Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!laird
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.215008.9634@Think.COM>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
References: <1991Mar13.223831.870@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Mar14.013927.26548@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Mar19.031537.17575@NCoast.ORG>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 21:50:08 GMT

In article <1991Mar19.031537.17575@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes:
>In article <1991Mar14.013927.26548@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john  cavallino) writes:
>>Notice the key word "force".  Nothing about the Mac prevents you from learning
>>and using power-user tricks, command lines, etc.  The advantage is that absent
>>all of that you can still get incredible amounts of useful stuff
>>accomplished.
>	Except that many things are just not possible. On the Mac, CLI
>oriented utilities are in a worse state than Amiga WorkBench supporting
>software was when the Amiga first came out, since keyboard operated programs
>are not what the mac is aimed at.

You're kidding, right?  I can run the MPW shell in a window (or a couple of
windows) on my Mac, and have access to all sorts of tools.  Most of the
typical unix tools have been ported to MPW, and they work just fine.  But
99% of all Mac owners never use a command line because they never have to!
The greatest thing about WB2.0 is that it _finally_ makes WB usable to the
point where you don't have to drop into the CLI all the time to get things
done.

>>Ms. non-techie-but-expert-in-her-own-non-computer-related-field doesn't CARE
>>about any of that. She just wants to get her work done in the areas that are
>>important to her, rather than to the computer.  These concerns matter, and
>>addressing them is what Apple has chosen to emphasize.
>>To Apple, the human-interface is really the most important part of a computer
>>system.  If you keep this fact in mind, it makes most of what the company does
>>a lot more understandable.
>	I agree. But that does not make a Mac any easier to use, or more
>friendly than an Amiga. In fact, the only "good" thing about the Mac OS is
>that from the beginning "most" Mac programs tended to work the same and look
>the same. At the time that was very unusual. When the Amiga first came out,
>people seemed to feel they had to create their own gadget imagery, their own
>way of doing things, and so early aps didn't look as good as similar Mac aps.
>But over the past few years I have noticed that most programs on the Amiga
>look and work the same, just as you would expect. And with AmigaDOS 2.0,
>they look and work even better, without having to change any programs at all.
>Think of how hard it would be to update the Mac OS in a compatible way.
>	I would be willing to bet Apple will NEVER change the OS again in the
>way they did to add the window shrink gadget, as every program would have to
>be recompiled to work with it, or at least support it.
>	There are other nice things about the Mac OS, like the growing bar
>when you are copying files to indicate how much you have copied, but these
>are more "feeping creaturisms" than true features, and while pretty do not
>actually make it any "easier" to use the system.

Actually, things like that are far _more_ tweekable on the Mac than the
Amiga.  I have all sorts of INITs and CDEV's installed that give me, for
example, 3-D color scroll bars and windows which then appear in all my
applications.  And if I want to, I could write my own window and scroll bar
handlers and plug them in.  And your example of the zoom box is a bad one,
actually, since that's supported in the OS, not the applications.  Note
that through all of this, it's the _user_ who has control over the scroll
bars, windows, and so on, as opposed to the programmer.  Speaking as a user
and a programmer, that's where the control belongs.

Aside from that, the point remains that Apple regards the clarity of the
user interface as being extremely important, and encourages their
developers to do likewise.  And Mac owners simply will not accept
applications with awful interfaces, because they went out of their way to
buy a Mac.  And the vast majority of Amiga software would simple not be
acceptable on the Mac, because of the amazing inconsistencies.

The difference is that Apple had a vision of how they could put _users_ in
control of the computers, and implemented everything based on that.  C= had
a box with a lot of nifty features.  That's why the Amiga has _always_ had
better "features" than the Mac, but the Mac has always been "better done"
from the user's point of view.

>				Dave

- Laird  (internet: laird@think.com)

P.S.  Don't get the wrong idea -- I own an A2000 and use it all the time.
But that's because of the amazing coolness of the original chips, not C=.
Lemmings is so much fun...
