows Media Player 6 was a very sweet app. I loved it. Windows Media
Player 7 is a horribly buggy piece of shit. Just go search on deja in any
of the Windows groups in the era right after it's release. Registries were
corrupted, drive letters changed, *drives were no longer recognized* and
etc. None of this happened to me, though I wish I could reinstall 6.
This is a general problem Microsoft has. Write a great piece of software,
get lots of 4 star ratings on it, improve it until it can not be improved,
then add everything under the sun to it including the kitchen sink...at
which point it becomes a worthless piece of shit. This is what they have
always done. MS Word used to be a sweet piece of work, the best word
processor _by far_ one could get. In 1997 it became nearly unusable. With
the release of Whistler Windows itself will be either unusable or nearly so.
> Now contrast this with Linux XMMS, about the best player (and that's
> all it does) that Linux has to offer.
> Take a good look at how boxy and shitty it looks.
> Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even read the
> lettering.
>
Ever try Kaiman? Very usable IMO. Go to freshmeat and find one of dozens of
others if XMMS isn't to your liking.
> Boring, not to mention the help system, which you will need because
> this piece of junk is a jumble of controls scattered all over the
> place.
>
> That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure
> out what you need to install and run it.
>
> Nope sorry.
>
> This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
> about the user and putting some fun in computers.
> Linux cares about.......? Well who even knows....
I realize this is going to be lost on you, but here goes: You don't need to
limit yourself to one or the other. Yes, that's right. You can run
both...even from the same machine. There are BootMagic, VMware and many
other resources available. I do it, and wouldn't change it for the world.
HTH.
Ayende Rahien
> After delaying my upgrade til MS got the bugs out, which have all been
> fixed, I finally got around to downloading and using it.
Really? On Win2K, stick a Audio CD to the CD drive, if you aren't admin, WMP
will crash.
Solution, run WMP as admin, let it "know" the CD, then close, and start
playing as normal user, now it will work.
I love 2K & I love windows, but please don't make such outragous statements
on such trivial matters.
Ayende Rahien
"Martin Eden" <m...@f.off> wrote in message
news:gl3e6.677$dX.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> This is a general problem Microsoft has. Write a great piece of software,
> get lots of 4 star ratings on it, improve it until it can not be improved,
> then add everything under the sun to it including the kitchen sink...at
> which point it becomes a worthless piece of shit. This is what they have
> always done. MS Word used to be a sweet piece of work, the best word
> processor _by far_ one could get. In 1997 it became nearly unusable. With
> the release of Whistler Windows itself will be either unusable or nearly
so.
I've heard that IE6 is going to be more consumer friendly, if the trend will
be MSN Explorer, I'm goign to get 98lite.
About Whistler, I'm using it at the moment, and it's very sweat OS. The
changes you are talking about are reversable in about five minutes work, but
so far, I've the new GUI working on two computer which
nearly-computer-illetirate users are using, they like it.
*My* computer has most of those affects turned off.
Now I've to learn how to disconnect a working console session using Whistler
AS, and why VS6 is so slow on Whistler, and I'll be happy.
Aaron R. Kulkis
And HP and Sun.
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Ayende Rahien
"Ayende Rahien" <Ple...@dont.spam> wrote in message
news:95aggn$gbr$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "Martin Eden" <m...@f.off> wrote in message
> news:gl3e6.677$dX.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > This is a general problem Microsoft has. Write a great piece of
software,
> > get lots of 4 star ratings on it, improve it until it can not be
improved,
> > then add everything under the sun to it including the kitchen sink...at
> > which point it becomes a worthless piece of shit. This is what they have
> > always done. MS Word used to be a sweet piece of work, the best word
> > processor _by far_ one could get. In 1997 it became nearly unusable.
With
> > the release of Whistler Windows itself will be either unusable or nearly
> so.
>
> I've heard that IE6 is going to be more consumer friendly, if the trend
will
> be MSN Explorer, I'm goign to get 98lite.
http://x-boxing.dk/images/nyheder/whistler2416.jpg
Big picture, it's a new theme in Whistler2416, this build include IE6 Beta.
I sure hope it's MSN explorer and no the new look of IE6.
Anyone can post a screen shot of IE6?
David Dorward
flatfi...@att.net put fingers to keyboard and produced this:
> Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
> right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
The link to get xmms (on the other hand) is so well hidden. Lets see
shall we. Visit xmms home page. Click download. Click the link for your
system. Gee that was so hard.
And right under the links to the rpms is a link to rpms of some of the
plugins.
> was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
> of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
> and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
> particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite. My
> kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and so
> forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
Frankly I think MP looks awful. Especially compared agained XMMS with the
plugin (who's name I can't be bothered to look up) that lets you use
differenly shaped skins.
> Now contrast this with Linux XMMS, about the best player (and that's all
> it does) that Linux has to offer. Take a good look at how boxy and
> shitty it looks. Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even
> read the lettering.
Boy, skins produced by people for use by themselves and distributed for
free on a site with a HUGE index of them contain a lot that are not very
good. Gosh! There are plenty of nice skins, you just need to spend a
little time looking, or use a WinAMP skin (they are compatable), or
create your own.
> Boring, not to mention the help system, which you will need because this
> piece of junk is a jumble of controls scattered all over the place.
It has a help system? I hadn't noticed, I've never needed it.
> That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure out
> what you need to install and run it.
No, just click on the link for the rpm file in the download section.
> This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
> about the user and putting some fun in computers. Linux cares
Microsoft cares about making money. MP7 has intergrated support for
portable devices which all appear to run WinCE (or did the last time I
checked), no support for RIO at all so I get a large and useless waste of
screen space.
> about.......? Well who even knows....
Linux doesn't care about anything. Linux is not a company or a person, it
is a piece of software.
Finally, I think it is silly to try to compare a media player created by
a third party with a media player created by an oporating (and everything
else it seems) system vender and use it to judge the relitive merits of
the two OSs.
Charlie Ebert
flatfi...@att.net wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:53:26 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <Ple...@dont.spam>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Really? On Win2K, stick a Audio CD to the CD drive, if you aren't admin, WMP
>>will crash.
>
>and SP1.
>
>
>>Solution, run WMP as admin, let it "know" the CD, then close, and start
>>playing as normal user, now it will work.
>
>
>>I love 2K & I love windows, but please don't make such outragous statements
>>on such trivial matters.
>
>Non trivial to a musician,
>
When the trolls eat the trolls, the Tuxedo god will rise from the
sea and expose his microhammer.
Charlie
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:53:26 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <Ple...@dont.spam>
> wrote:
>
> >will crash.
>
that's Lose2K, you ninny
>
> >Solution, run WMP as admin, let it "know" the CD, then close, and start
> >playing as normal user, now it will work.
