ActiveWin reviews Office 2007 beta 1, and concludes: "It's an innovative interface yes, but will the benefits outweigh the changes? That's for users to decide. Yes this early code does have glitches and performance issues left to be ironed out; right now the focus is on reliability and stability. The BETA 2 release should provide us with an early glimpse of what's in store in the final product. My personal say is getting used to interface should not be a problem for many since the familiar tools are organized in ways that makes it convenient for the user, and new tools make the interface more intelligent and more aware of what the user is doing, presenting the right tools for the task at hand."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Um... no. Innovation is not no longer innovation because adopters don't like it. Innovation is innovation no matter how well people react to it.
I'm not a nix type, at all, and I never said vi is a great product. All I said is that once you get past the initial steep learning curve, you will be a lot more productive. I'm not a very big unix guy at all, but the more I learn vi, the more I appreciate it. However, I still tend to use other tools to edit most of my code. But for some things, vi can't be beat, to me.
And of course a GUI is almost always *better*. There is no doubt about that. The only reason I used *vi* is because its a good example of an app that is relatively simple, but has a steep learning curve before someone can really become productive with it.
The rest of what you say, I mostly agree with. However, I'm far from a *nix nerd (I'm a windows nerd actually), I use vi[m] only a portion of the time, and I think you don't truly appreciate vi[m] because you haven't taken the time to learn it. It's not the be-all end-all like some thing it is, but it's a powerful tool to add to your arsenal if you know it and know when to use it.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Your entire argument is nonsensical. DOS is a rather poorly designed batch operating system while vi[1] is a text editor.
You also seem confused about the difference between text mode interfaces and GUI's. Vi is not a command line program simply because it can run in a text mode terminal. It is an interactive full screen program with many of the same features of any other text editor (graphical or not). The fact that vim[2] has a graphics mode interface makes this a rather moot issue.
The ability to multitask is not an intrinsic property of a GUI. Most any UNIX like system has virtual terminals, and let us not forget GNU screen which allows terminal multiplexing. Further, terminal emulators can be run inside of a graphics mode interface. In fact, a common usage of X11 servers is simply to run multiple xterms for the multitasking function. This brings us to the myth of the GUI.
Both technical and non-technical folks put forth the false dicotomy that one either must have a GUI or a command line. The two are not mutually exclusive. This myth seems to have stemmed from the popularity of the WIMP interface whereby the mouse has become the dominate input method and command lines are entirely absent or neglected. Of course, this is the reason why new comers to UNIX systems believe that it is some how backwards. UNIX users do not subscribe to the WIMP ideal[3] but rather keep the command interpreter and utilize the graphics mode server (X11) to leverage the greater output capabilities that it affords.
The important thing to realize is that one could write an application in a graphics mode environment and have it behave in every way that a full screen program would in a text mode environment and still leverage the output flexibility of the former. One does not need menus, icons and buttons to have a GUI. These symbolic devices simply emulate commands. The GUI as a concept is ill defined and nebulous.
It is also important to realize that usability does not imply a low learning curve. Vim (or vi) are not great because they are hard to learn. They are great because they are flexable and efficient. The fact that is difficult to use (debatable) at first is a side effect.
To end, I would like to point out that vi and vim are not the only text editors available on UNIX like systems. Emacs is another editor that is commonly used. In fact, there is still unrest between vi and emacs users. Which of the two are superior is still up in the air and I, quite frankly, don't care. The list doesn't stop there, either, for there are many more editors to choose from including the WIMP variety you cherrish so intensely.
[1] Linux systems usually symlink vi to vim.
[2] Vim is an improved (more features) rewrite of vi.
[3] KDE and GNOME provide a WIMP style interface which ultimately shows that attacks on UNIX are usually attacks on a particular UI. UNIX does not enforce UI policy nor does X11.
Edited 2006-02-27 09:15
Member since:2005-09-04
Your entire argument is nonsensical. DOS is a rather poorly designed batch operating system while vi[1] is a text editor.
My point was that both are cryptic/hard to use, yet powerful. And both are.
You also seem confused about the difference between text mode interfaces and GUI's.
Actually, you are.
Vi is not a command line program simply because...
It doesn't matter WHY it is, it just is.
it can run in a text mode terminal. It is an interactive full screen program with many of the same features of any other text editor (graphical or not).
So far from the truth as to be laughable. "with many of the same features"??? Yeah, if you type like a perl script.
