IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Death to the GUI

0 helpful
8 replies

by dbooneweaver

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
I have a vision, though I might not get ther with you. I see a time when computer will be once again a tool in which business can rely. I see a time when the operating system does not demand all the computers reasorces just to put little meaninglessIcons on the screen. I see a time when the operating system can not be modified by the the user. I see a time when the operating system is simple and works. Death to the MAC and Death to Windows. When will the business consumer wise up and demand quality. We do not need glitz we do not want pretty pictures of our employees dog or cat or anything else we want it to work.

8 replies

by generalist

Oh, but the pictures are 'cute' (silent gagging off screen).

It would be nice though to be able to do my computer oriented work without having to constantly shift from mouse to keyboard and back again. It would also be nice not to have to guess at what those 'cute' little icons mean, or have to wait for the tool tip to display their cryptic meaning.

It would be even nicer if a group could come up with truly ergonomic user interfaces based on psychological, sociological and physiological facts. (I'd accept GUI if, and only if, it were extremely well designed.)

A bullet resistant operating system would be nice too. Of course they tend to be costly and associated with things like IBM or other mainframe/midrange hardware...

by ebob

One in which a computer is as straighforward to use as a simple telephone. A future in which a "user" does not need "to know anything about computers" to use a computer.

What I see dragging us down is that users spend countless hours every day working ON their computer, rather than WITH their computers.

I've always thought the Macintosh was superior to its DOS cousin because users could always be much more productive. The could use their computers to get their work done, while their DOS-using colleagues were always jacking around with TSRs, and memory managers. Win95 helped close that gap, and some of the recent upgrades (Win 2K and Mac OSX) have really started to work the issues of stability into the O/S.

You mention that you think it would be a good thing for users to once again be able to fuss with the O/S. I think the opposite is where we need to go. Do we crack open our Television to change the channels or flip between our cable/VCR/Satellite/DVD? No. We use a reasonablyuniversally understood interface on the outside of the box. Same thing with "computers".

Of course, since you're here in Tech Republic, you're a techie, and you and I will always be hacking around inside our computers: the box, the O/S, the othersoftware.

But my mother is not going to touch a computer until it's almost a obvious to use as a toaster (or at least a VCR). And THAT is where we need to take computers.

by generalist

My ideal for the perfect computer would be something that could replace my clipboard, calculator and library. It would be about the same size as a clipboard, be able to store several thousand pages of documents (and at least 200 favorite reference books), have the ability to take 'hand written' input as well as typed input, and be as easy to use as paper, pen and filing cabinet.

Think private secretary. And don't keep changing the hardware and software interfaces every two years for 'the latest and greatest' technology. I sometimes think that the time I MIGHT save with 'new' features is trivial when compared to the time I WILL lose trying to learn the new interfaces. And I know that the cost of upgrading isn't worth it, especially when I'm not using 99% of the 'latest and greatest' features anyway.

But don't think that I'm anti-technology. I'm just 'anti-upgrade' because I'm tired of being on the 'latest-and-greatest' treadmill, losing ground, and money, everytime somethingcomes out.

by epepke

Microsoft recently announced a deal to produce some new pad computers. They'll make a special version of Windows for it, and this will become the standard. From time to time, someone will try to introduce better interfaces, but nobody will buy them, and the companies will go out of business.

by admin

Well, I think I see and can relate to your vision and it lives in Linux, BeOS and freeBSD and will continue to for the folks that want it.

Most of the world, however, will never install an OS again, or dream of breaking the seals on the box that comes with the whole package. Technicians may schedule a time to drop by and change your box or install additional outlets, but otherwise, your monthly payment takes care of it all, and , for an additonal fee, maybe you can even reduce the level of advertising.

by marshallkeithusa

You have companies like Micro$sluff who take
other peoples technology break it and then
demand that everybody accept their standard.
. . I see Open Source as the wave of the
future. I do not subscribe to the windoze
frame of thought that it stops inovation.
The problems with closed source is that you
have to take their word for what will work.
If you can see what the man before you did
you have a spring board to work from and you
can improve on it. You cannot inovate unless
you have an agreed starting point. It would
be like building a road. and company MSF
tells you that if you build in in North
america it will connect with ours . . .
Maybe. . .and if we like what we see we will
take it break it so you have to use ours . .
.Yours will no longer work

by dbooneweaver

This whole industry is based on theft - Apple stole the GUI from Zerox who was wise enough to let it die.

by epepke

What happened was that Xerox dropped the ball. Most of the development team wanted Apple to use it, so that at least somebody would.

Xerox did the same thing with color graphics. Disgruntled employees left and founded Silicon Graphics, which inits turn provided disgruntled employees for NVIDEA.

This discussion is closed to new replies.