>
> It works fine for me?
>
> >I love 2K & I love windows, but please don't make such outragous statements
> >on such trivial matters.
>
> Trivial to a programmer maybe.
> Non trivial to a musician,
Boooooo fucking hooooo.
Works OK with Linux...but not Lose2K
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
res072bx
software is pure stupidity. I finally got my SuSE Linux 7.0 to work after
fighting with it for about 6 months. It appears a little clunky, but (as
operations go) a little smoother than M$ Windows Me.
I'm running M$ Windows 98SE/ME (full install) on one side and SuSE Linux 7.0
Professional Edition on the other side with Partition Magic / Boot Magic in
the middle. Just checking my hard drive, M$ is taking 4.6 Gb and 48
programs, while Linux is taking 3.9 Gb with 1048 programs. What's the
difference? Windows seems to be a "plug and pray" system with all the fancy
details taken care of at the factory (so the average Joe can use it out of
the box); while Linux takes some tweaking to get going. It's a "no frills"
system. That's probably why it is not prone to crash as much as Windows.
My wife doesn't like the desktop schemes of Linux, but loves Windows clouds.
She dosen't use the machine as much as I do, but teaching her Windows was
easier than Linux.
I'm using Windows Outlook Express for e-mail and newsgroups, until I figure
out Netscape. But accessing the web was the first thing Linux did once
startx was punched in at the prompt.
In short, Linux and Windows are two different operating systems for
computers, just like choclate and vanilla are two different ice cream
flavors. Which flavor is best? It's your choice; but, don't bitch, gripe or
complain if it's concerning a minor piece of software that's bugging you!
SoCal Tom
"David Dorward" <dor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95b1m5$oei$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
David Steinberg
: It seems that on <1n9h7tsckbf6fbj7f...@4ax.com>,
: flatfi...@att.net put fingers to keyboard and produced this:
: > Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
: > right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
: The link to get xmms (on the other hand) is so well hidden. Lets see
: shall we. Visit xmms home page. Click download. Click the link for your
: system. Gee that was so hard.
And because it always bears repeating...
In debian, just type:
"apt-get install xmms"
and it gets downloaded, intsalled, and configured. Windows simply cannot
compete with that kind of ease of use.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
stei...@interchange.ubc.ca _\_v
mitch
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
>> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>
>Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
>than windows, and much easier to learn.
>
Ahem. Clive Sinclair.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
John Travis
:And because it always bears repeating...
:
:In debian, just type:
:
:"apt-get install xmms"
:
:and it gets downloaded, intsalled, and configured. Windows simply cannot
:compete with that kind of ease of use.
LOL. Not to mention all the other stuff you can obtain for it the same way :-)
jt@cs1609-155:~$ apt-cache search xmms
xmms-modplug - ModPlug plugin for XMMS
xmms-cdread - Input plugin for XMMS that reads audio data from CDs
smpeg-xmms - SDL MPEG Player Library - XMMS plugin
xmms-osd-plugin - XMMS plugin using xosd
xmms-dev - XMMS development static library and header files
xmms-status-plugin - Status panel applet for XMMS
libflac-dev - Free Lossless Audio Coder - development
library xmms-volnorm - XMMS plugin that gives all songs the same
volume level xmmsarts - aRts Output plugin for xmms
libflac0 - Free Lossless Audio Coder - runtime library
flac - Free Lossless Audio Coder - command line
tools gkrellmms - GKrellM XMMS Plugin
xine - MPEG, VCD, DVD audio/video player for X11
wmxmms-spectrum - XMMS spectrum analyser plugin for the Window Maker dock
xmms - Versatile X audio player that looks like Winamp
xmms-flac - Free Lossless Audio Coder - XMMS input plugin
xmms-crossfade - XMMS Plugin for Crossfading / Continuous Output
jt
PS WMP7 is a horrid PILE OF SHIT. Still running 6.X in 2K.
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .95 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
Arinté
workstation at home?
.
> Sun??? I don't see how sun could fit. How many people have a sun
I have three of them.
-----.
Nick Condon
<HZ1e6.24$zt5....@news0.optus.net.au>:
>
><flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1n9h7tsckbf6fbj7f...@4ax.com...
>> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>
>Probably the only thing they have done to advance the world of computers
>(and full credit to them, they did get computers out into the home).
No, I had 16-bit, multitasking Amiga 10 years before Windows 95 came out,
and they weren't the first either.
Nick Condon
>This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
>about the user
Sure they do.
MH
> As an example, take the latest Windows Media Player which is V7.x.
> After delaying my upgrade til MS got the bugs out, which have all been
> fixed, I finally got around to downloading and using it.
Whatever version that comes with WinME is about as stable as a WVA. blond on
ludes.
AAMOF, on this system, it froze the system solid 20 minutes ago after trying
to auto-run an audio cd.
Nigel
> No, I had 16-bit, multitasking Amiga 10 years before Windows 95 came out,
> and they weren't the first either.
What machine was first with this feature then, Sinclair QL perhaps?
Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
Nigel
> > > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> > > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
> >
> > I'll just email IBM, Bell Labs, Caltech and the NSA and let them know.
> >
>
> And HP and Sun.
>
>
And even Microsoft as they are now using Linux based DNS servers due to
the unreliability of their own ones.
Nigel
> Ahem. Clive Sinclair.
>
Yes, those were the days - pity that it now costs more for the operating
system than sinclair charged for the whole system thanks to Micro$oft.
Nigel
> > right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
>
> The link to get xmms (on the other hand) is so well hidden. Lets see
> shall we. Visit xmms home page. Click download. Click the link for your
> system. Gee that was so hard.
>
He was even too stupid to realise that it's supplied in his distro so
doesn't need to be downloaded (most distro's include xmms).
> > was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
> > of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
Yes, all the effort went into the look of MP7 and none went into making
sure it actually works.
> > and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
> > particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite. My
> > kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and so
> > forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
Try showing them the Dancing penguin plugin for xmms - winamp has also
had many of this type of plugin for years (more ms stealing - oops I mean
innovating).
> > Boring, not to mention the help system, which you will need because this
> > piece of junk is a jumble of controls scattered all over the place.
>
> It has a help system? I hadn't noticed, I've never needed it.
>
Yes, let's see now - push load button, select file, select Ok, press play
wow that's difficult (spot the sarcasm?).
> > That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure out
> > what you need to install and run it.
Like selecting xmms in the package manager for your distro and pressing
install button - too difficult for pratfish?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On 1 Feb 2001 01:06:28 GMT, yt...@mutilation.net (.) wrote:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
> >> Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> >> the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
> >
> >Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> >than windows, and much easier to learn.
