🚀 go-pugleaf

User interface, how important?

The Apollo has nothing right at the moment, as compared to the Star, in
which almost the total software engineering effort has been skewed.

Building a powerful user interface is ''nice'', but what is left
with respect to processor cycles is not so ''nice''.  The questions of
priorities for any given application is not clear.

Example:
o       Personal workstations are purchased because;
        (a) Small application program needs to be run off mainframe
        (b) Office - management systems need more sophistication
        (c) Need for specialized computing has grown
        (d) Corporations can no longer shell out vast sums of
            money on computing, when distributing is available.

o       What personalities should personal workstations have?
        
        In answering this, there are basically 2, a truely split
        personality:

Consider:
        
        System FOO runs on giant IBM-303x and can really be run on
        lots of distributed perscoms [from G. Steckel]. 

        Systems people would like to see a very interactive and
        totally controllable system, perhaps right down to the
        micro-code.  The full power, memory management right through
        to the disk-I/O routines.  Engineering a product right is
        as equivalent to engineering it well.

        Management would want to see just the pretty pictures, the 
        finished product, none of the rough edges, that the software
        engineers love to play with. All they want is a black box with
        none of the 'hassles' of low level code.

A split personality indeed.

        Most systems are geared towards the management.  The fact that
few provisions have been made for the systems types is indeed a
potential tragedy.  Much of the insulation is hindering a good job for
the programmer.  Remember these things are nothing more powerful than
your Apple computer, doing a major application in-efficiently will hurt
the perscoms in the long run.

Opinions?

/Hank