Re: hey Simon et al

[Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com>]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:46:54 +0000, Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Simon Williams wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>BTW, Macs are apparently "easy to use" only if you've never used another
>>OS... I've got friends who can strip a PC to bits and rebuild it
>>blind-folded, but can't seem to get a handle on the Mac's "weird"
>>desktop... though I have similar problems with Windows -- I'm sure it's
>>designed for lefties ;-)
> 
> The thing that Macs do that drives me crazy is having a non-filename
> type for files.
> 
> I am accustomed to being able to 1) change a file's apparent type by
> just renaming it,  2) being able to open pretty much any file with
> any "simple" application (like a text editor), and 3) being able to send
> a file to many different applications with a single right-click, select,
> release operation.
> 
> The Mac's insistence that it knows what to do with a file better
> than I do causes me considerable frustration (that and the fact
> that it can't resist "forking up" every file it sees).

I used Macs almost exclusively for more than 5 years and this always
made me angry. I was doing a little bit of Mac stuff today and kept
tripping over the fact that the entire design of classic Mac hardware
and software is based on the assumption that the computer knows what
is allowed, and the user isn't.

This is not a problem with the classic Mac use of extensive metadata
(resource fork) associated with files. That is actually a good thing.
The problem is that Apple didn't want anyone to be able to contradict
the OS and hardware. The idea that the OS can absolutely refuse to do
something that I, the user, command is absurd. Put lots of warning,
signs, portents of doom, skulls and crossbones, etc., if you want but
don't tell me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to eject a diskette.

I remember some DOS users responding to Mac user ridicule of Ctrl-Alt-
Delete by pointing out that the Mac equivalent was
"Ctrl-Alt-Pull-the-power-cord-out-of-the-wall" - Even the power switch
was under software control and if the Mac crashed, it didn't work.

However, Windows type extensions are equally brain dead. If the OS is
going to let me change the extension on a file from .xls to .exe and
then execute it, why not just let me execute an .xls? Why should a few
letters at the end of a file determine it's destiny? I think UNIX and
equivalents have the right idea: A file is a file is a file. Let the
programs figure out what to do with it - the name is for the user, not
the OS.