Unless you need to do something which the Mac app-writer didn't anticipate.
Then you're pretty much screwed....like ALL gui-only systems.
> >
>
> Ahem. Clive Sinclair.
>
> --
> Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
> - Geoff Miller
Aaron Lehmann
> Trivial to a programmer maybe.
> Non trivial to a musician,
You seemed to care about graphics, ergonomics, and visualizations...
Never once did you mention pushing the "PLAY" button...
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
Aaron Lehmann
mlw
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
> > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> > the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>
> Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> than windows, and much easier to learn.
I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use are
different things.
The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a command
line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons, in
favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification. No one
argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
logical tasks require words not mice.
For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
directories (folders) are managed.
Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions, and
if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version of
the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy to
use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier. There is
no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept the
status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the first
step.
>
> > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
The harsh reality is that Windows 9x and ME want to keep the clocks in the 70's
and NT wants to move them to the 80's.
Ayende Rahien
"mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
> "." wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> > > the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
> >
> > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> > than windows, and much easier to learn.
>
> I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use
are
> different things.
>
> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
> steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
command
> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
in
> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
No one
> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
> logical tasks require words not mice.
False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes for
*much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
We can understand pictures much better than text.
And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it to),
you've to *remember* them.
That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
> directories (folders) are managed.
>
> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
>
> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
and
> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
of
> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
to
> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part where
it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of that.
And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is not
a favoraite of mine. (Java won't let you access directly to the API that
create windows & textboxes and all the rest, you can rely on Java's own APIs
(make your application look consistly ugly on all platforms) or use JNI and
lose the platform-idependent.)
> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
There is
> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept
the
> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the
first
> step.
Wrong, please point me to *one* study that claim that CLI is better than GUI
in ease-of-use for day-to-day tasks.
There is no denying that CLI is very useful for some sort of tasks, but on
general, not even on a cold day in hell.
> > > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> > > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
>
> The harsh reality is that Windows 9x and ME want to keep the clocks in the
70's
> and NT wants to move them to the 80's.
Ha?
Steve Lefevre
[snip]
> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
> steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
command
> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
in
> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
No one
> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
> logical tasks require words not mice.
>
I beg to differ. You don't have to learn a 'new language' of pictures, you
just have to look at them and guess what they are. Oftentimes they have
captions that tell you what they are. Or, if you really want to know, just
click on it and open it up. You can find out right away.
Human language is very different that (most) computer langauge. Human
langauge is declarative, meaning we make statements. (SQL is a declarative
language.) But otehr computer languages are procedural, which means that
they are a set of insturctions, a list of how to do something. Humans are
*terrible* at this, unless they have special training. Even then they really
can't use procedural langauges as robustly as they use their declarative
natural language. Isn't there some saying that coding is 90% debugging?
Almost everybody on the planet can speak their first langauge fluently, but
how many are good at programming?
> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
and
> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
of
> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
to
> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
It's very easy. With pictures, you can see them, open them, find out what
they are. You can explore.
What's not easy is to learn command line syntax. There is no way to
'explore' it like you can icons in a GUI - you *always* have to refer to a
manual or class or knowledgeable friend to learn every single function. Once
you do have the basic vocab down, you can explore, or play around, but that
comes afterwards.
>
> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
There is
> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept
the
> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the
first
> step.
>
This may be my brainwashing speaking, but I disagree that people are like
lemmings in thinking that GUI environments are easier. See above.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>
>"mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
>news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
>> "." wrote:
>> >
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
>> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>> > > the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>> >
>> > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
>> > than windows, and much easier to learn.
>>
>> I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use
>are
>> different things.
>>
>> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
>> steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
>command
>> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
>in
>> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
>No one
>> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
>> logical tasks require words not mice.
>
>False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes for
>*much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
We've been seeing for much longer, not using hieroglyphs for
much longer. Also notice the trends in language developments
as civilization advances: from many complex pictographs to a
small set of more fundemental primitives that are then combined
to form the visual representation of a word or concept.
>We can understand pictures much better than text.
Pictures require context, much more so than text does.
Also, a few words can be remarkably more expessive and
(more importantly) PRECISE than any pictogram.
>And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it to),
>you've to *remember* them.
Big deal. Then you tell it to show them to you.
>That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
You have as much negative feedback in CLI shells too. What
GUI's do is castrate the interface so that there are less
ways for you to make a mistake. Although there are still
plenty left for the novice.
>
>> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
>> directories (folders) are managed.
>>
>> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
>>
>> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
>and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
>of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
>to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
>That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
>Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part where
>it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of that.
That only demonstrates that academics in a particular discipline
think alike. If you were to go over to the industrial engineering
department, you might get a different perspective.
>And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
>That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is not
All the current linux GUI's have style guides. So you can keep
yourself in a single interface ghetto if you really want.
OTOH, a computer is not a single tool but a collection of them.
It's silly to think that the whole range of computer users and
computer uses should be constrained by a neurotic obsession with
conformity.
This notion can severely stifle the end user. That is the whole
reason why alternatives sprang up to begin with. Not everyone
agrees with the Ivory Tower.
HELL, the end users didn't even agree with you.
>a favoraite of mine. (Java won't let you access directly to the API that
>create windows & textboxes and all the rest, you can rely on Java's own APIs
>(make your application look consistly ugly on all platforms) or use JNI and
>lose the platform-idependent.)
What happened to "foolish consistency"? Java is enforcing a
"one true interface" here. You should be happy for them. They
are starting to "quell the chaos".
>
>> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
>There is
>> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept
>the
>> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the
>first
>> step.
>
>Wrong, please point me to *one* study that claim that CLI is better than GUI
>in ease-of-use for day-to-day tasks.
Who's day?
[deletia]
We are not all Borg.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
Ayende Rahien
<je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrn97lts...@penguin.lvcm.com...
Actually, hieroglyphs predate writing as we know it by several thousands
years.
But icons *aren't* hyroglyphs.
> >We can understand pictures much better than text.
>
> Pictures require context, much more so than text does.
> Also, a few words can be remarkably more expessive and
> (more importantly) PRECISE than any pictogram.
So why won't we change all the traffic signs to words? It would be much more
"PRECISE" than icons.
> >And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it
to),
> >you've to *remember* them.
>
> Big deal. Then you tell it to show them to you.
You don't need to in GUI, it's much easier to find something in GUI than on
text, because your eyes can scan a picture much more easily than text.
> >That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
>
> You have as much negative feedback in CLI shells too. What
> GUI's do is castrate the interface so that there are less
> ways for you to make a mistake. Although there are still
> plenty left for the novice.
No, what the GUI does is to present you with Graphical UI.