The fact that vim[2] has a graphics mode interface makes this a rather moot issue.
Actually it makes your mention of vim irrelevant.
The ability to multitask is not an intrinsic property of a GUI...and 10 more lines of a rant that indicates you obviously misread my post
As I said in my original post, *nix "got this right" -- i.e. figured out how to do multiple things at once in a non-GUI.
Both technical and non-technical folks put forth the false dicotomy that one either must have a GUI or a command line...and 10 more lines on this same note
Another misreading of what I said. I in fact made the point you are trying to make. That good systems involve the combination of both cmd prompts + GUIs. No offense but maybe English is not your first language.
It is also important to realize that usability does not imply a low learning curve.
A point at once obvious, yet surprisingly irrelevant to this entire thread.
Vim (or vi) are not great because they are hard to learn. They are great because they are flexable and efficient. The fact that is difficult to use (debatable) at first is a side effect.
Ahem, my original comment and most comments that responded to it were about program interfaces. It is obvious why vi sucks, yet has utility. I and several others have already commented on this. Yet you seem to have adopted a tone of the great professor telling me/us all what we have already said. Next time try responding to something within 48 hours of the original postings.
To end, I would like to point out that vi and vim are not the only text editors available on UNIX like systems. Emacs is another editor that is commonly used. In fact, there is still unrest between vi and emacs users. Which of the two are superior is still up in the air and I, quite frankly, don't care. The list doesn't stop there, either, for there are many more editors to choose from including the WIMP variety you cherrish so intensely.
More complete irrelevance.
vi was cited for its bad interface. Office 2007 is changing only its interface (basically) and I am saying that anyone switching to it for this reason alone is a fool.
Linux systems usually symlink vi to vim.
This is like Mac users screaming "the Mac ships with a two button mouse!!!" Yes, NOW it does, after almost exactly 20 years of stupidity. How many hundreds of thousands of users over the decades -- decades -- have been tortured by vi? May they rest in peace.
Vim is an improved (more features) rewrite of vi.
Not relevant. Halfway through the DOS lifecycle edlin was updated to Edit (a dumbed down qbasic). Who cares? Who is talking about this?
KDE and GNOME provide a WIMP style interface which ultimately shows that attacks on UNIX are usually attacks on a particular UI. UNIX does not enforce UI policy nor does X11.
Since this never was about attacking unix, I offer to pay the first $10 toward your "learning to read English" class.
Floyd
http://www.just-think-it.com
Member since:
2005-09-04
Just because the article doesn't cover it, doesn't mean there isn't anything innovative. The interface is actually innovative in itself. You may not like it much, but innovation is not about what people like. Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you're more productive once you learn. vi is a good example of this.
Innovation MUST BE about what adopters like, or they won't adopt it (unless forced to).
vi is a superb example of an awful interface. *nix types that cite vi as being a great product are what holds *nix back. Or I could ask the question "Why is it that DOS is bad but vi is good?" Doesn't make sense really. DOS in its own way is just as powerful and cryptic as vi -- and neither ultimately triumphed. DOS & vi have a certain utility and place, but are not marvels of innovation.
Innovation is a new product that triumphs. Beta was better but VHS was the innovation that triumphed.
vi may be great, for a machine, but the vast majority of humans do not want it. Similarly the vast majority of humans do not want a new interface unless it clearly offers something they need. Since hundreds of millions of users already know the Office interface, a new one offers nothing to them. Nada, zip, zilch.
A new interface only offers something, maybe, perhaps, to new users. That is once everyone in the pipeline, from teachers to book writers to IT staffers learns the new system. All of which adds up to huge costs for, ah, no gain.
I switched to a gui from DOS not because DOS was not powerful. In fact I still use DOS, constantly. I now also use a GUI because with a GUI (1) I can do multiple things at once (yes, yes, *nix got this one right), (2) the MS GUI has a more consistent interface making new apps easier to learn to use, (3) the G in GUI.
The only correct statement you made above is:
Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you're more productive once you learn.
Your conclusion about vi is a mistake. The best "steep learning curve" products are good because of their power/scope and _despite_ their difficulty of use not because of it.
When difficulty of use is a virtue, vi is king.
When power & scope are virtues, amalgams like (DOS + Windows) or (*nix cmd prompt + vi + perl + ... + *nix GUI) are king.
vi is the hammer that too many *nix nerds try to pound non *nix users with.
Floyd <-- not a nail
http://www.just-think-it.com