Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:02:34 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1016730154.cfda5b@mired.org> To: Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Free BSD Message-ID: <15507.31402.448552.648331@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020316100234.01b21638@threespace.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020315181331.01b26160@threespace.com> <20020314204235.L152-100000@pogo.caustic.org> <15505.28725.937368.158235@guru.mired.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020315190230.01b2a4f8@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020316100234.01b21638@threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <4.3.2.7.2.20020316100234.01b21638@threespace.com>, Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> typed: > At 07:55 PM 3/15/2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Oh I read the article, all right. And I disagree with most of it. And the > only thing that I've "suggested" here is that he ante up and actually > *implement* some of his ideas. I really take issue with his blanket > assertion that (paraphrasing here) "All windowing systems/GUIs are screwed > up, and I could do it so much better--but I won't." Read his book then. He did. > Now if Raskin wants to change that de facto standard, he's essentially > going *against* the standardization that he argues for. The > standardization of the interface is essentially done. Let's leave it be > and move on to bigger issues. Leaving the steaming heap that Apple/MS has foisted off on us as an interface is the worst idea I've seen since the last time I talked to an MS support rep (~1982). Of all the behavior models for windowing systems that I know of, that's the least efficient one. > I read an article in which an engineer at one of the major American car > manufacturers said that response time could be improved by placing > braking/acceleration controls on the steering wheel. He argued that the > time required for the driver to move his feet was significant in decisions > requiring split-second responses. But you know how many car makers were > interested in adopting his idea? Zero! Because nobody wants to relearn > how to use his hands rather than his feet to drive the car. I sure > wouldn't rent/buy one. Most major manufacturers put an acceleration control on the steering wheel, at least for their high end cars. I'm pretty sure one of the F1 teams did the same. > The point is that once the population at large has settled on a particular > method--whether through conscious decision-making or lack thereof--getting > them all to switch to another method, even a better one, is damn near > impossible. Believe me that if the music industry hadn't shoved CDs down > our collective throats, some of us would still be listening to cassette > tapes or 8-tracks. "Shoved down our throats"? You mean, like DVDs are being shoved down our throats, and like DIVX was shoved down our throats? I don't know about you, but the first time I heard a CD player, *I* wanted one. I waited until I found one that could pass a blind A/B test against a thousand dollar turntable before I got rid of my turntable, but nobody forced people to buy CDs instead of cassettes. The rule for this stuff is very simple: to get the public to change, it has to be perceived to be at least an order of magnitude better for the same price. CDs pretty clearly qualified: they sounded better(*), they were more damage resistant, and they could be played in the car. DVDs, ditto. They look better(*), they are wear better, and they offer lots extra features that people seem to like. DIVX, not ditto. It was DVD, only with a sucky pricing structure and requiring a new player. Unfortunately, while the steaming heap of a GUI most people use is indeed the least efficient, it's at worst a factor of two worse, not a factor of 10. So the only way it's going to get changed is if MS manages to shove it down our throats. Having monopoly power, they can do that. > The actual look of a window manager (or car, or woman, or anything else) > only matters very early up front. You may be wowed by the look of the > windows and widgets early on, but after that it really doesn't matter to > you while you're working. Actually, it does matter. If you notice them, then you're not working. That's why the look matters. Being wow'ed early on is usually a bad sign, not a good one. > Sure, I don't like the look of twm, but I would > be no more/less productive by using it. That depends on what you're using now. If it's the MS/Apple stuff, then using a properly configured twm would be about 5% more efficient - meaning it takes about 5% less time to do things with it than the MS/Apple stuff. That should translate into more productivity. > In fact, I might argue that the pleasure I get out of having an > attractive, colorful windowing system with my girlfriend on the > wallpaper would actually make me more productive on the whole. > Productivity isn't just about the milliseconds saved in dragging the > mouse from one corner to the next. True enough. But since you can do that with almost any GUI, it's sort of irrelevant. > Like I said, he can develop his 1-bit WM and then he can have it. He already did, and he already does. <mike *) I know the sound/looks point is arguable, but compare them on the kinds of A/V system your average consumer has, *not* the kind that someone who'd lay out a grand for a turntable has. Under those conditions, CD/DVD clearly has better quality. -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15507.31402.448552.648331>