Apperantely, you're on a Unix, I'm not sure if you've Midnight Commander
there, but if you do, fire it up, and take a look at it.
It's a text based GUI, adding some of its capacities to file browsers would
be more than nice.
The GUI make it easier to do stuff, it's much faster to recognize a
printer's icon as Print, than read "print".
> >> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
> >> directories (folders) are managed.
> >>
> >> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
> >>
> >> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for
functions,
> >and
> >> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next
version
> >of
> >> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not
easy
> >to
> >> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
> >
> >That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
> >Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part
where
> >it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of that.
>
> That only demonstrates that academics in a particular discipline
> think alike. If you were to go over to the industrial engineering
> department, you might get a different perspective.
Really? Why does industrial engineering support inconsistent behaviour?
We expect consistent behaviour from tools because the world around us is
consistent.
What would happen if you throw something up and it didn't come down? Or you
placed a ball on the dashboard, and when you took a turn, it rolled on the
direction of the turn?
We can deal with inconsistent interfaces because the world is consistent
only up to a point.
There is absolutely no reason to support inconsistent behaviour.
> >And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
> >That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is
not
>
> All the current linux GUI's have style guides. So you can keep
> yourself in a single interface ghetto if you really want.
Really? That is news to me.
> OTOH, a computer is not a single tool but a collection of them.
> It's silly to think that the whole range of computer users and
> computer uses should be constrained by a neurotic obsession with
> conformity.
Over 90% of the applications produced for Windows & Mac use the default
interfaces. For a reason.
Users don't like to learn something different everytime they use another
application.
> This notion can severely stifle the end user. That is the whole
> reason why alternatives sprang up to begin with. Not everyone
> agrees with the Ivory Tower.
No, the notion of every program using a different interface is foolish, its
making the user do needless extra work.
please take a look at "Interface Hall of Shame" and read some of the reviews
about the importance of the UI.
> HELL, the end users didn't even agree with you.
>
> >a favoraite of mine. (Java won't let you access directly to the API that
> >create windows & textboxes and all the rest, you can rely on Java's own
APIs
> >(make your application look consistly ugly on all platforms) or use JNI
and
> >lose the platform-idependent.)
>
> What happened to "foolish consistency"? Java is enforcing a
> "one true interface" here. You should be happy for them. They
> are starting to "quell the chaos".
The Java interface is only consistent within itself, it doesn't comply with
the standard of any OS.
If Sun knew what they were doing, they would supply some APIs that would
call to the OS native interface.
> >> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
> >There is
> >> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not
accept
> >the
> >> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be
the
> >first
> >> step.
> >
> >Wrong, please point me to *one* study that claim that CLI is better than
GUI
> >in ease-of-use for day-to-day tasks.
>
> Who's day?
Any day, email, browsing, word proccessing, spread-sheets, games, basically,
99% of what the average user does with the computer.
WMH
> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
and
> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
of
> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
to
> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
One of the worst 'gui vs cli' arguments I've ever seen.
I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive tasks
have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're referring
to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example. Now
look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express. Which
facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
contest.
Then there are menus --isn't a meun just a more efficient way of presenting
a common group of options?
File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so radically
as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's GUI's
have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text editor.
Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system vs. a
CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
Modern GUI's offer you one way to do the same thing in many applications.
Yes, we're all lemmings because we don't see things as you do. Operating
systems as religion is an example.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>
><je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
>news:slrn97lts...@penguin.lvcm.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Ple...@dont.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >"mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
>> >> "." wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
>> >> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers
>> >
>> >False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes
>for
>> >*much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
>>
>> We've been seeing for much longer, not using hieroglyphs for
>> much longer. Also notice the trends in language developments
>> as civilization advances: from many complex pictographs to a
>> small set of more fundemental primitives that are then combined
>> to form the visual representation of a word or concept.
>
>Actually, hieroglyphs predate writing as we know it by several thousands
>years.
IOW, not very long...
A few thousand years is the blink of an eye in biological terms.
>But icons *aren't* hyroglyphs.
True. Heiroglyphs and other pictorial 'alphabets' often are
built up from lower level primitives. Heiroglyphs are actually
MORE advanced than icons.
Icons rate right down there with cave man paintings in terms
of sophistication.
>
>> >We can understand pictures much better than text.
>>
>> Pictures require context, much more so than text does.
>> Also, a few words can be remarkably more expessive and
>> (more importantly) PRECISE than any pictogram.
>
>So why won't we change all the traffic signs to words? It would be much more
>"PRECISE" than icons.
You mean like "STOP" and "Construction Ahead".
Also, those are a small set of well defined symbols.
Furthermore, one is required to demonstrated proficiency
with those symbols before you are even allowed to be
designated a "student" driver.
This example undermines your position actually.
Have you ever actually gone to a foreign country and tried
to make sense of their "iconic" traffic signs?
>
>> >And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it
>to),
>> >you've to *remember* them.
>>
>> Big deal. Then you tell it to show them to you.
>
>You don't need to in GUI, it's much easier to find something in GUI than on
>text, because your eyes can scan a picture much more easily than text.
Nope. You need to think about the pictures more. More mental
processing and thought is required to manipulate the interface.
Just imagine if you favorite file manager had NO TEXT WHATSOEVER.
YOU would be lost.
>
>> >That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
>>
>> You have as much negative feedback in CLI shells too. What
>> GUI's do is castrate the interface so that there are less
>> ways for you to make a mistake. Although there are still
>> plenty left for the novice.
>
>No, what the GUI does is to present you with Graphical UI.
>Apperantely, you're on a Unix, I'm not sure if you've Midnight Commander
I started on GEM actually. I've been using GUI's since
long before it came in vogue to do so. This includes
80's versions of X as well as System 6.
>there, but if you do, fire it up, and take a look at it.
>It's a text based GUI, adding some of its capacities to file browsers would
>be more than nice.
>The GUI make it easier to do stuff, it's much faster to recognize a
>printer's icon as Print, than read "print".
...assuming that the icon ends up looking like what the end
user thinks a printer should look like. OTOH, "PRINT" doesn't
require any guessing.
I guess that's why most GUI's these days print in that manner
>
>> >> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
>> >> directories (folders) are managed.
>> >>
>> >> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
>> >>
>> >> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for
>functions,
>> >and
>> >> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next
>version
>> >of
>> >> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not
>easy
>> >to
>> >> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>> >
>> >That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
>> >Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part
>where
>> >it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of that.
>>
>> That only demonstrates that academics in a particular discipline
>> think alike. If you were to go over to the industrial engineering
>> department, you might get a different perspective.
>
>Really? Why does industrial engineering support inconsistent behaviour?
>We expect consistent behaviour from tools because the world around us is
>consistent.
