Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:41:14 -0400 From: "Steve Sims" <SimsS@Infi.Net> To: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: splash-page on bootup.. Message-ID: <199609221851.OAA07953@mh004.infi.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe, your points are well taken, and personally, I agree; show me what's going on, if I'm not savvy enough to understand what the darn computer's say when in boots up, I'll just go refill my coffee. But... I work for a Fortune-500 company. (Gratefully, not in the "Retail Computing" side, but as a behind-the-wall-plate network engineer!) Our user-base is ~45% Intel/DOS/Win'95, ~45% Mac and ~10% Other(tm). Let me share with you a recent eye-opener. (At least, it was for me.) We are in the process of upgrading a few thousand Macs so they have late-model software and hardware. Most of 'em are IIc's and first-generation Quadras. Pretty lame, most currently loaded with System 7.0. We're giving them "state of the art" (at least, for Apple) systems, hardware and software-wise. During the pilot installation we conducted differences training so that these not-very-sophisticated folks wouldn't panic (in the truest sense of the word 8^) when they booted up their new laptops and desktops and it looked "different" than it used to. Their most frequent comment? "Wow! Lookie there at the cute little MacOS face that comes up while the system boots! 'Zat slick, or WHAT?" (For the Mac-impaired, the "old" splash screen was an icon of a Mac "Classic" that just stared out at you and "frowned" if something went awry.) Now, as the MacOS 7.5.x loads, it splashes icons, left-to-right, across the bottom of the display for each system extension (device driver for "us guys") that it loads. The users don't even like *that*; it's too much sensory input. Never mind that initialization on a 132 Mhz PowerPC can take up to 2 or 3 minutes, "Ain't that face *cute*?" Plus, (and this is a "Big Deal(tm)"), we can customize the splash screen and put OUR VERY OWN LOGO UP while the system loads. Zounds! I mean, is that a sophisticated, world-class OS, or WHAT? Ditto my experiences with Win'95. That "pulsing Star Trek" bar on the bottom of the display, well that's just too cool for school. In fact, *most* of the users in that environment don't even know that they can press "Esc" and see the old CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT entries "behind the curtain". Heck, they don't know || care because they're refilling their coffee anyway. I grant you, doing a splash screen on a Mac is a WHOLE LOT easier than just about any other platform, because, basically, the Mac is a Toaster Oven with a CPU, the software engineers have a fixed target that they hammer out code for. The Win'95 and NT-4.0 platforms are a "little" harder, from a code / device / driver perspective, but that's the sizzle that sells the steak. In other words, that sort of dazzle sets a baseline expectation of the (dare I say it?) "Ease-Of-Use" for the environment. Decision-makers often aren't overly technical. Hiding the details of what's going on is perceived as a BIG WIN by them. (I guess that explains why we're putting out thousands of new Macs?!?!) Besides, if the blasted thing doesn't come up right, the user is going to call the tech-support folks *anyway*. No matter what. Trust me. Put me down in favor of an "early" video initialization and slapping a simple 320*200*256 (admin-configurable, of course) LOGO.SYS clone. It would *really* help me sell such a thing into the environment. You care about the probes, I care about the probes. J. Random User and his boss *HATE* looking at the probes. (Heck, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when the Scroll-Lock / scroll-back was added to syscons so I could see what had gone off the top of the screen!) ...sjs... Disclaimer: If my boss sees this, I'll tell him the source address was forged and that I *LOVE* those Macs. You bet I do. ---------- > From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> > To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@glacier.cold.org> > Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: splash-page on bootup.. > Date: Saturday, September 21, 1996 4:34 PM > > Ohhhh I started to feel sick when I saw this.. :-) > > > realized he had never seen this type of behaviour before, and assumed it > > was errors or some other similar problem--and even after a bit of > > explaning he was still somewhat uncomfortable with it. > > Gee, not like Microsoft products (*cough*.. DOS) didn't do this as a > ritual part of the boot process for over a decade... > > > simple image from the disk or even simpler as a program that just draws > > single pixel scattered shimmering stars and prints 'Booting FreeBSD > > 2.1.x-XXXXblah'--or even as complex as an animated GIF showing the FreeBSD > > daemon searching around with a flashlight ;) (the spash screen would > > disappear at the end of rc file execution--at which point you could fire > > up xdm or stick with getty's). > > You're in a difficult situation... even a static GIF image would probably > be difficult because you don't know what you have for console until you > have probed the video.. animation I would think is out of the question > due to the way I understand the kernel works during the probe phase. > > ( Yes I know this has been discussed as a target for change, Terry :-) ) > > > What would this accomplish? Quite a bit IMHO. People have horrible > > pre-conceptions in their mind about Free software, especially if they are > > from the MSDOS/Windows arena because a LARGE majority of the free software > > has been (and is still likely)--frankly put--virus infected crap. Coming > > from this background it takes a lot of effort for somebody to give up > > their prejudices--no matter how much it will save them or how much > > 'better' it may be. Having a system which looks and feels professional to > > them and which gives them the same fuzzy feeling will help them in > > overcoming their notions and accepting the fact that using something else > > may be a viable solution. > > A system that looks and feels professional to me is a system that does > not hide every aspect of what the hell it is doing from me. > > Microsoft Windows 95 is unprofessional. It is slick in many ways... but > just try to get it to do what you want, when you really know you want to > do what it doesn't want to let you do. > > Solaris is (reasonably) professional. Although I hate to admit it: DOS > is professional. It is simply not a good choice of "OS" (I use the term > loosely). > > Hiding what the hell is going on is fine for the "chump" market... > which largely consists of home users on Packard Bells, secretaries, and > businessmen lugging their laptops around. > > > (read: professional == they consider Microsoft a viable solution because > > they pay $xxxx for it and their friend over at corp X also uses it, > > therefore it is a professional systems) > > That kind of logic scares me :-( I consider Microsoft to be crap and > I usually consider corp X to be crap too when I see them relying on > Microsoft for any "major" application. > > > Is it possible? I don't know, I am not familiar enough with the kernel. > > Just figured I would let my opinion be known. 8) > > Now, the real question is, is it a bad idea? > > Maybe not. > > Maybe we just need a fancy (fancier) boot loader. > > ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609221851.OAA07953>