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. =20 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?=20 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. =20 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 >=20 > Ohhhh I started to feel sick when I saw this.. :-) >=20 > > 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.=20 >=20 > Gee, not like Microsoft products (*cough*.. DOS) didn't do this as a > ritual part of the boot process for over a decade... >=20 > > 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).=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > ( Yes I know this has been discussed as a target for change, Terry = :-) ) >=20 > > 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.=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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). >=20 > Hiding what the hell is going on is fine for the "chump" market... =20 > which largely consists of home users on Packard Bells, secretaries, = and=20 > businessmen lugging their laptops around. >=20 > > (read: professional =3D=3D 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) >=20 > 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. >=20 > > 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) >=20 > Now, the real question is, is it a bad idea? >=20 > Maybe not. >=20 > Maybe we just need a fancy (fancier) boot loader. >=20 > ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609221851.OAA07953>