More broken Apples...

[Warren Wolfe]

Ray Arachelian wrote:

    Warren Wolfe wrote:
      

>     > I was shocked at how many people believed that the value of a word
>     > processing program was inversely proportional to the time it took a
>     > brain-damaged chimpanzee (or novice user, whichever is more
>     > convenient) to crank out a thank you note for the first time.  That
>     > was it, end of story.  I would always ask questions, and almost always
>     > just got a blank stare in reply:
>     >
>     > Don't you want a program that lets you improve your efficiency?
>     > Will you always be a total noob, or do you expect to understand your
>     > computer one day?
>     > How fast are good typists who use this program?
>     > Are there "speed keys" for any of these functions?
>         

    If you're talking about the original Mac, this is true. But keep in
    mind that Jef was off the Mac project before it changed directions.


Yes, the original Mac was my target here, NOT Jef.  <Grin>


To answer the question of why you'd want easy to use software, that push
really does come from the corporate world.  My favorite example for this
is Java, I don't want to get too far off topic, but corporations love
java because training houses can churn out java "programmers" (more like
code monkeys) quickly in six months or so, and they're cheap and
replaceable.

All true.  Again, my gripe is with software that is hard to use, but easy to learn.  The user progresses to "barely functional" in a couple of minutes (the time of a demo) and then has a bear of a time getting any more EFFICIENT with it.


Jef's actual idea of what the Mac should be was realized into the Canon
Cat (and previously, the Swift board for the Apple II).

Yes, and this is why I've no gripe with Jef -- The Cat *IS* a machine one could make one's bitch, as it were.  My primal example of this is the original WordStar.  It was holy hell to learn, but when you did learn it, you FLEW.  It's still in use today in "mills" where productivity is paramount.  Nowhere near intuitive, but, when typing, one only needed the keys burned into the brain of any good touch typist, plus the control key.  Typists do NOT need to look up, find the cursor, grab the mouse, move the cursor over the text, highlight it, then go up and mouse around in a series of menus....  thus wasting time.


As for speed keys and advanced features, well Duh!  They're right there
on the keyboard, plain for all to see, you don't even have to open the
manual to look at them.  Certainly a lot easier to access and learn than
the obscure keys in Word Perfect.  Gee, what does shift/control-F5 do
again?  What about Alt-F5? What about F5?  Oh right... it's not there on
the keyboard, I'll have to spend time with a manual if I want to do
anything advanced.

WordPerfect was an anomaly.  It was only possible because Ward sold MicroPro, and they weren't advancing.  WP's claim to fame was that they had support available to help you use their clumsy product.  And, most users could count on having to USE the support line from time to time.  The GUI/Mouse WP programs are as clumsy, but prettier.  WP was NOT as fast for a good touch typist as WordStar, since the whole set of function keys, with various shift states (EEK - originally typed "shift" without the "F") are NOT burned into the brain of a typist.  USE of WordStar required one to learn, at the cellular level, the position of the control key -- but nothing else.


I don't see what the Jef bashing in the two above messages is about,
really.  If you guys are bashing the Mac, then Jef had little to do with
the Mac - the design constrains on the Mac came from two things: cost of
parts such as RAM, and design decisions (which came from management.)

Again, I am not bashing Jef.  I like his work.  M-Kay?  Friends?  <Grin>


Peace,

Warren