[NTLK] Dream OS [WAS: "The iMoleskine ?" AND "Re: newtontalk Digest V8 #219"]

~~~ On 2008/05/21 23:00, bcantley at bcantley@exchange.fullerton.edu wrote
~~~

> I'm sure I'll be criticized about this.. But... "the actual UI can suck,
> hell it could be purely textual..."
>
> Ugh. I could not disagree more. The UI IS the experience interface,
> regardless of what it lets you do. Granted, the REST of what you say is
> golden, but to ignore the UI is to ignore ONE of the GREAT things about OSX
> and the Newton- REGULAR peeps will NOT care how efficient and smart the
> system is, if the damn UI is buggy, boring, overly complex, or.. Heaven help
> us.. Textual.
>
> I mean that with all due respect- I have not a clue as to the underpinnings
> of my osx.. And I really don't care to... Im in the geek minority, but in
> the consumer majority.
>
> Ok, let the ripping begin ;)
>

Bryan,

Thanks for that. What I originally was describing is my dream computer OS,
one that is totally data-centric. To me, that means that along with the new
way for the OS to handle data there must be a new (G)UI with a new way of
letting me at my data. The centrality of the data means (to me) that the
OS/UI must be as near to transparent as possible. If the UI sucked (as
Simon put it) it would become an obstacle between user and data. But if
it's well-designed -- and remember I was talking about the OS allowing me to
access all my data as a mind-map, by which I should have specified I meant a
fully relational mind-map -- it will allow the near-transparent manipulation
of my data on-screen, sometimes organizing all relevant data around this one
datum, sometimes organizing it around a central theme, sometimes switching
it to show this or that relationship between two or three or more data-sets,
and much, much more. Given that for me the data is the important thing,
I'd expect apps to be fully integrating and co-operating, going several
steps beyond what we already enjoy on the Newt. At this point I don't see
how that could use less than a GUI, since we're talking about manipulating a
mind-map easily and invisibly. And eventually it would have to be "more"
(and at this point I have no idea how it could be more than a GUI unless
it's an interactive hologram or something).

So, I defend a really good UI not because it's the user's experience
although that's also important, but because it's the user's *access and
control of the data* (and if that's what you meant, then I'm not
disagreeing). My wish is to revolutionize the OS so as to shift (at last!)
the computer's practical reality from being the box in which I employ this
or that flashy app to being the box in which I do what I need and what I
please with my data, while the OS, UI and apps are all demoted to the rôle
of secondary and derived importance, existing solely for the purpose of
serving my needs regarding my data. But there is really no point at all to
this kind of revolution in the OS unless the UI is good enough to make data
control a seamless and nearly effortless selection and employment of
whichever tools will accomplish my intentions with my data.

IMO, we already have computers whose OSes and UIs form series of obstacles
between us and our data, and that's even before we get as far as working
with them in those clumsy, ego-centric apps that demand our worship rather
than invisibly serving our will. Some are worse than others; I use a Mac
because it's marginally better, and I love my Newton because it's miles
better. For sure, even the Newton could do a lot better, but my experience
on the Newton is the closest I've come so far to what I want.

My bottom line: I want a radical transformation of computing philosophy and
the practical changes which that would trigger. My data is the ultimate
raison d'etre for my computer. Until my computer, its OS, its (G)UI, and
especially those £#¢&!*% applications get out of my sight and out of my way,
and just let me control my data without all the hardware and software
equivalent of "Look at me! Look what I can do!" my computer is failing to
justify its existence.

So, thanks for your disagreement with Simon. I'm not really ripping you,
Bryan, just re-emphasizing why I went off on that topic. I can only speak
personally, but if the next real revolution in computing doesn't finally
give us a truly data-centric OS (storage system, retrieval system, GUI,
app-implementation, and so on), I'm not interested -- to me it's no more
than "should the Cadillac have big fins, little fins or no fins this year?"
(yes, I really am old enough to remember when the Cadu designers went
through that decision and got rid of the "Flash Gordon" fins).

FWIW.

 
Shalom.
Christian

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

³Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a Newton.²
            -- what Arthur C. Clarke meant

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZzpdPJ7Zr4
(With thanks to Chod Lang)
http://tinyurl.com/29y2dl
http://www.diyplanner.com/node/3942

~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Fight Spam. Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
Get MUGged and love it: http://www.oxmug.org/
Join today: http://www.newtontalk.net/

====================================================================
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================
Received on Wed May 21 19:38:27 2008