You must have a very rudimentary experience with tools.
Real tools are quite often quite distinct from task to
task. I'm sure some of the weekend mechanics around here
could give you an earful.
>What would happen if you throw something up and it didn't come down? Or you
>placed a ball on the dashboard, and when you took a turn, it rolled on the
>direction of the turn?
I'm not quite sure what you think fundemental physical laws have
to do with the fact that distinct tasks usually require distinct
techniques.
>We can deal with inconsistent interfaces because the world is consistent
>only up to a point.
>There is absolutely no reason to support inconsistent behaviour.
Sure there is. REAL professionals require it. Thus my notion
of a "workstation" versus a "desktop". Some people actually
do real work with their machines. This could be drafting,
art authoring or CPU design. They need the tools that will
improve their efficiency, not make a drooling moron feel more
comfortable picking up a copy of Maya or AutoCADD.
Alternately, one simply might have a different idea of what
contitutes the "right way" of doing mundane things. Such
people should not be put out by facist little twits such
as yourself.
OTOH, conventions do exist for those that really might need them.
However, the existence of Liberty does not mean that there does
not exist any safe havens for those that insist upon foolish
consistency.
>
>> >And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
>> >That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is
>not
>>
>> All the current linux GUI's have style guides. So you can keep
>> yourself in a single interface ghetto if you really want.
>
>Really? That is news to me.
Obviously. You are merely speaking out your ass
and spreading misinformation.
>
>> OTOH, a computer is not a single tool but a collection of them.
>> It's silly to think that the whole range of computer users and
>> computer uses should be constrained by a neurotic obsession with
>> conformity.
>
>Over 90% of the applications produced for Windows & Mac use the default
>interfaces. For a reason.
>Users don't like to learn something different everytime they use another
>application.
>
So?
Just how many applications do you use?
[deletia]
BTW, my default editor has survived more than 3 interface
changes on the part of Microsoft and at least 2 on the
part of apple.
My newsreader doesn't have it's own editor. Nor does my
email reader. So, my enviroment is remarkably more
consistent than yours even despite the fact that my editor
and my spreadsheet use remarkably different interfaces.
Meanwhile, I've likely learned less interfaces while using
more applications than your typical mythic end user.
I DON'T WANT to use your idea of an editor. I don't want it
imposed on me because you can't deal with diversity.
You don't even want to know what my response would be to
you subjecting me to the "one true interface" in a newsreader...
Figuring out which of the other 4 drop down menus to look into
for the "print" menu is not something that should be an unbearable
inconvenience for anyone out of kindergarten, PERIOD.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>
>> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
>and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
>of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
>to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
>One of the worst 'gui vs cli' arguments I've ever seen.
>
>I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive tasks
>have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're referring
>to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
>You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example. Now
>look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express. Which
>facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
>contest.
What icons?
The icons are so small in Outhouse as to be barely noticeable.
>
>Then there are menus --isn't a meun just a more efficient way of presenting
>a common group of options?
>
>File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so radically
>as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's GUI's
>have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text editor.
>Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
vi and emacs are even more unchanging than Microsoft.
Both PREDATE MS-DOS, nevermind windows. If you had learned
either 10 years ago, you would not have need to relearn
everything else.
Plus, Unix tends to be more modular. So, instead of having
a separate little editor in all your applications you can
just use one common component across the entire system.
Then you wouldn't have to even worry about frivolous upgrades.
>contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system vs. a
>CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
>learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
No, Unix allows you to perform the same mundane task with the
same tool across your entire system.
This is preferable to trusting 10 random developers to follow
the style guide. It also allows individuals to use tools that
suit them rather than forcing the individual to suit the tool.
>Modern GUI's offer you one way to do the same thing in many applications.
>
>Yes, we're all lemmings because we don't see things as you do. Operating
>systems as religion is an example.
It's a real shame that OpenDoc never got anywhere, or that
Microsoft is so interested in keeping you trapped that they
would never think of unleashing the full potential of OLE.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
WMH
<je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrn97m53...@penguin.lvcm.com...
> >I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive
tasks
> >have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're
referring
> >to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
> >You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example.
Now
> >look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express.
Which
> >facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
> >contest.
>
> What icons?
Glyphs, bitmaps, 'pictures', whichever. The ones in the tool bar.
> The icons are so small in Outhouse as to be barely noticeable.
You can choose to show icons with text, icons without text, or selective
text on the right.
Not to mention large or small icons.
> >File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so
radically
> >as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's
GUI's
> >have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text
editor.
> >Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
>
> vi and emacs are even more unchanging than Microsoft.
>
> Both PREDATE MS-DOS, nevermind windows. If you had learned
> either 10 years ago, you would not have need to relearn
> everything else.
I'm aware of this, thanks. But I could either stand still, or move with
time.
Most english text documents I have to deal with are MS Word. I may not like
it, but that's the way it is.
I don't think vi or emacs handles those file formats very well.
> Plus, Unix tends to be more modular. So, instead of having
> a separate little editor in all your applications you can
> just use one common component across the entire system.
If I'm dealing with ascii text, then yes. Otherwise, no.
> Then you wouldn't have to even worry about frivolous upgrades.
That doesn't worry me.
> >contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system
vs. a
> >CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
> >learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
>
> No, Unix allows you to perform the same mundane task with the
> same tool across your entire system.
Console unix to a degree. But that's not the topic. Unix GUI is another
story.
> This is preferable to trusting 10 random developers to follow
> the style guide. It also allows individuals to use tools that
> suit them rather than forcing the individual to suit the tool.
Most windows applications adhere to the style guide for all intent and
purpose.
> >Modern GUI's offer you one way to do the same thing in many applications.
> >
> >Yes, we're all lemmings because we don't see things as you do. Operating
> >systems as religion is an example.
>
> It's a real shame that OpenDoc never got anywhere, or that
> Microsoft is so interested in keeping you trapped that they
> would never think of unleashing the full potential of OLE.
Ah yes, opendoc. Pity. As for MS...
It's to their advantage to perpetuate vendor lock. Isn't that the American
way?
ono
<je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrn97m4m...@penguin.lvcm.com...
language.
You probably thought that scottland was a foreign country ;-).
Bennetts family
<flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ag7k7t4qttdvp22ko...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:44:54 -0500, Aaron Lehmann
> <lehm...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> ><snippage>
> >> Trivial to a programmer maybe.
> >> Non trivial to a musician,
> >Why would a musician care about the things you posted?
> >You seemed to care about graphics, ergonomics, and visualizations...
> >Never once did you mention pushing the "PLAY" button...
>
> Penguinista's fail to see. It plays just as well as any of the others
> out there, it's just more fun to use.
