Dominant future AmigaOS? MOS vs OS4 vs AROS

[DaveP]

@Warface

Please elaborate on:

ATM MOS is superior in both usability state, and planned architecture.

Id also like to know if you have used OS4 and if so, which build?

MOS is inferior in its usability to AOS3.5/9 in at the least the Ambient stakes ( based on an over the shoulder waggle or twenty with the mouse ) and from my experience of OS4 *very* inferior to that.

But maybe you mean something else?

[DaveP]

Usability is, in development terms here at least, a statement of the "usability" of the human/computer interface. As in UCD analysis. Given we use "usability" as a formal term scoped by roughly what I just described at work in our ODC process I presume this is what you mean.

If AOS4 works the same on A1 as it does on CyberStorm as it does on Blizzard ( with obvious differences such as speed and what-have-you ) does it matter? Does it effect the way the HCI behaves?

Again, what do you mean everyday usability state. Its running on my Amiga all the time?

Im not asking purely to argue, I just want to find out what you mean and frankly Im still at a loss.

[DaveP]

@AmiGR

Is it going to be demonstrated at any shows coming up so I can lean over shoulder and waggle mouse again?

[DaveP]

@Warface

No. Following my argument MOS 0.4 working with Workbench 3.9 is superior to MOS1.3s "usability". I haven't used MOS1.4 even in a waggle test yet so how on earth can I comment on that.

You cannot seperate AOS4 from all the "features" of previous operating systems. Whilst it is a "revolution" in terms of its PPC nature and its boundary architecture it is an evolution in terms of features available on the HCI.

MOS 1.x up is "unable" to use that HCI heritage ( WorkBench ) but it is advancing rapidly on its own technological merits in this area with Ambient.

If we aren't talking about "usability" in the software development cycle terms that I know and understand can you please explain it from your understanding?

Also, can you take a stab at the other questions.

[DaveP]

(dictionary.com/programming) The effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction
with which users can achieve tasks in a particular environment
of a product. High usability means a system is: easy to learn
and remember; efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and
quick to recover from errors.

Ive defined the term that I use for usability, and where I get it from ( our Software Engineering process at work - ODC classifications etc ).

I want to tie you down to something specific because I want to understand how you came to the conclusion you did. Is it so hard to understand that I want to understand you?

PS: (edit) I suspect you mean "availability" which is literally whether or not a product/function is available for end use. Usability is a trigger that can only be employed once "availability" has been succeeded.

[DaveP]

Warface wrote:
Sigh. It's getting tiring.

I don't see why. However if you don't think that being tired out by substantiating bland assertions is worth it in the end because of the common understanding it can achieve then perhaps you might avoid the bland assertions in the first place or just ignore those that ask questions about "why"? You could have said "Im not going to tell you" or "none of your business" or "its subjective" or "I have no idea why" or "I made it up" if you really can't be arsed. I don't know why this has to lead to you getting irritated. Certainly was *not* my intent.

Then MorphOS has high usability. What do you want to achieve with all this?

I want to know why, in *your* eyes why you think that MOS1.x is more usable than AOS4. I don't know how else to restate this to make you understand.

Are you missing OS3.5/3.9 features? That makes MOS inferior in your eyes?

From what I used it is missing AOS4 and AOS3.5 and AOS3.9 functionality that I find convenient. But we are talking about what YOU think because it is YOU that made the claim.

MOS offers you to resize/move windows by borders,

Which is neat. Haven't seen this on AOS3.5 and AOS3.9.

select screens/windows from lists, even with small pictures,

Really, so you have never used a taskbar, storm screen select or any other screen select utility?

use all existing icons and widely spread RGBA png icons in additions, stunning ways of navigation in window contents, either by holding down the middle button or pressing it twice, when a special navigational image appears, and a whole lot

Someone is going to have to show this off at a demo, it is nothing *I* saw with my mouse waggle test.

 - which OS3.5/3.9 does not have and cannot provide. Despite that I haven't said OS3.5/3.9 is inferior.

No, you said that AOS4 is inferior in terms of usability which is odd because it incorporates, fixes and extends AOS3.5 and AOS3.9 functionality ( which is according to you not inferior in terms of usability )....

The interface is NOT inferior/superior but DIFFERENT, and to say: pretty modern. And new features are added continuously.

Right, OK I can accept that maybe true for versions I haven't sampled yet ( although AmiGR seems to disagree with you ) but you were the one that claimed AOS4 had inferior usability which is contradictory with your statement about OS3.9/3.5. If OS4 is inferior in terms of usability ergo so is OS3.9/3.5.

Not to mention, we're discussing OS4, MOS and AROS - 3.5/3.9 is pretty off topic.

No it isn't off topic. AOS4 incorporates and extends OS3.5 and OS3.9 Workbench functionality, you brought up MOS0.4 which lead to me pointing out that MOS0.4 was evaluated on my machine with Workbench 3.9. MOS originally, if you recall, was to use Workbench and did not have ambient.

Now you have answered why you think that MOS is superior in usability to AOS3.9/3.5 ( although to do a proper analysis it would have to be UCD tested but thats out of the bounds of this discussion ) can you explain now why you think it is superior in usability to AOS4 ( your original claim )?

And then can you answer the second question I had.

[DaveP]

@Warface

What flameware? How do you classify me asking you questions and trying to understand your claims from a logical point of view a flamewar?

From what I can see the only person getting emotional in this is you.

I wanted to know what you base your OPINION on.

(which contradicts to what I hear from people involved in OS4 development)

Names please. So I can ask them independantly.

I claimed that OS3.5 and OS3.9 is superior to what I had tried in terms of "usability". I admitted that I haven't tried MOS1.4 and frankly Im not budging from that opinion until I have. AOS4 is suprior to OS3.9/OS3.5 ergo also in my view it is superior to what I had tried. And I even admitted that I only had a few moments on it ( mouse waggle test ).

You made the claim that MOS is superior in terms of usability as well as a few other claims you have yet failed to substantiate. Lets have some meat on the bone please.

This is not about flames, this is about trying to find out the reason for why *you* have come to the conclusion you have given you know MOS in much greater depth than I so not only can I understand it ( and even may be persauded that what you claim is so ) but so can everyone else who reads this thread.

You are not known for BS so there must be something in it. Hence I want to know what.

[DaveP]

I have to conceed that what Dammy sayes is right, until the "availability" of AOS4 for people to use/try out ( and maybe the roadshow will go some way to sorting this out ) then this will remain the case as harsh as the classification may be.

Once availability is sorted out, maybe then we can get onto an objective analysis of usability.

[DaveP]

@mahen

This is indeed the truth. At the moment you only have my entirely subjective ( and plus Im used to it ) evaluation of a usability improvement.

But of course time will tell and we must all remain open and cheerful

Yep. Best not to draw any conclusions about usability of one over the other until we can do a head to head test.

[DaveP]

@bbrv

Please tell us why its a silly discussion?

The subject is quite interesting to a lot of people ( although it should say Amiga-derived OS ) and the discussion within has been far from silly and has been the most productive we have seen for a long time.

( which probably sayes more for the quality of debate we usually get )