Subject: Re: Big surprise: Linux ain't Windows or MacOS. GASP! (was "RE: Linux laptops")
From: Eric D. (liriodendron@mac.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 08:47:32 MST
on 6/3/02 16:59, Justin Christopher at jchristopher@takenote.net wrote:
<snip>
> With regards to your attempt to compare the usability of System 7 to Linux,
> don't even bother, because Linux (8 or 9 years later) is not even in the
> same league and everyone reading this list knows it.
>
> As you say "none of those early OS's were simple either...". You're
> absolutely right - that's why they've BEEN REPLACED.
I'm of the opinion they were "beefed" up to sell new computers more so than
replace the old OS. M$ + Windows needed new computers sold to make $ (Apple
too) & Apple needed to keep their OS that much ahead of Windoze to maintain
their user base & sell new computers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Peters [mailto:ppeters914@attbi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:23 PM
>
> I'm gonna take a wild leap; how many of the complainers have never seen a
> command line OS (DOS, Unix) or worked w/ early GUIs (Windows 1.0/2.04g/3.x,
> System 6.x/7.x)? None of those early OS's were simple either, especially if
> you want to talk drivers. And sound...how many of you remember Adlib?
I wasn't part of the thread (held down the del key ;) but I have seen a CLUI
(DOS and mach UNIX (though, far from expert at it)) and parts of Linux still
are stuck back in those days. Comparing Win 1.0 & 2.0 to anything usable is
a farce. 3.x was usable (you could be more productive than in DOS) (though,
not very refined) but in SOME respects it actually provided a MORE seemless
user experience than does Linux (although Win 3.1 is a useless piece of @$!!
I never had to drop to DOS to actually get Win 3.1 to switch screen
resolutions or sound or set system preferences).
Mac OS 7.x was and still is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Linux for SIMPLE and,
therefore usable (which is the ultimate goal of a TOOL). I would happily and
confidently wager that 85+% (I suspect 15% have some programming/scripting
experience) of the computer using public out there could confidently USE
(guys & gals, this is what makes or breaks a computer. CAN YOU USE IT
efficiently?) and configure a late-PPC 604e box whereas that same 85% would
be entirely stumped as to how to set a screen resolution in Linux. Stability
ain't everything (though it is when comparing two comparable interfaces...
OS 9 vs. X) if the interface ain't there.
Having to drop to CLUI may be fine for those versed and/or raised in the
world of CLUI but it isn't for someone who uses their computer to perform a
task, simply and without hassle. My father is an extremely intelligent man,
can write code to perform statistical analyses like the best of them, but he
can't even (or has ever WANTED/NEEDED to) figure out a DOS (or any other)
CLUI (he went from having TI-50 (50 step programmable calculator... awesome
little calculator (pity the machine stopped working (that's where I learned
my first programming skills) :( :( :( ) right to the top-of-the-line Mac 128
as his very first computer at 54). In 1984 Apples + PC boxes were nothing
more than glorified typing machines. Macs were usable because you didn't
have to deal with all the typing BS (and remembering commands) and could
focus on your work instead.
From my experience with YDL so-far I have come to the conclusion that a Mac
128 with its System 0.97 and Finder 1.1 was MORE user-friendly than a G3/400
running Linux. It wasn't as powerful by far (how many 1000s of times faster
is a G3?) nor were there as many apps but the ones that you need to do WORK
were there -- MS Word 1.05/MacWrite 1.0, MacPaint 1.3, MacDraw 1.7, Apple
Pascal, MS BASIC, Apple BASIC. With that you could write, draw a simple
picture & a complex diagram and write any scientific software you needed -
everything modern computer users do. The only tools missing were a web
browser and e-mail app. In 18 years computers haven't progressed much so
there is NO excuse for a shoddy interface. Yes Linux is an endeavour of
love, but if the programmers want their baby to be loved by all Gnome + KDE
really have to evolve. For Linux to gain hold as a desktop OS with
non-computer-geeks (& I'm not using this as a derogatory term) it will need
to offer a user-experience that is seamless and simple. The # 1 rule in
writing (which I am breaking now so I don't make a simple statement like
"Linux sucks") is KISS. This same principle is what gave Apple such a wildly
loyal following, and, is what M$ is going towards in XP.
Linux is a tinkerers OS. Computers have replaced cars as the favourite
tinkering toy and Linux is the beat-up VW bug that just keeps on ticking but
doesn't make for a great ride.
I'm intrigued by Linux but it's nothing more than a toy for me at the moment
beside OS X (since OS X gives you the GUI/seamlessness PLUS the stability).
The way I approach it is the same way I approach Windows. Windows is for
tinkering, Mac OS is for working. If I want to browse the web I don't care
what platform I do it on. If I want to construct a document I'll still go
back to Mac, because the integration is as perfect as is available.
Anyway, this is my "little" contribution to this thread. So long, farewell,
aufwiedersehn... Enough already. No more from me on this topic. (Damn,
die-hard Linuxers are as devout as the Mac faithful in defending their
platform ;)
L8r, Eric.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 09:02:11 MST