Alrighty, so we don't care about *listening* to music or watching videos,
all we care about is watching the damn visualisations. I wonder how many
people like having music playing in the background while they do work (or
flame people on Usenet ;-))? I'll put one on that count.
--Chris
David Steinberg
: Alrighty, so we don't care about *listening* to music or watching videos,
: all we care about is watching the damn visualisations. I wonder how many
: people like having music playing in the background while they do work (or
: flame people on Usenet ;-))? I'll put one on that count.
I play my music on a separate virtual console using mpg123 because I don't
want to waste any space on my desktop.
Can't do that in Windows.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
What is it? "Standardize" or "innovate".
You really can't have it both ways. That's why Windows user
interfaces break in subtle ways from version to versions and
drive the novices nuts.
>Most english text documents I have to deal with are MS Word. I may not like
>it, but that's the way it is.
Actually most documents these days are in pdf.
>I don't think vi or emacs handles those file formats very well.
It will after the appropriate filter. With emacs you could
even automate the process quite well. That's if "english"
and "document" are really what you're after.
>
>> Plus, Unix tends to be more modular. So, instead of having
>> a separate little editor in all your applications you can
>> just use one common component across the entire system.
>
>If I'm dealing with ascii text, then yes. Otherwise, no.
The same can be said of any editor, actaully.
There's really no need to have 50 badly cloned
editor components in a system.
>
>> Then you wouldn't have to even worry about frivolous upgrades.
>
>That doesn't worry me.
You are far too married to Microsoft to care. You'll
simply overlook or forgive interface changes, API
changes and subtle data format changes.
>
>> >contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system
>vs. a
>> >CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
>> >learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
>>
>> No, Unix allows you to perform the same mundane task with the
>> same tool across your entire system.
>
>Console unix to a degree. But that's not the topic. Unix GUI is another
>story.
Actually, you could do that in any enviroment. It's the
object reuse paradigm, not the shell. WinDOS could use
the same facility if it really wanted to. However,
Microsoft feels the need to overly complicate the
remarkably simple.
>
>> This is preferable to trusting 10 random developers to follow
>> the style guide. It also allows individuals to use tools that
>> suit them rather than forcing the individual to suit the tool.
>
>Most windows applications adhere to the style guide for all intent and
>purpose.
"most" doesn't cut it.
If you can't enforce the style guide, someone will break it
like breaking multitasking on a Macintosh.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>
><je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
>news:slrn97m4m...@penguin.lvcm.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:21:57 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Ple...@dont.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> ><je...@pyromania.mishnet> wrote in message
>> >news:slrn97lts...@penguin.lvcm.com...
>> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Ple...@dont.spam>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
>> >> >> "." wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
>> >> >> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers
[deletia]
>more
>> >"PRECISE" than icons.
>>
>> You mean like "STOP" and "Construction Ahead".
>>
>> Also, those are a small set of well defined symbols.
>> Furthermore, one is required to demonstrated proficiency
>> with those symbols before you are even allowed to be
>> designated a "student" driver.
>>
>> This example undermines your position actually.
>>
>> Have you ever actually gone to a foreign country and tried
>> to make sense of their "iconic" traffic signs?
>Have you? I think it's a lot easier to guess an icon then to learn a foreign
>language.
>You probably thought that scottland was a foreign country ;-).
They certainly wouldn't be impressed about how I might
ramble on about the 5th Amendment. OTOH, it doesn't take
a language barrier to create a culture barrier. That's
all that's needed to completely fubar an iconic interface.
[deletia]
>> Figuring out which of the other 4 drop down menus to look into
>> for the "print" menu is not something that should be an unbearable
>> inconvenience for anyone out of kindergarten, PERIOD.
[deletia]
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
> > "." wrote:
> > >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfi...@att.net wrote:
> > > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
> > > > the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
> > >
> > > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> > > than windows, and much easier to learn.
> >
> > I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use
> are
> > different things.
> >
> > The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
> > steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
> command
> > line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
> in
> > favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
> No one
> > argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
> > logical tasks require words not mice.
>
> False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes for
> *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
> We can understand pictures much better than text.
That must be why you are reading USENET in heiroglyphics, eh?
The fact is, text is FAR more efficient for expressing complex ideas
(because 10,000 pictures can be summarized with a single word).
Aaron R. Kulkis
And then ABANDONED for alphabets.
Egyptian hyroglyphs eventually became the basis for syllabic symbols
(based upon widely-used hyroglyphs and the corresponding phonetic),
which were then used by other cultures as the basis of alphabetic
writing systems.
Name ONE advanced society writing exclusively in heiroglyphs and/or
ideograms.
(and no, China does NOT count...98% of the population is uneducated as all
get out (other than how to recognize the late Chairman Mao's portrait)).
Aaron R. Kulkis
That argument is valid ONLY if foreign languages were the ONLY thing
available for the computer user.
I'm pretty sure that the word "edit" is part of the very same English
language which I am writing in every day.
Similar for any other user.
Simple massive application of sed scripts and shell-scripts can
rename EVERY command and file (including references within source
code and shell scripts) on a computer to any language on the face
of the earth.
Ayende Rahien
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A7C0772...@yahoo.com...
A> China does count. Who the hell do you think *used* writing for the last
couple of thousands of years there? The educated were the one that used
hyroglyphs.
B> Japan.
Ayende Rahien
For complex ideas, you need writing, or else you start to mess with people's
idea about what a picture mean.
For simple ideas, there is no better way than pictures, which are usually
can by-pass cultureral ties.
Not to mention that you can recognize pictures much faster than text, and
once you associated a picture with an idea. (IE, outstrecthed hand with
"Stop!") it's much faster & easier than reading it.
> The fact is, text is FAR more efficient for expressing complex ideas
> (because 10,000 pictures can be summarized with a single word).
Give me that word, please.
That can sumerise a 10,000 picutes.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:44:54 -0500, Aaron Lehmann
> <lehm...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Trivial to a programmer maybe.
> >> Non trivial to a musician,
> >Why would a musician care about the things you posted?
> >You seemed to care about graphics, ergonomics, and visualizations...
> >Never once did you mention pushing the "PLAY" button...
>
> Penguinista's fail to see. It plays just as well as any of the others
> out there, it's just more fun to use.
Translation:
in Flatfish's world, watching the oscilloscope display of the music
is MUCH more important than an uninterrupted playback.
>
> Sure if I'm doing DA work, I'll fire up SoundForge or Wavelab or
> something like that. But for just playing a CD or mp3 I like the media
> player because it looks nice, it is simple to use and it is FUN
> because it is full of eye candy and everything is there right in one
> package. I don't have to figure out what's available, what it does and
> if I would want to use it.
