🚀 go-pugleaf

      In article <233@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> olson@endor.UUCP (Eric Olson) writes:
      >OK, guys, I have a few questions for anyone to try to field about the ST:
      >
      >- Why "lazy" menus? ... (i.e., make it like the Mac?).
      
         Ask the lawyers at Apple, Corp.  (Weren't you around for the Apple vs.
      DRI discussion?)  Anyway, there is a utility in the latest issue of STart
      magazine which claims to be able to make the ST do stuff "like the Mac".
      
      >- Holding down the arrow in a scroll bar doesn't cause continuous scrolling
      >(like on the Mac).  WHY NOT?  This seems like a very obvious thing to do.
      
      (See above answer)


Wait a minute.  They couldn't make it look like the Mac, so they make it look
*worse* than the Mac???  You lost me there.  The Mac's not perfect (play with
one for an hour and you'll see).  For example, you could make the drop-down
menus come down automatically when you move the cursor on them, then go away
when you move the cursor off (rather than waiting for a mouse click).  "Apple
has tough lawyers" is no justification for sloppy software design.


      >In case you're wondering, I'm not too happy with the software on the ST.
      >It seems like a PC running GEM, not a small Mac.  But, of course, it's
      >not a PC (although why not, marketingwise, I'll never understand), it has
      >a 68000.  Running CP/M-68K (essentially).  And GEM/VDI.  And GEM/AES.
      
      >I'm slightly sorry to vent all these complaints, but I see very little to
      >praise.  What is this machine good for?
      
        I dunno.  Who would be dumb enough to buy a useless machine?
        - Joel Plutchak


I think you have totally missed the point of Eric's message.  I think what he
was saying is that the Atari is a LOT of machine.  It's *much* nicer than a
PC, and it's *much* nicer than a Mac, "hardwarewise".  So why don't they get
their act together and design some good software?  Personally, I like the
machine; I just think it has tremendous potential for improvement.  You can
either sell a raw machine or an ergonomically designed product;  looks like
the Atari hit the left end of this spectrum.

While we're on the subject, here's another design question I've been
wondering about.  The screen redraw algorithm seems to be completely
brainwashed.  Consider this:  you have three windows open, say, on drives A,
B, and D.  You have only one physical drive, so it's doubling both as A and
B.  D is your ramdisk.  Now you double-click on a file and go through the
silly show/print/cancel dialog box to see it on the screen (why not just use
a GEM window?).  Now comes the fun part.  The file ends, it tries redraws
your screen.  First it redraws the outline of the lowermost window (say, D).
Now it makes you insert disk B in drive A, and redraws the outline of the B
window.  Next, you insert disk A in drive A, and it redraws the outline of
the A window.  Now it fills in the D window, and then the B window, and then
the A window.  Even without the disk change operation, this process takes
several seconds, and results several rewrites of parts of your screen.  Slow
and annoying.  There is NO reason to do this (our unmentionable competitor
redraws the screen almost instantaneously).  The OS doesn't check that you
inserted the correct disk for B (i.e., the same disk it expected), nor does
it care if you insert a different disk for B when you get down to using B
again.  So why does it need to read the disk (slow, slow) when it redraws the
screen?

If you really care about consistency of the window with the current disk in
the drive (and it isn't obvious that you need to in all cases), it is easy to
detect whether the user has ejected/reinserted a disk.  In fact, you could
easily update an open window automatically if the user changes a disk.

These aren't flames or complaints or "why did I buy this machine?" rantings;
I'm only suggesting that with a little bit of thought, Atari can improve its
desktop and user interface considerably *without* running over the Mac's
copyrights.  Why isn't there a MOVE operation, only a COPY?  Why can't you
rename folders?  Why is file renaming hidden away in SHOW INFO?  Why only
four windows?  Why use such an immutably large font in the windows (with
broad scroll bars), thereby making what is really a larger screen than the
Macs have look like it has much less space on it?  Why make us adjust
the volume of the monitor *every* time you turn it on, rather than saving it
in DESKTOP.INF?  There are several things in their design that could do
with some polishing.  And then there are several things that they didn't
even think of.  How about using the right mouse button as a way of getting
help on a particular menu item while it is lit?  Or even the HELP key?
Even the Mac doesn't do this.  I have a million *constructive* ideas if
anyone wants to listen, and I'm sure anyone who has used the Atari for
more than a day has a million of his/her own.

This isn't, of course, an issue of Atari vs. Mac.  In fact, if they don't
try to copy the Mac, they should be able to come up with something *better*
than the Mac.  (And then it'll be their turn to hire tough lawyers :-)).

-- Ashwin.

ARPA:   Ram-Ashwin@yale
UUCP:   ...!yale!Ram-Ashwin
BITNET: Ram@yalecs


-------