Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site asgb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hao!asgb!tomm
From: tomm@asgb.UUCP (Tom Mackey)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM
Message-ID: <804@asgb.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 17:08:01 EST
Article-I.D.: asgb.804
Posted: Sun Oct 27 17:08:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 07:11:49 EST
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: tomm@asgb.UUCP (Tom Mackey)
Organization: Burroughs Corp. ASG, Boulder Colo.
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5737 net.micro.atari:1527 net.micro.mac:3188 net.micro.amiga:531


Wait a minute:  "GEM is not a good product"?  People using GEM won't buy a Mac?
What drivel!  I've just spent a month evaluating GEM, and the GEM toolkit, and
beg to differ.  GEM offers a desk-top metaphor user interface management system
to the PClone world.  Last year, when I finally decided to buy a personal
computer for myself and my family, I bought a PCjr, not because I could run
GEM, but because it would run most of the software I had purchased during my
years in manufacturing engineering and as a college student.  The fact that
GEM was available never entered into it.  The typical GEM user picked it up
AFTER they already owned or had access to a PC or clone thereof.  While I do
not like the layout of the toolkit, (I prefer an object oriented approach), it
is in many ways similar to that of the Macintosh.  The appearence of the
desktop is the largest similarity to the Mac, and is the only thing in question.
If Apple employees are saying that GEM is inferior, then they should look at
their own problems as well.  The underlaying toolkit, as mentioned before, is
similar.  When I say I prefer an object oriented approach, I mean that I would
prefer that the underlying tools would be object classes.  But the Mac and GEM
toolkits both provide a procedural interface, which in turn forces the resulting
interface to be more internal than external.  GEM is a good product.  As an
experianced computer user, I am happy with a command line interface.  I have
been evaluting TopView (c IBM) as well, and MUCH prefer GEM.  I use GEM when-
ever I have a lot of file copying or moving to do.  I usually fire up GEM,
then escape to the MS-DOS command.  I may then use the command line interface
as I wish, yet can use the GEM goodies by simply typing "exit".  I agree with
a previous poster that Apple would be better off allowing desk-top metaphor
products on non-Mac hardware.  Such a strategy would lead to wide acceptance
of such user interface management systems.  I have little doubt that Apple
is in a better place than any one else to further the state of the art in
such UIMS's, and if they would spend more time being the inovative company
I have always thought of them as, and less time bitching about imitators,
they could become the industry leaders they think of themselves as.

I have no interest in whether Apple products are superior to IBM products or
DRI products.  I choose what I buy based on the greatest functionality for my
money.  I would hope that most other people do the same.  Instead of trying
to provide functionality, over the last two years or so, Apple has instead
chosen to provide hype.  I sincerely hope they get back on course!


Tom Mackey   				   ihnp4!sabre!\
					hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!tomm
		    { ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/
Burroughs Distributed Systems Group 		     Boulder, Colorado