AmaxII :^(
8 messages in this thread
My main argument for trying to follow standard user interfaces is that it
will encourage more users (professional and amateur alike) to choose the
Amiga for their work.
It's kind of like beating a dead horse, but I would like to see the Amiga
continue as a viable platform.
Without easy to use software, many people will choose a 'friendlier'
interface likethe mac or windows. (No, I will not argue that both of those
platforms don't also have their own idiosyncracies :^)
But, they ARE cheaper (Windows), or they are much more standardized (Mac).
And both will have peer-to-peer file sharing by the end of the year.
Thanks.
I keep thinking of the Macintosh with its standard user interface. It does
make it easier to use but time moves on and now it appears to be a little
raggy around the edges. For some applications, nesting menus does not make
much sense any more than covering the screen with buttons. I don't know
what I'd prefer – you've only got so much room on the screen. I must say I
detest the way the Windows interface looks. I can't figure out what the
Icons are suppposed to do until I've clicked them. I guess if I had a PC on
my desk, I'd get used to it but it still takes me a while to remember what
Windows wants me to do. I don't have that problem with DOS. Weird.
Margaret,
Well, my experience is quite different. I quickly picked up what was
happening with Windows and now troubleshoot it around the office. And I've
STILL never seen the docs on it or DOS 5.0. At Win 3.1, PCs are dangerously
close to usable (though they aren't at 3.0, IMHO). By the time they get to
Win NT, they will be usable – but they won't be PCs anymore.
Malcolm
It is the Iconitis that gets me. I think a lot of the programs that I have
seen abuse Icons. I mean there is only so much screen space to make an Icon
look like something. If you use a program all the time, have the docs etc.,
no problem. I use the PC so infrequently that I have to remember what it
wants all of the time.
The mac interface has been around for awhile, and will most likely be
supplanted by some higher level interface.
But, for the time being, it does a workable job, and -like it or not- it
gets the job done. Windows software already attempts to follow these basic
guidelines – with some changes added to keep the 'look and feel' lawyers
off their backs – and Windows software will only continue to expand upon
the popularity of the standardized user interface.
It is just too bad that Amiga developers make it HARDER for Mac and Windows
users to consider adding an Amiga to their repertoire(sp?).
BTW, maybe you don't have 'that problem with DOS' because DOS doesn't offer
all that many options (esp. graphically).
I guess I like the command line because I used to do database programming
on a PDP-11 running good ole RSTS. I took care of setting up the system,
maintenance and a fair amount of cable running, modem install, and
wrestling with an archaic CPM word processing setup. It gave me my
introduction to a multi-tasking, multi-user system. Maybe that is why I
find the Amiga so easy to use. If you want a graphics front end you've got
it, but if you want to use a shell, no problem.
Margaret,
Next version of Windows has a shell too. Just type a filename and Windows
will run it whether it's a DOS program or a Windows program. Kinda cool.
Malcolm
OOOHHHHH, the first mainframe I ever played teletype Star Trek on was the
UCSC RSTS system years ago! Ah, such fond memories!
I will be the first to admit that I loved the Amiga from the beginning
BECAUSE of it's CLI/Shell.
It gave me the power of both a DOS Command Line Interpreter AND a Graphical
User Interface at the same time – not to mention multi-tasking that STILL
puts the Mac OS to shame.
Keep On Toastin'