#Workbench for novices
15 messages in this thread
Larry,
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that on the Mac the icons are saved as
part of the file. Actually, the only extra bit of info that is saved with a
document is a four byte value that identifies the file type. The Mac Finder
(the rough equivalent of the Amiga's Workbench) uses these four bytes to
determine what icon to display. You don't get multiple .info files, nor do you
get any space taken up by icon information (except for ONE copy of the icon
that the creating program supplies).
I hope that you can see that this method not only improves usability from a
Workbench level, but actually reduces disk space needed since .info files are
not there, nor is _any_ duplicate icon information. And you don't see any of
this icon stuff from a CLI interface!
James,
Right, and that has the disadvantage of being stuck with a limited number of
icons.
-larry
Well, if by limited number you mean four billion icons per disk as a maximum
then you are right. Somehow I don't think that is much of a restriction.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
james,
No, I meant a limited number of different ones. I really don't like the Mac
much, and most of it has to do with the way the whole user interface is so
limited.
-larry
Well, with the (admittedly major) difference of the Mac having no CLI type
user interface, the Mac and the Amiga are amazingly similar in terms of
what the user interface is like. In fact, if you are talking about the
Workbench type interface, the Mac's beats the Amiga's hands down (but then
it has to since the Mac's Finder–the rough equivalent to the Amiga's
Workbench–must be able to do everything that you can do from the Amiga's
CLI).
Again, the user interface on the Mac as far as application programs go is
not as restricting as you seem to think. There is plenty of documentation
that shows just how to take full control of the machine and do anything you
want to with it. Its just that (again) the Mac software buying public
won't buy programs that don't adhere to the Apple suggested guidelines, not
that it can't be done.
I wasn't aware that you had actually used the Mac enough to form such a
strong and knowledgable opinion.
(Oh, and don't construe these messages of mine to mean that I prefer the
Mac to the Amiga. I wouldn't be working on the Amiga if I thought it was an
inferior machine. Its just that where others would re-invent the wheel
simply because they don't like the guy who invented it first, I would
rather borrow ideas from other sources and try to improve on them–progress
in computer user interfaces doesn't happen by using the NIH method
anymore).
No, I have used a Mac only briefly. I was unimpressed by the speed, the
lack of sufficient keys, the unexpandability, the monochrome display, the
size of the screen, the single button mouse, and the lack of a command line
interface. That, and what I hear from Mac users has left me with an
impression of the Mac that makes me think about it in the way I do. Sorry
if my impressions are off the mark, but that's a result of having read and
listened to those who were using it.
Your coments on Finder 'having to do everything that a CLI would do' are
indicative of a philosophy I don't agree with. I would rather have the
choice as to my environment. i am not daunted by a CLI, but I am daunted
by right-brain puzzles in the form of icons. To me, icons have a rightful
place that does not include all possible operations. I feel the same way
about the mouse. It has its place. some operations are best done without
having to reach for the rodent. Textual work comes to mind immediately.
As for the NIH (Not Invented Here, for the benefit of those not following
this thread), all I can say is that it's probably a good thing that CBM did
not follow the Mac interface, both from the standpoint of how it 'feels',
but from the standpoint of avoiding litigation from a company whose motto
seems to be "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.".
I sincerely hope HP's countersuit succeeds.
So, you are saying that since the Amiga has a CLI interface that the
Workbench shouldn't be beefed up to the point where it can accomplish
everything the CLI can? Kind of limiting to those who prefer the Workbench
but would like it to be more powerful. If the Workbench were powerful
enough to do everything the CLI can do, _you_ could still use the CLI. It
would be your _choice_. Right now there is no choice at all–to do any
serious work you have to learn the CLI. And for most people that is a hard
thing to learn (believe me, I've talked to enough people when taking
technical support calls).
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Not at all James. What I am saying is that if not done with proper thought, the
WorkBench could end up being worse than useless as an interface. Perhaps we
need yet another metaphor. There could be a novice user interface smilar to WB
as it is now, a more powerful version for those that want the power of a CLI,
and a CLI for those that want things the authors of the above did not
anticipate, or for which mice and icons are inappropriate.
I don't know why people aren't looking at the CLI as just another application
that can be run from WB, because that's exactly what it is.
-larry
The reason that people aren't looking at the CLI as just another application
is that it's supposed to be the interface for people to run the whole darn
computer with! CLI is supposed to be the alternative for programmers and
techies.
However, WB forces you into CLI darn quickly.
Henry,
because _you_ say it's an interface for people to run the whole darned
computer with, doesn't make it so. Yes, something really cane be more than one
thing at once. I feel that anyone who progresses to the point where they need
to do either more sophisticated things, or even things that would be awkward or
error prone to do with icon/mouse will have to use the appropriate tools. The
CLi happens to be one of them, and anyonewho refuses to recognize the need to
do so is just not facing reality.
Consider… what method would you use if you wanted to delete a number of
files based upon a matching of patterns in file names? With any sort of an
icon/mouse interface, what method would you envision to perform the function
without resorting to typing something on the keyboard? Facer it Henry, there
are some things that just aren't suited to WB. Just what they are is a matter
of debate, but there is definitely a line there somewhere.
I also want the Workbench to be more powerful, but defeating the "hidden file"
capabilities of the current Workbench is a long stride towards weakness.
Speaking as someone who does a small amount of telephone support on Amiga and a
large amount on the PC, it is far easier telling someone what to type than it
is telling them what menu to pull down. Of course, I get far more calls from
the DOS folks than the Workbench folks, too, which suggests the latter are more
capable of solving minor problems on their own.
The one change I'd really like is Ben Blish's suggestion of moving all the
system directories (c,devs,fonts,etc) off the root and into a System drawer, so
that creating a new system disk could be accomplished by installing a blank,
then dragging the System drawer onto it.
Why would you prefer "beefing up" the Workbench over providing a Browser or
DiskMan or DU type utility on the root directory of the system disk? Or would
you?
It seems to me that most of the controversial issues, such as millituplet
icons, would be avoided by making it AmigaPhilosophy that users will use a disk
utility to do maintenance on hidden files.
I don't like any of the various "browser" type programs I have seen, and I
don't see how any of them could possibly be superior to a much improved
Workbench. The "files as objects" metaphor of a Workbench-type environment is
far easier for people to grasp and use than any of the "file list and type
command" metaphors.
Can you design your own icons for a Mac? I know very little about the Mac, but
I thought it provided a single image for each type of icon, and you were stuck
with what they provide.
I like making my own icons. For example – I have disk icons that are portraits
of the person who wrote the programs (made with Digi-View and Dpaint, plus
ZapIcon). I made them myself, and the programmer was delighted when I
presented them to him. Can you make your own icons for the Mac?