Re: [TCLUG:144] Microsoft invented the GUI! (was: Re: Meeting Minutes)

["Larry Greenwald" <lcgreenwald@twistedpair.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Reid Palmer <jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu>
To: tclug-list@listserv.real-time.com <tclug-list@listserv.real-time.com>
Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 1:39 PM
Subject: [TCLUG:144] Microsoft invented the GUI! (was: Re: Meeting Minutes)


>On Thu, 7 May 1998, Tony Beltran wrote:
>
>> When DOS was first getting off the ground, the simplest
>> user interfaces were very acceptable, as was the command
>> line interface.  However, Microsoft, despite how much we
>> like to say otherwise, has set a standard of quality in
>> appearance and features their software presents to the
>> user
>
>No, actually that was Apple. Windows95 is a sorry copy of the MacOS and
>NeXT interfaces. Apple pushed the envelope, MS whipped out a cheesy
>knock-off, and the marketing division brought us the lovely hegemony we
>enjoy today.

And Apple ripped their GUI off Xerox Palo Alto.

>
>> that (so far) has been unmatched in the Linux community.
>
>Well, Linux is by and for hackers, who have their preferences and
>traditions, which are totally different from those of mere (l)users. In
>the interest of making Linux a possibility for people who (strangely)
>don't enjoy recompiling their kernel every time a new 2.1.x comes out,
>there are at least two groups working on distributions that are usable in
>the Apple/Apple-copy manner:
>
>www.seul.org/
>independence.dunadan.com/
>
>> We are talking about people who are used
>> to products like Microsoft Office.  Compare the look
>> and feel of that product to Applixware.  Yes, Applixware
>> works well.  But, it does not have that polished finish
>> that gives the user confidence.  Nobody at the office is
>> using Applixware.
>
>More important than polish is cross-application consistency, a concept
>completely lost on Windows and X Windows developers. What we call
>"intuitiveness" is really consistency: "Hey, CONTROL+P worked for pasting
>text in the other app, maybe it woks in this one, too!" Anyone who has
>used TeraTerm and Netscape for MS Windows knows this is wrong. This is a
>hump Linux developers are going to have to get over if Linux is to become
>an end-user solution. Newsflash: users don't want maximally configurable
>apps. They want simple apps that work right, right out of the box, and in
>the same way as apps they are already familiar with. Applixware bombs
>hilariously in this department.
>
>> This is the same experience
>> people in the Microsoft have had in the past with free-
>> and shareware.  However, in recent years, freeware and
>> shareware has risen dramatically in quality as the tools
>> used to produce that software have improved.
>
>Perhaps they've been reading Apple's *Human Interface Guidelines*...
>
>> Therefore,
>> on all fronts in the Microsoft world, the standard for
>> features and look/feel are quite high.  Why should the
>> Microsoft users accept less?
>
>They already *are* accepting less. They have crashy, buggy desktop and
>server OSes with bloated, inconsistent apps. Perhaps if we put out ads
>with dancing Alpha people and smarmy GenX full-page ads in Wired...
>
>> However,
>> the scenerio of Microsoft vs Linux for superiority, user
>> share, etc has played itself out over and over.  My first
>> encounter with that scene was with the Z100 computer vs
>> the PC.  There was the Amiga vs the rest of the world.
>> There was the Mac vs the rest of the world.  In each
>> case "the rest of the world" was really the PC running
>> DOS or Windows.  The Windows market produced the apps that
>> real people who couldn't care less about the underlying
>> computer needed to use on a daily basis.
>
>No they didn't. They had strong-arm tactics against IS departments and
>superior marketing for a laughably inferior product.
>
>> It is happening
>> again.  However, this time there MAY be a difference.
>> If enough people in the Linux community realize this and
>> are willing to do something about it (e.g. produce the
>> apps that real people need and present in them in a way
>> that real people want them to be presented), Linux may
>> have a real chance.
>
>As it stands, Linux could nuke the NT niche. But as shit-ridden as it is,
>Windows 95 is far superior to Linux for its target market. Linux needs a
>complete interface overhaul and a pile of working, stable, and above-all
>consistent apps. This isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, let's face
>it -- unless the Linux community does an about-face and realizes the
>hacker-elitist stance is costing it user- and mind-share. (That's right:
>difficulty for users is actually a *liability*, not an asset!)
>
>> This includes a smooth working and good looking GUI
>
>...and consistent...
>
>> and decent documentation.
>
>What? The man pages aren't good enough for you? You must be a luser. >:P
>
>> Most
>> of us developers consider the project done when the
>> software or hardware does what it is supposed to.  That
>> isn't good enough when considering the general public.
>
>Exactly. Eric Raymond and I agree that software is a *service* market.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
__
>Christopher Reid Palmer : jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu : innerfire on IRC (EFNet)
>
>Free Software Special Interest Group : acm.cs.umn.edu/~jaymz/sigfs/
>Digital Media Center : www.umn.edu/dmc/
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
>For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
>Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
>
>