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