>It seems to me that you expect Apple to design an OS to meet your needs
>and wants, and to ignore what anyone else may need or want.
The theoretical concepts of X are great. The implmentation leave much to
be desired.
No -
I want apple (and any other OS or application manufacturer) to provide an
extensibe set of tools - which allows me (the user) to 'opt in' to any
additonal technologies, such as the dock.
I also expect them to NOT ignore (in Apple's OS case years of) user input
and experience in the user interface, and software design simply for the
sake of change.
changing a (long standing) user interface /experience should NOT be done
with out extreme need. let me use a more real world example:
if you bought a car 30 years ago, it operated in much the same way as it
does now. There are obvious differences in appearence, and minor
differences in dash object placement - but the entire UI is basically the
same, as a car today. These variations of UI (placement of the tach and
gas gauge etc) are often due to size/space contraints, and other optons
which maybe installed.
However, if GM say, were to sell you a car where the stearing wheel was
in the rear passager compartment, and the radio/CD/Tape deck controls
were mounted in the roof, and the gas and brake pedals were reversed, and
the lights, windows, door locks, truck, gas cap, and hood controls were
all in jammed into one control. Your first question should be *why*?
The vehicle is still operatable, it will still drive, but you would find
yourself hitting the gas instead of the brakes at least a few times, and
opening the trunk when you wanted to lock the doors, you would have
trouble determing where the front of the car was in relation to others
etc etc etc. These are UI changes which would have been done simply for
the sake of change. they serve no useful purpose, and interfere with the
use of the car.
Sure you can get used to all of this - but there is no need for it.
continuing the analogy....
Adding accessories (suc as CD players, cruise control, GPS etc) to a car
did not require a make over a functioning UI, possble adjustments (in the
case of the GPS) but not a major redesing like I suggested above.
back to Apple....
Neither did usig BSD as a core to OSX require the extensive, and in many
instances, unneeded UI changes that Apple introduced with OSX.
Apple has a requirement of a G3 box for OSX - there is a reason - all the
UI junk that apple inserted into OSX *requires* it. I know of a lot of
poeple who have *nix running on 386 and 486 machines, including
variations of BSD. So the processors on these machines are powerful
enough to run the OS (BTW NeXT ran/runs on a 68030 or 68040 chip), but
NOT the UI. This itself speaks volumes about where Aple is expending
processor power.
-------------------
Chip Scheide Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute,
is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any
prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of
government will will disable us from descerning a good one."
Thomas Paine - Common Sense, Feb 14 1776
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
