Re: OT: GUI [was:]Ann: TeXCAD 4.1

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote in
message
news:slrnc5lp8q.o0.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no...
> On 2004-03-19, Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
> > Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote:
> >:
> >: Sure as long as they don't have to pay for PhotoShop or need the extra
> >: functionality.
> >
> > No, actually some people pay for software.
>
> If you pay 500-600 euro for a software that does not give you any
> additional features but only a slightly different GUI, then either 1)
> you are not paying or 2) you have too much money or 3) you extemely
> picky about unimportant details.

I think you forget the most important reason for using a "standard" tool:
the ability to get training/advice/instructions from your peers. And that
help from your peers usually is very specific to the user-interface of the
particular tool. Another tool that provides the same functionality, but a
different interface, is a lot harder to use -- and for a novice, might be
impossible.

To take a personal example: I've learned a lot about how to format cells,
specify label rows, draw lines, apply page formatting and the like in Excel.
Little of that knowledge would be usable on another spreadsheet program,
even though the other spreadsheet probably would have similar features and
may even be able to read/write the same files.

Another personal example: I'd like to get rid of Quicken. But other than
Microsoft Money (which would just be jumping from the boiling kettle into
the fire), I haven't been able to find anything with sufficient features and
a sane interface to be able to replace the Intuit junk. So it appears I'm
stuck (unless I want to write a replacement in Ada!)

                     Randy.