Stephen Jendraszak (stevehj_at_mac.com) wrote:
> The interface of OS X does require more processor power... but I
> personally find it worth it. Aqua is beautiful, and easier to use. It is
> a step forward. People said the same thing about the original
> Macintosh... "We could do the same jobs on the same chip a lot faster
> with a command line. The GUI uses too many system resources."
I think you miss the point. The proponents of the command line simply
place the burden on the user -- let the user do all the work, memorize
commands, options, cryptic syntax, and the like, so the computer can be
fast. If Apple had had any resources to waste on the original Mac, they
might have attempted to built one big, artificially intelligent system
that did everything for the user before he could even ask. Only they had
no resources left to waste. What Apple really did with the original Mac
was to implement a visual, direct manipulation interface with severely
limited resources. The idea was to reduce the cognitive load on part of
the user, but by utilizing what computers are good at without consuming
too much RAM or CPU cycles. They did a great job at this and achieved
very much with very little. And, to bring this back on topic, they did
the same when they designed the Newton. Both the original Mac and the
Newton make the most out of next to nothing (RAM, CPU, screen real estate
..). Quartz/Aqua, on the other hand, gobbles up resources like there's
no tomorrow and gives you back very little (and nothing terribly useful).
- Michael
Michael J. Hussmann
E-mail: michael_at_michael-hussmann.de
WWW: http://michael-hussmann.de
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:03:34 EST