Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corrections may not amount to much, but there is no reason to believe that his version would be a failed experiment like the Apple III or the Lisa would have taken it's place. Part of the magic of the Macintosh was the simplicity of the hardware. In that respect, it was much closer to the Apple II than the Apple III or Lisa. Consumers may not think much about what's inside the case, but it matters when it comes t…
The defining aspect of the Macintosh for me will always be the mandatory GUI - most everything else had it as either an entire afterthought, or at least as a “program started later”.
Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
51–60 of 80 posts
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corrections may not amount to much, but there is no reason to believe that his version would be a failed experiment like the Apple III or the Lisa would have taken it's place. Part of the magic of the Macintosh was the simplicity of the hardware. In that respect, it was much closer to the Apple II than the Apple III or Lisa. Consumers may not think much about what's inside the case, but it matters when it comes t…
The defining aspect of the Macintosh for me will always be the mandatory GUI - most everything else had it as either an entire afterthought, or at least as a “program started later”.
That was absolutely revolutionary.
S-100 systems and the early PCs were primarily text systems that sometimes happened to do crude graphics.
The original Apple II tried to do graphics but the tech to do it properly just didn't exist. And the underlying UI was still text based.
Raskin's Mac vision didn't make that leap. It wasn't just about the mouse, it was about the philosophy of the product. Raskin wanted text-but-cheaper-and-better, Jobs wanted pictures and art.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
After seeing a video of the Canon Cat in action, I thought “so, this is a lot like Emacs”.
It is, kind of. The Canon Cat is a good text editor. That's about all it does. When Raskin was active, there was a whole industry selling "word processors", special purpose computers that just did text processing. Wang and IBM were the biggest makers. The IBM PC was descended from the IBM Displaywriter and used the same monitor. So at the time, word processing looked like the core desktop computer function. So Raskin…
Huh? We seem to have a completely different read of his work, like the whole ZUI Zoomable Interfaces research? That is not about word processing at all. How to navigate and interact with multi-dimensional data.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The defining aspect of the Macintosh for me will always be the mandatory GUI - most everything else had it as either an entire afterthought, or at least as a “program started later”.
And perhaps most critically, other semi-GUI platforms made lesser attempts to demand consistency.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The defining aspect of the Macintosh for me will always be the mandatory GUI - most everything else had it as either an entire afterthought, or at least as a “program started later”.
The mandatory graphic GUI - and MacPaint - made the point that the Mac was primarily a visual design tool that happened to handle text. That was absolutely revolutionary. S-100 systems and the early PCs were primarily text systems that sometimes happened to do crude graphics. The original Apple II tried to do graphics but the tech to do it properly just didn't exist. And the underlying UI was still text based. Raskin…
What do you reckon the "G" in GUI stands for, out of curiosity?
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#56Jobs did the right thing, which was to make an affordable Lisa for home computing. The simplicity of the mouse was essential. It's sounds like Jef had other ideas.
Jef wanted a trackball instead of a mouse. The claim that he did not want a pointing device is false. That would have made little difference for a Mackintosh user. The hardware of a trackball is exactly equivalent with that of a mouse, neither is simpler than the other. (Optical mice without rolling balls have appeared only decades later.) I have actually used trackballs instead of mice for a few years, and I have gr…
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jef wanted a trackball instead of a mouse. The claim that he did not want a pointing device is false. That would have made little difference for a Mackintosh user. The hardware of a trackball is exactly equivalent with that of a mouse, neither is simpler than the other. (Optical mice without rolling balls have appeared only decades later.) I have actually used trackballs instead of mice for a few years, and I have gr…
Is your deliberate misspelling of "Macintosh" spell-check or the same sort of intransigence that compels some people to misspell "Micro$oft" thinking they're clever?
The last time when I had an Apple computer was 2 decades ago.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#58https://folklore.org/The_Father_of_The_Macintosh.html : “There's no doubt that Jef was the creator of the Macintosh project at Apple, and that his articulate vision of an exceptionally easy to use, low cost, high volume appliance computer got the ball rolling, and remained near the heart of the project long after Jef left the company. He also deserves ample credit for putting together the extraordinary initial team t…
Also he defined the difference between computers and humans as computers been precise and accurate and humans as vague, but more flexible. We have now had a paradigm shift in that ai is now the flexible interface that sometimes hallucinates.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jef wanted a trackball instead of a mouse. The claim that he did not want a pointing device is false. That would have made little difference for a Mackintosh user. The hardware of a trackball is exactly equivalent with that of a mouse, neither is simpler than the other. (Optical mice without rolling balls have appeared only decades later.) I have actually used trackballs instead of mice for a few years, and I have gr…
How is your ‘small tablet’ approach different to a trackpad? Do you use the tablet screen somehow? Sounds interesting!
I use Wacom Intuos S graphic tablets, on Linux. These are cheap tablets without screens, with a USB or Bluetooth interface.
These tablets have the same size as a traditional mouse pad, so they do not take more size on the desk than a mouse.
The stylus is extremely light, so I can keep it between my fingers while touch typing with all fingers on the keyboard. Thus I can transition between typing and pointing much faster than with a mouse, where I have to grip the mouse or release it.
I configure the tablet in "Relative" mode, where the operating system sees it as a mouse and there is no difference in behavior between it and a mouse.
I configure the stylus to emit a "left click" when I touch the tablet with its tip. The stylus has 2 buttons that can be pressed with your index. I configure one to be "right click" and the other to be "double left click". You can choose any other behaviors.
Holding the stylus is much, much more comfortable than holding a mouse, because of the natural position of the hand.
Moving the cursor with the stylus is much faster than with a mouse. I can move it across the screen from corner to corner instantaneously, because the stylus is much lighter than a mouse, and there is no friction, since it does not touch the tablet, unless you use it to select an area.
The positioning accuracy is much better than with a mouse. If you desire so, you can do handwriting, e.g. signatures, or make drawings with it, which of course is not surprising as this is supposed to be a graphic tablet.
I tried this initially only hoping for a better comfort, because my hand was hurting from the excessive use of mouse all day long. But then I discovered that not only it is very comfortable, but also much faster and more accurate than a mouse can be. Therefore I do not intend to ever use a mouse again.
Trackpads are more comfortable than mice, but they are much slower, so they are not competitive for things like drawing electronics schematics, which I do from time to time. While trackpads, like touchscreens, do not have the inertia problem of a mouse, it is absolutely impossible to move your fingertips with the speed with which you can move the tip of a stylus, which amplifies the amplitude of your finger movements.
There are too few programs which know to use "mouse gestures" for the user interface, e.g. some expensive CAD/EDA programs or the Web browser Vivaldi.
Mouse gestures are already better than any trackpad gestures, but when you use a stylus they become even better, as they are pretty much the same movements as in handwriting.
Re: Jef Raskin, the Visionary Behind the Mac (2013)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lisa 2 was cheaper than many later Macs, but the Mac folks seemed to have little interest in convergent evolution for the platforms or in integrating Lisa features like memory protection into the Mac. The result was that Lisa died as the Macintosh XL (ex-Lisa), with a Mac compatibility environment (MacWorks, which looked terrible with the stock Lisa rectangular pixels but better with a "Screen Kit" square pixel upgra…
Or fully embracing the Pascal programming model. I think it was in one of the On the Metal interviews where one of the guests mentions MPW was a submarine project, from UNIX background engineers, to eventually replace Pascal with C++.
https://www.folklore.org/Puzzle.html
To this day, one of my favourite word processors is WriteNow, which was ~100,000 lines of assembly.