> Are there more sophisticated players out there? Sure there are.
> Musicmatch is one of them.
> Better burners?
> Sure. Wavelab or Nero are both better by far and they cost quite a bit
> as well.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
Because its BRAIN HAS BEEN FLATTENED
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
Jim Richardson
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <Ple...@dont.spam>,
brought forth the following words...:
<snip>
>> >
>> > False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes
>for
>> > *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
>> > We can understand pictures much better than text.
>>
>> That must be why you are reading USENET in heiroglyphics, eh?
>
>For complex ideas, you need writing, or else you start to mess with people's
>idea about what a picture mean.
>For simple ideas, there is no better way than pictures, which are usually
>can by-pass cultureral ties.
>Not to mention that you can recognize pictures much faster than text, and
>once you associated a picture with an idea. (IE, outstrecthed hand with
>"Stop!") it's much faster & easier than reading it.
no, the word "Stop" is no slower than an icon, the word becomes an icon.
>> The fact is, text is FAR more efficient for expressing complex ideas
>> (because 10,000 pictures can be summarized with a single word).
>
>Give me that word, please.
>That can sumerise a 10,000 picutes.
>
>
porn?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Ayende Rahien
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn97p6d4....@gargoyle.myth...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:39:09 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <Ple...@dont.spam>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have
eyes
> >for
> >> > *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
> >> > We can understand pictures much better than text.
> >>
> >> That must be why you are reading USENET in heiroglyphics, eh?
> >
> >For complex ideas, you need writing, or else you start to mess with
people's
> >idea about what a picture mean.
> >For simple ideas, there is no better way than pictures, which are usually
> >can by-pass cultureral ties.
> >Not to mention that you can recognize pictures much faster than text, and
> >once you associated a picture with an idea. (IE, outstrecthed hand with
> >"Stop!") it's much faster & easier than reading it.
>
> no, the word "Stop" is no slower than an icon, the word becomes an icon.
Not really, you need to read it, and then phrase it into an idea.
A picture doesn't need phrasing.
> >> The fact is, text is FAR more efficient for expressing complex ideas
> >> (because 10,000 pictures can be summarized with a single word).
> >
> >Give me that word, please.
> >That can sumerise a 10,000 picutes.
> >
> >
>
> porn?
No, that isn't it, sorry.
Kyle Jacobs
news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
> > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> > than windows, and much easier to learn.
>
> I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use
are
> different things.
Sorry, I think Apple's Finder interface was WAY easier to "muddle through"
than Windows Explorer ever was.
> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
> steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
command
> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
in
> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
No one
> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
> logical tasks require words not mice.
You're assuming that GUI=Less functionality. It does ONLY when the GUI is
done improperly. "Logical tasks" as you put them are performed just as well
under a GUI interface as a console, but it's just different. "Veterens"
prefer the console because they HAD NO CHOICE when they learnt. Some of us
learnt the GUI and got over the console, and even found the superiority of
the GUI. After all, when we see cave drawings, we don't often see "words"
we see pictographs.
Hence, which do you assoicate as more intuitive?
> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
> directories (folders) are managed.
>
> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
Linux has yet to provide a GUI that COULD totaly eradicate the console &
console operations. XFree86 doesn't do "total integration" very well,
neither do the plethora of subordinate UI's.
> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
and
> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
of
> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
to
> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
There is
> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept
the
> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the
first
> step.
This argument is getting old. The future of computing is a GUI, not a
console. Linux is "Getting with" this concept, but not very fast, and I
think the public eye has a short attention span.
> > > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> > > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
>
> The harsh reality is that Windows 9x and ME want to keep the clocks in the
70's
> and NT wants to move them to the 80's.
I hear this argument too. Windows NT blew the doors off everything prior,
even with it's many, many drawbacks. But as a workstation platform, it was
unmatched. (I STILL wouldn't use it as a server) Linux just can't hold a
candle to Windows on the desktop. No integration, no standards, and you
wonder why no one wants to code for it. Because "RedHat" is not "Mandrake"
which isn't "Debian" or "SuSE" which certianly isn't "EasyLinux" or
"Caldera"... Need I go on?
MH
"Kyle Jacobs" <ple...@dont.spam.me.org> wrote in message
news:Wy7f6.35016$o91.3...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> "mlw" <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7AC264...@mohawksoft.com...
>
> > > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
> > > than windows, and much easier to learn.
> >
> > I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to
use
> are
> > different things.
>
> Sorry, I think Apple's Finder interface was WAY easier to "muddle through"
> than Windows Explorer ever was.
You don't understand. If he states it over and over, then it must be true.
See the logic now? -You have to look rrreeeaaalll hard.
You don't argue with 'em, you kill file 'em!
> > The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many
repetitive
> > steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
> command
> > line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over
eons,
> in
> > favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
> No one
> > argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications,
but
> > logical tasks require words not mice.
>
> You're assuming that GUI=Less functionality. It does ONLY when the GUI is
> done improperly. "Logical tasks" as you put them are performed just as
well
> under a GUI interface as a console, but it's just different. "Veterens"
> prefer the console because they HAD NO CHOICE when they learnt. Some of
us
> learnt the GUI and got over the console, and even found the superiority of
> the GUI. After all, when we see cave drawings, we don't often see "words"
> we see pictographs.
>
> Hence, which do you assoicate as more intuitive?
He forgets the countless millions of $$ in studies done in this area, much
of it well beyond the application of computers and ease of use that have
come to conclusions completely contrary to his 'logic'.
Honey, can't ya see? You're dealing with pure perversity.
It's like visiting the asylum, or picking up dog sh%t. You just don't do it.
----the rest of this mlw-misery was snipped in the name of sanity----
Best to let individuals of this mind set live in their own little world.
You don't poke sticks through the fence of the big, drooling dog down the
street, do you?
Same thing here. Just smile, get a chuckle from the inanity, and move on
towards saner ground.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Ple...@dont.spam>
wrote
on Sun, 4 Feb 2001 04:26:02 +0200
<95ifj9$aep$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn97p6d4....@gargoyle.myth...
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:39:09 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <Ple...@dont.spam>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have
>eyes
>> >for
>> >> > *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
>> >> > We can understand pictures much better than text.
>> >>
>> >> That must be why you are reading USENET in heiroglyphics, eh?
>> >
>> >For complex ideas, you need writing, or else you start to mess with
>people's
>> >idea about what a picture mean.
>> >For simple ideas, there is no better way than pictures, which are usually
>> >can by-pass cultureral ties.
>> >Not to mention that you can recognize pictures much faster than text, and
>> >once you associated a picture with an idea. (IE, outstrecthed hand with
>> >"Stop!") it's much faster & easier than reading it.
>>
>> no, the word "Stop" is no slower than an icon, the word becomes an icon.
>
>Not really, you need to read it, and then phrase it into an idea.
>A picture doesn't need phrasing.
I wonder.
The classic "save icon" is a floppy diskette. Is that intuitive?
(Hi Tholen!) How intuitive will it be when floppies are no more,
and we're all using Zip, Jaz, or bootable CD-ROM devices instead?
(It's 2001 and we're still using these ultra-slow 1.44 MB units?
Gaaah!)
The "new icon" is a rectangle with a corner cut off, which presumably
is supposed to represent a fresh, glistening new document. Is
that intuitive?
Some of the icons actually do make sense, though -- there are three,
for example, which have four horizontal lines of varying lengths.
The left icon has all the lines aligned at the left; the center icon
has the lines centered; the right icon has the lines aligned at
the right. (These are justification choose-buttons.)
The letter "A", in various poses, is a little harder to figure out.
But it works for most: bold, italics, underlined.
There are two other icons that work, too -- one has lines with little
dots (bulletted list), and one has lines with numbers (numbered list).
I'll admit, pictures are a mixed blessing. Some work, some don't.
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:20h:04m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
Edward Rosten
>> > > into the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>> >
>> > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use than
>> > windows, and much easier to learn.
>>
>> I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to
>> use
> are
>> different things.
Agreed.
>>
>> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many
>> repetitive steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures.
Agreed.
>> Where as a
> command
>> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over
>> eons,
> in
>> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of
>> simplification.
> No one
>> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications,
>> but logical tasks require words not mice.
>
> False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes
> for
More like 6000 at the very least. Probably longer. years. But...
> *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
So? we have only had the brains that we have now for about 30,000 years
(IIRC).
> We can understand pictures much better than text.
We understand text fine. Our brains have areas of them devoted solely to
language.
> And it isn't as if CLI
> shows you all the commands (unless you tell it to), you've to *remember*
> them. That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
No, you have to know where to look. I can't see that `Network Properties'
(or whatever) is in the control panel. I have to look there and I have to
know to look there.
>> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
>> directories (folders) are managed.
>>
>> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
>>
>> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for
>> functions,
> and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next
>> version
> of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not
>> easy
> to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
> That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application. Take
> a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part where
> it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of
> that.
The whole CLI is pretty consistent.
> And consistency with the OS' look is another part. That is why I
> don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is not a
> favoraite of mine.
> (Java won't let you access directly to the API that create windows &
> textboxes and all the rest, you can rely on Java's own APIs
> (make your application look consistly ugly on all platforms) or use JNI
> and lose the platform-idependent.)
>
>> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
> There is
>> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not
>> accept
> the
>> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be
>> the
> first
>> step.
>
> Wrong, please point me to *one* study that claim that CLI is better than
> GUI in ease-of-use for day-to-day tasks. There is no denying that CLI is
> very useful for some sort of tasks, but on general, not even on a cold
> day in hell.
No, you're wrong. It's simply a matter of opinion. There is no basis for
claiming one is better than the other for day to day tasks. Personally, I
use the CLI for almost everything.
>> > > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
>> > > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
>>
>> The harsh reality is that Windows 9x and ME want to keep the clocks in
>> the
> 70's
>> and NT wants to move them to the 80's.
>
> Ha?
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
Edward Rosten
>> functions,
> and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next
>> version
> of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not
>> easy
> to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
> It's very easy. With pictures, you can see them, open them, find out
> what they are. You can explore.
>
> What's not easy is to learn command line syntax. There is no way to
> 'explore' it like you can icons in a GUI - you *always* have to refer to
> a
> manual or class or knowledgeable friend to learn every single function.
> Once you do have the basic vocab down, you can explore, or play around,
> but that comes afterwards.
The same applies to a GUI. If you put a complete newbie in fromt og a GUI
they have no clue. They do not know what can be clicked on, and what the
pictures mean. After learning the basics of the language (ie what is a
button, menu, icon etc, and what they do) they can then start to explore.
The language basics need to be learned first.
-Ed
Tom Wilson
"Ayende Rahien" <Ple...@dont.spam> wrote in message
news:95ifj9$aep$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
Television?
Ayende Rahien
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:slrn97rnp3...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
> >Not really, you need to read it, and then phrase it into an idea.
> >A picture doesn't need phrasing.
>
> I wonder.
>
> The classic "save icon" is a floppy diskette. Is that intuitive?
> (Hi Tholen!) How intuitive will it be when floppies are no more,
> and we're all using Zip, Jaz, or bootable CD-ROM devices instead?
> (It's 2001 and we're still using these ultra-slow 1.44 MB units?
> Gaaah!)
>
> The "new icon" is a rectangle with a corner cut off, which presumably
> is supposed to represent a fresh, glistening new document. Is
> that intuitive?
>
> Some of the icons actually do make sense, though -- there are three,
> for example, which have four horizontal lines of varying lengths.
> The left icon has all the lines aligned at the left; the center icon
> has the lines centered; the right icon has the lines aligned at
> the right. (These are justification choose-buttons.)
>
> The letter "A", in various poses, is a little harder to figure out.
> But it works for most: bold, italics, underlined.
Most often it's: bold B for Bold, itallic I for Itallic & underlined U for
Underline.
> There are two other icons that work, too -- one has lines with little
> dots (bulletted list), and one has lines with numbers (numbered list).
>
> I'll admit, pictures are a mixed blessing. Some work, some don't.
It think that the idea is "learn once, recognize everywhere"
Ayende Rahien
"Tom Wilson" <twi...@nospamwingnet.net> wrote in message
news:s4nf6.282$8o4....@monger.newsread.com...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Ple...@dont.spam> wrote in message
> > > >Give me that word, please.
> > > >That can sumerise a 10,000 picutes.
> > > porn?
> >
> > No, that isn't it, sorry.
>
> Television?
>
LOL.
Arthur Gravity
pen
WMH wrote:
> > Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
> and
> > if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
> of
> > the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
> to
> > use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
> One of the worst 'gui vs cli' arguments I've ever seen.
>
> I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive tasks
> have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're referring
> to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
> You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example. Now
> look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express. Which
> facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
> contest.
>
> Then there are menus --isn't a meun just a more efficient way of presenting
> a common group of options?
>
> File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so radically
> as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's GUI's
> have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text editor.
> Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
> contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system vs. a
> CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
> learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
Henry_Barta
> Probably the only thing they have done to advance the world of computers
> (and full credit to them, they did get computers out into the home).
Their 'other' greatest contribution is that it is now acceptable
to release buggy software.
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
hba...@enteract.com Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois