jbjones@marlin.NOSC.MIL (John B. Jones) (12/29/89)
All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming feature in the Mac OS?) I'm deliberating on whether to buy a Mac or IBM clone; money is one serious factor, but these four questions are probably the biggest pivot points in the whole thing. I would also like to know for purposes of general working knowledge. This is probably net worthy to post, but please don't start another gunfight over it. john jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (12/29/89)
In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: >All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had >about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you >1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). >2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. >3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: > prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that >4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming > feature in the Mac OS?) I don't think you can do *any* of these things on the Mac. At least, I've never found one, and the MacExperts I ask tend to respond along the lines of "Why on earth would you ever want to ..." with the implication that there's something intrinsigly Evil about desiring Things That Users Are Not Supposed To Do. I suspect that the fact that you ask about them is a pretty good indication that you'll find the Mac OS to be as frustrating and confining a strait-jacket as I do. -- Mike Van Pelt Windows + Icons + Mouse Headland Technology/Video 7 + Pointer == WIMP. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (12/30/89)
From article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL>, by jbjones@marlin.NOSC.MIL (John B. Jones): > 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). Double-click on a document "owned" by the application (e.g., a Microsoft Word document will start MS Word). To create a new file in a particular folder, I usually double-click on an already-existing file, close it and open a new one. It's quicker than switching to the MS Word directory and back. > 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. If it's out of sight, you can't copy it. Sorry. > 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: > prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that Don't ask that question. You'll start another war. :-) Impossible, to my knowledge. > 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming > feature in the Mac OS?) The closest thing I've seen is "Macro Maker", a DA which remembers actions and will "play them back" for you with one or two keystrokes. There's no high-level OS language under the Finder. --- ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu USnail: 115 Nebraska Union BITnet: cosx001@UNLCDC3 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461
acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) (12/30/89)
In article <970@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: >>All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had >>about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you > >>1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). >>2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. >>3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that >>4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >> feature in the Mac OS?) > >I don't think you can do *any* of these things on the Mac. At least, >I've never found one, and the MacExperts I ask tend to respond along >the lines of "Why on earth would you ever want to ..." with the >implication that there's something intrinsigly Evil about desiring >Things That Users Are Not Supposed To Do. I suspect that the fact that >you ask about them is a pretty good indication that you'll find the Mac >OS to be as frustrating and confining a strait-jacket as I do. > You sound like the Scottish farmer asking the city dweller how many bales of hay his Jaguar can carry, then not understanding why anyone would want a vehicle that can't carry hay. The basic paradigms (don't you love that word?) of the two operating systems are so different it simply doesn't make sense to ask the questions you are asking.
srt@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) (12/30/89)
In article <129727@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> acm@sun.UUCP (Andrew MacRae) writes: >You sound like the Scottish farmer asking the city dweller how many >bales of hay his Jaguar can carry, then not understanding why anyone >would want a vehicle that can't carry hay. I get about a bale and a half into my XK120. Not legal in Solo II, you understand. :-) >The basic paradigms (don't you love that word?) of the two operating >systems are so different it simply doesn't make sense to ask the >questions you are asking. Differing computing paradigms but the same task paradigm. Rephrase the question slightly: How do I take the output from my test program, pull out the column of numbers I'm interested in, sort it, and print it on my LW? Not terribly difficult in the PC/Unix world - you just string together some tools "test | awk | sort | print" or whatever. Nearly impossible on the Mac. Similarly the question of looking at files not in the current (environment i.e., directory in DOS/Unix, folder in Mac-ese). That's a task you often want to perform, and one that is annoyingly hard on the Mac. (And sometimes also difficult under DOS/Unix, which is by no means perfect.) So I don't think you can toss these questions off as paradigm differences. They address real tasks that the poster expects to encounter in his day-to- day computing. A better response might be to explain why he won't be involved in those tasks if he gets a Mac. Scott R. Turner UCLA Computer Science "Become a Doktor of Forbidden Sciences" Domain: srt@cs.ucla.edu
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (12/30/89)
In article <129727@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> acm@sun.UUCP (Andrew MacRae) writes: >In article <970@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >>In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: >>>All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had >>>about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you >> >>>1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). >>>2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. >>>3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >>> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that >>>4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >>> feature in the Mac OS?) >> > >You sound like the Scottish farmer asking the city dweller how many >bales of hay his Jaguar can carry, then not understanding why anyone >would want a vehicle that can't carry hay. The basic paradigms (don't >you love that word?) of the two operating systems are so different >it simply doesn't make sense to ask the questions you are asking. This last response (the one with the single >) is off base. All those are perfectly normal thing sto want to do. They are all EXTREMELY useful things to do. You see, you, ( MacRae) are giving the original questioner the same old Mac party line - "DO IT THE Mac WAY - why on earth would you want to do it otherwise". Of course it makes sense to ask those questions! The things he wants to do are **more powerful** constructs than exist in the Mac interface. Incidentally, I presume that a Jaguar (at least most of the present models) will carry a bale of hay. I am quite sure that my Mazda RX7 and my friends' Porsche 928 will each carry exactly one bale of hay. Why would I want to put a bale of hay in my car? Why as bedding for my guinea pigs, of course! Doug McDonald
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (12/30/89)
>>In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: >>> With a mac, how do you ... >>>3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >>> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that >>>4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >>> feature in the Mac OS?) In article <970@v7fs1.UUCP> I write: >>I don't think you can do *any* of these things on the Mac. At least, >>I've never found one, and the MacExperts I ask tend to respond along >>the lines of "Why on earth would you ever want to ..." In article <129727@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> acm@sun.UUCP (Andrew MacRae) writes: >You sound like the Scottish farmer asking the city dweller how many >bales of hay his Jaguar can carry, then not understanding why anyone >would want a vehicle that can't carry hay. The basic paradigms (don't >you love that word?) of the two operating systems are so different >it simply doesn't make sense to ask the questions you are asking. Exactly. That is precisely the point of the MacDetractors. If you need a vehicle to carry hay (a computer with which to do useful work) then a two-seat sports car like a Jaguar (a MacInToy with which to fingerpaint) is not exactly the machine for the job. The above paragraph is wildly exaggerated, of course; I am by no means saying that you can't do useful work on the MacIntosh. For some applications it remains the best machine for the job. Still, the lack of items 3 & 4 above are, for me, fatal deficiencies: You *CAN NOT* use the output of one program as the input to another, and worse, you *CAN NOT* automate a complex, often-repeated, and/or long-running sequence of commands. On MSDOS or Unix, if I need to do sixteen things that will take an hour, I put 'em all into a batch file. While it's running, I can do something else. On the Mac, I must sit there glued the the screen, wasting an hour of my valuable time in boring "pointing and clicking". That's what I mean by a "frustrating and confining strait-jacket." -- Mike Van Pelt "I hate trolls. Maybe I could metamorph it into Headland Technology something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed, (Was: Video Seven) fire-breathing dragon." -- Willow. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) (12/30/89)
In article <30290@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> srt@cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) writes: >Differing computing paradigms but the same task paradigm. Rephrase >the question slightly: How do I take the output from my test program, >pull out the column of numbers I'm interested in, sort it, and print >it on my LW? Not terribly difficult in the PC/Unix world - you just >string together some tools "test | awk | sort | print" or whatever. >Nearly impossible on the Mac. > >Similarly the question of looking at files not in the current >(environment i.e., directory in DOS/Unix, folder in Mac-ese). That's >a task you often want to perform, and one that is annoyingly hard on >the Mac. (And sometimes also difficult under DOS/Unix, which is by no >means perfect.) > >So I don't think you can toss these questions off as paradigm >differences. They address real tasks that the poster expects to >encounter in his day-to- day computing. A better response might be to >explain why he won't be involved in those tasks if he gets a Mac. Please understand that I am not a Mac user (cannot afford one). I *do* use and develop for MSWindows, Unix, plain old MS-DOS, and LISP environments. So I do not know the 'correct' Mac answer to your questions. I do know many Mac users though, and none of them have ever expressed a frustration at being unable to follow the chain of actions you describe. This is because they use their Macs *differently* than we use our PCs. The same holds true for the LISP environments with which I am familier. In that world, using its paradigm, I would message a sort object that would accept data and perhaps pass it on elsewhere, all without a command line. I'm not against command lines, (I use them all the time). What I am against is the mixing of the paradigms and the insistence by some that the way *they* work and view the world is the only correct way for *everyone* to work. Most of us have found that it is indeed harder to program for the Mac and other systems of its kind. But the difficulty we go through (in theory) is what makes it easier for the end user. Is there anyone out there who doesn't recognize that the *typical* (ie: non programmer) computer user comes up to speed and enjoys the Mac way better than the PC way? In the end, what is more important the ease with which we program, or the ease with which people use our programs? BTW: I suppose you already have your deposit made on the new Jaguar 220? Can break 200 mph and costs only $576,000 :)
acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) (12/30/89)
In article <1989Dec29.213935.1228@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >This last response (the one with the single >) is off base. All those >are perfectly normal thing sto want to do. They are all EXTREMELY >useful things to do. You see, you, ( MacRae) are giving the original >questioner the same old Mac party line - "DO IT THE Mac WAY - why >on earth would you want to do it otherwise". Of course it makes >sense to ask those questions! The things he wants to do are >**more powerful** constructs than exist in the Mac interface. If those things are *so* useful even in the Mac world, how come people using the Macs don't miss them? You see, you have fallen into the same trap you yourself describe, because you find those things useful in the MS-DOS world, you *assume* that they are useful in *all* worlds. Having programmed extensivly under many different paradigms, I assure you that there are quite a few computer environments where those actions, expressed as they were, simple do not make any sense.
srt@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) (12/30/89)
Ulp. I never really intended to get dragged into this silly Mac vs. IBM debate. It is such a misguided discussion. But this guy MacRae keeps saying interesting things? What's a boy to do? Post, of course... :-) In article <129740@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> acm@sun.UUCP (Andrew MacRae) writes: >So I do not know the 'correct' Mac answer to your questions. I do know >many Mac users though, and none of them have ever expressed a frustration >at being unable to follow the chain of actions you describe. This is because >they use their Macs *differently* than we use our PCs. Partly that's because the Mac environment doesn't encourage them to think in that way. The idea of piping information through a series of programs is such an alien thought to the Mac environment that it will never occur to most *novice* Mac users. (It is an idea that occurs to most DOS/Unix users, though, which is interesting. Maybe because of the stream-oriented input and output of that environment.) The emphasis here is on "novice". I have had very frustrated Mac users come to me with problems of the sort mentioned in the earlier posts (need to pipe, find files in the file structure and so on). The reason the problem isn't more obvious is that a *novice* user doesn't usually have it. It is only after gaining a certain level of proficiency that a user begins to look for these things. I'm not going to discuss the novice vs. expert user distinction, except to say that I think the Mac is better for the novice, and restricting to the expert. >Most of us have found that it is indeed harder to program for the Mac and >other systems of its kind. But the difficulty we go through (in theory) >is what makes it easier for the end user. But that's true on any OS, of course. Put more effort into the programs you develop, and they'll be easier for the end-user to use. And call me a techno-dweeb, but I'm not a big fan of this "ignorant masses as the target user of computers" idea. *My* idea of an "end user" is someone like myself. He's computer literate, types very well, programs nearly as much as he uses applications, and so on. That's not exactly descriptive of the "average" user in today's culture, but I think that's where the computer culture is headed. Not towards the "everyone uses really neat applications but hardly anyone programs" culture that seems so prevalent an attitude. Look around you. *Everyone* technical programs, and that's spreading to the rest of the society. A machine that doesn't cater (one way or the other) to a literate, programming end-user is doomed in the long run. >BTW: I suppose you already have your deposit made on the new Jaguar 220? > Can break 200 mph and costs only $576,000 :) I took my MGB in to the Jaguar dealer and said "If I use this as a deposit, how much will I owe on a 220?". He looked my car over and said "About $576,000." :-) Scott R. Turner UCLA Computer Science "One more reason to hate California" Domain: srt@cs.ucla.edu
tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (12/31/89)
> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: >>All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had >>about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you > >>1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). There are several ways. I use On-Cue 1.3. Several other macro utilities exist that will perform the exact same functionality. Quick-Keys, Tempo II, etc. >>2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. For this one I use a desk accessory, DiskTools II, which has a really nice graphic interface, and I never have to leave my current application. There are, as you might have guessed, several other utilities, desk accessories, etc, that will perform the same function. For instance - DeskZap, FileInfo, FileTools... In fact, you can create new directories and ad files to them even when in modal dialog boxes with these and others like Boomerang. >>3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that I'm a bit baffled on this one. I not even sure what an awk does, much less how to duplicate the function on my box. If I knew what it did, I could probably do it on the Mac. In fact, I probably already do it. But if you are a dyed-in-the-wool unix junkie, you may not want a Mac, its interface is just something you won't be able to handle, no matter what functionality it provides, after all, the Mac is a *users* machine, not a guru's machine. But, just in case you have an open mind, AUX provides unix on a Macintosh platform. I don't use it, but there are many others who do, and you can read about it on comp.sys.aux. For those who don't want to go the expense of AUX there is the MPW shell, primarily used for development, and it is just as abstruse and esoteric as unix, with pipes and redirects and all manner of other hacker pacifiers. I have it, and use it occasionally, but am not an expert on it by any means. More information can be obtained on comp.sys.mac.programmer. >>4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >> feature in the Mac OS?) Batch files are primarily kludged macros, so far as I have seen in my somewhat limited experience (only a year or so on DOS boxes). The funtionality is provided on Macs by many different kinds of utilities. Some are free, like the over-maligned Macro-Maker from Apple (I've never had any problem with it), Tempo II, Quick-keys, and several others. For background printing, there are several options available. SuperLaserSpooler, MultiSpooler, BackPrint25, and even the OS comes with some background printing stuff - PrintManager (?), and Backgrounder. I have three computers networked, so I rarely ever need to do background printing; therefore, I can't really comment on their efficiency. As you may have gathered, I am primarily Mac-oriented, however, I have owned a '286 and now have a '386. I feel more comfortable in the Mac environment, but that does not mean that unix (half my '386's disk is partitioned off for Xenix), or DOS are beyond my feeble intellectual capabilities. If you are comfortable in a command line interface, and like the 'nothing is standard on an 80x86 machine', then I heartily recommend you buy one. If you prefer a graphical interface, and don't really care how the operating system gets its job done, they buy a Mac. Don't let other people tell you what to spend your money on - after all, they aren't going to be there when you need some help. these and other views brought to you by- the Rockman Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
news@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (News Guru) (12/31/89)
computers From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) Path: cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu!tdrinkar srt@cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) writes: acm@sun.UUCP (Andrew MacRae) writes: >>I do >>know many Mac users though, and none of them have ever expressed a >>frustration at being unable to follow the chain of actions you >>describe. This because they use their Macs *differently* than we >>use our PCs. This is true. I have some experience on PC's as well, and I've never found a need to do an awk or a grep or to stream the output of my spreadsheet to my paint program. Color me a novice I guess. >>Most of us have found that it is indeed harder to program for the Mac >>and other systems of its kind. But the difficulty we go through (in >>theory) is what makes it easier for the end user. > >But that's true on any OS, of course. Put more effort into the >programs you develop, and they'll be easier for the end-user to use. This must be one of those 'in theory' things. I've used many different computer systems over the years (starting with a DEC Cyber) and have not noticed you 'advanced' programmers doing much work with us 'novice' users in mind. Ever use an editor on a mainframe? Then use one on a Mac? Even a PC? Power does not equate to usability. >And call me a techno-dweeb, but I'm not a big fan of this "ignorant >masses as the target user of computers" idea. *My* idea of an "end >user" is someone like myself. He's computer literate, types very I won't even go into the obvious gender bias you show here :-) but I will take you up on your offer. You, sir, are a techno-dweeb. >well, programs nearly as much as he uses applications, and so on. >That's not exactly descriptive of the "average" user in today's >culture, but I think that's where the computer culture is headed. Not Another opinion, one you are entitled to I suppose, but incorrect. It has as much real world correspondence as the theory that the world is flat. Just how many brilliant computer science types do you think are going into the world these days? Enough to subsidize all of your wonderful micro-computer advances? Not likely. It is the great unwashed like myself, just trying to get a job done, who are paying for all these neato boxes. Not you and those like you. >towards the "everyone uses really neat applications but hardly anyone >programs" culture that seems so prevalent an attitude. Look around >you. *Everyone* technical programs, and that's spreading to the rest Apparently the thought that there might be other users of computers besides 'technical' people has not occured to you. My mother is writing a book, and bless her sweet soul, she hasn't even got an idea as what programming might include, but she can get what she wants done on a computer. Easily. I know several graphic designers who don't program a lick, yet they are definite computer users. I know an architect who can't even do 'hello world' in basic, yet he would not be without his computer. Same for draftsmen (I know a couple) who do work in AutoCAD, none of them can program. I know several school teachers who use computers to keep track of grades and attendance, but who don't program. These people all tend to use (and I quote) "really neat applications." I understand the price of Folgers will be rising in the near future. >of the society. A machine that doesn't cater (one way or the other) >to a literate, programming end-user is doomed in the long run. You seem like the mechanic who is deploring the lack of mechanical adeptness of the local automobile drivers. Sorry, the days of the all powerful computer guru dictating how and when the machines will be used is over. There will always be hotrod machines for you to play with, but it is *that* kind of machine that is 'doomed', not those that cater to the user. After all, we outnumber you. :-) > Scott R. Turner > UCLA Computer Science "One more reason to hate California" > Domain: srt@cs.ucla.edu If you are refering to your attitude, I agree. Just one more refreshing opinion brought to you courtesy of- the Rockman Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/31/89)
Believe me, there *will* be circumstances where a user wants to move a file from a subdirectory to the root directory. My roommate has an Atari 1040 ST. This uses the GEM interface (much like the Mac's) To configure his word processor, the instructions said to copy the correct driver from the drivers subdirectory to Print.DRV in the root directory. I will not detail the various arcane things we tried before finding something that would work. We had to open the disk as drive A: and as drive B: (one drive machine) we made the root directory the current directory on one drive and the drivers directory current on the other. Then we just copied from A: to B: and ignored the "swap disks" prompts. <blech!> Now that I have a 3.5 drive on my PC, i'd just copy the stuff to one of my disks, copy the file, and give him the disk.... it'd be faster. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (12/31/89)
In article <1989Dec30.195240.4854@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu.UUCP (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >Apparently the thought that there might be other users of computers >besides 'technical' people has not occured to you. I will gladly conceed that for the non-technical user who intends to remain non-technical, who only wants a computer to perform some particular task that is fully addressed by an application program written for the Mac, and has plenty of money to spend, then the Mac is definitely the machine of choice. (Note to dedicated MacHackers who are even now loading their flamethrowers with napalm: I am not saying that this is the *only* market for Macs.) -- Mike Van Pelt "I hate trolls. Maybe I could metamorph it into Headland Technology something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed, (Was: Video Seven) fire-breathing dragon." -- Willow. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
rob@disk.UUCP (Rob Miracle) (01/01/90)
In article <129727@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) writes: > In article <970@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > >In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL> jbjones@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (John B. Jones) writes: > >>All this Mac/IBM blood-letting reminds me of a couple of questions I had > >>about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you > > [Examples of DOS/Unix like things that Mac's can't do deleted] > > > >I don't think you can do *any* of these things on the Mac. At least, > >I've never found one, and the MacExperts I ask tend to respond along > >the lines of "Why on earth would you ever want to ..." with the > >implication that there's something intrinsigly Evil about desiring > >Things That Users Are Not Supposed To Do. I suspect that the fact that > >you ask about them is a pretty good indication that you'll find the Mac > >OS to be as frustrating and confining a strait-jacket as I do. > > > > You sound like the Scottish farmer asking the city dweller how many > bales of hay his Jaguar can carry, then not understanding why anyone > would want a vehicle that can't carry hay. The basic paradigms (don't > you love that word?) of the two operating systems are so different > it simply doesn't make sense to ask the questions you are asking. First a couple of ACRONYM's: MENU : Moronic Entry for New Users ICON : Idiot Controllable Optical Nusience There are two types of computer users out there. Those who are programmer types and those who arn't. As a programmer, I can't stand the MAC interface. As a user I love it. The MAC is so limiting that it isnt funny. Just try printing a postscript file to a laserwriter that came from the outside world and wasn't created by a Mac "Application". I cant redirect, write batch files and other stuff with a Mac. However the Mac was NOT designed for that. It was designed to bring computing to the non-computer literate. For the staff out the art department at UofL who have never touched a computer other than their canned CompuGraphic Typesetter, it was easy for them to use a Mac where as they avoid the PC's like the plague. I don't blame them. The Mac is visual. It is easy to do things that you can visualize. DOS/Unix/VMS/ CMS . . . require you to know computers. You have to know commands. It is a trade off that makes sense. The entire world cant be computer hacks. Geez, if everyone who uses a computer understood redirection and used it alot then I would be out of a job. Each OS has its place. Each OS is written to serve a particular audience. If a user has to write programs/batch files to set the system up to where it does the job that they need, then they do not have a system that is efficent for them. Programmers and such who create the applications for others need the power to completely control the computer. IMAO (In my arrogant opinion) Rob -- * Rob Miracle * ...uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!rob * * Disk Inc. (502)968-5401 - 5406 * Discaimer: I don't claim any of my actions * "Baseball is an activity, Football is a Sport." -- George Carlin
rob@disk.UUCP (Rob Miracle) (01/01/90)
In article <30290@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, srt@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) writes: > Differing computing paradigms but the same task paradigm. Rephrase > the question slightly: How do I take the output from my test program, > pull out the column of numbers I'm interested in, sort it, and print > it on my LW? Not terribly difficult in the PC/Unix world - you just > string together some tools "test | awk | sort | print" or whatever. > Nearly impossible on the Mac. Not so, not so. In the Mac, you run the test program, take the mouse and cut the column out, quit the test program and load it into a utility that can sort and print (Column of numbers and Excel are a likely pair) and paste the column back in. Again, this is visual compared to knowing commands. One requires knowledge one requires minimal knowledge and a pair of eyes. Rob (Remember, I hate Mac's for my own use, but I will defend them if the use is right). -- * Rob Miracle * ...uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!rob * * Disk Inc. (502)968-5401 - 5406 * Discaimer: I don't claim any of my actions * "Baseball is an activity, Football is a Sport." -- George Carlin
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (01/02/90)
In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL>, jbjones@marlin.NOSC.MIL (John B. Jones) writes: > about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you > > 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). Double clicking an object activates its application. I have a lot of dummy files strewn in sub-folders to accomplish this purpose. Another way is to double-click an existing real file, and then close it and continue. It's clumsy, but intuitive (more the former). > 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. You don't. Even worse, if you're in a subdirectory, sorry - folder, and you switch to another drive, and switch back, it returns you to root, not from where you started. > 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: > prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that The clipboard. This is painful. Yeachhhhh..... In fact most applications don't think in terms of input and output, they think in terms of "events," some of which might come from the keyboard... > 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming > feature in the Mac OS?) There is MacroMaker in system 6. Before that you had to go out and buy something (and there are several packages available.) But note that MacroMaker doesn't remember what you clicked, only WHERE you clicked, so if someone else uses the Mac and moves an Icon or window, OR you start up the application in a non-standard way so the desktop is different, the macro fails and cannot be edited. You either have to restore the former state, or rerun it through. ALso, macros don't run in background. You see everything (there's no echo off). And if applications are opened in the macro, the macro might outrace the Mac, and try to click a menu before the menus have actually changed. In this case, the macro mysteriously fails (this is why I try to use keyboard commands in macros as much as possible, but not all Mac commands in most applications can be shadowed by the keyboard.) Also, as far as I can tell, you can't transfer these macros as you would a batch file. In other words, if you need a yes or no answer, the sane answer would probably be "No." It's closer to "not really," or "not as you know them." There is a common one line batch file that I use on Unix. On the Mac, it takes almost a minute, and 17 mouse clicks, all of which time the Mac is frozen (although the "dancing" screen displays impress onlookers. If you hadn't noticed. I hate the Mac. I use it under protest. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (01/02/90)
"" 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). " Double clicking an object activates its application. I have a "lot of dummy files strewn in sub-folders to accomplish this purpose. "Another way is to double-click an existing real file, and then close it "and continue. It's clumsy, but intuitive (more the former). The Mac is document-oriented, not application-oriented (I think). Thus, you create folders with documents in them, and when you want to process a document, you do not worry about running the appropriate application, you open the document, and the Mac OS automatically runs the correct application for you. This is usually quick and intuitive. But it can create problems (as described above) when you first create your folder hierarchy, as you often have to place a couple of empty documents around in order to conveniently bring up a given application. In Mac OS 7.0, you will be able to place applications in the Apple Menu (like Desk Accessories presently) and access them with one menu selection. (Desk Accesories are much like TSRs--always present--without the problems that I have heard that TSRs have in terms of conflicts. The Apple Menu is always present at the far left of the menu bar, and you pull this menu down to access Desk Accessories.) "" 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. " You don't. Even worse, if you're in a subdirectory, sorry - "folder, and you switch to another drive, and switch back, it returns you "to root, not from where you started. I guess my question would be, "For what reason are you doing this copy?" The reason I ask is that your stated goal (the copy) is difficult on the Mac. But if that goal is simply a substep in a larger goal, maybe the Mac can accomplish the larger goal with different substeps. For example, maybe you want to copy the file to the current directory in order to edit the copy, using the original as a template. On some systems, the most logical way would be to copy the file with a command (say, "cp ../../templates/memos/status status11") and then to edit the file. On the Mac, one would be prone to start up the word processor, use the "Open" menu to select the template file, then use "Save As" to save the new copy to the current directory. Same idea, a little more work (unless you have a hard time remembering file names, in which case the Mac Open File dialog, which shows you the file names, might save you time over guessing and misspelling the file name), but quite different approach. Still, a Command Line Interface is better suited to this type is "random file access" than an iconic interface. > >> 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that > The clipboard. This is painful. Yeachhhhh..... > In fact most applications don't think in terms of input and >output, they think in terms of "events," some of which might come from >the keyboard... Well, for programmers, Apple has a UNIX-like development (MPW) which has pipes, redirects, and filters. Again, though, it depends on what you want to do. For instance, in UNIX you use pipes to do spell checking, which is built into most wordprocessors on PCs. The Mac OS doesn't really have the concept of filters, such as AWK. I really miss AWK, LEX, SED, etc., on the Mac. > >> 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >> feature in the Mac OS?) Depends on what you want to do. If you want to string together filters, or manipulate files, nope. If you want to, say, write a nifty little application, HyperCard might fit the bill. I don't think any CLI systems really have the equivalent of HyperCard, which allows you to throw together programs in a fairly simple (certainly as simple or simpler than sh or csh) language, complete with graphical interface, sound, etc. Note that programming languages, like on the PC, have built-in make-like abilities, which compile and link appropriate routines based on dependencies, if that is what you wish. [referring to batch files...] > In other words, if you need a yes or no answer, the sane answer >would probably be "No." It's closer to "not really," or "not as you know them." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think this is the key here. To accomplish a task, there may be several ways. If you try to translate a UNIX way directly to the Mac, lottsa' luck. But you may be able to accomplish the same thing in a quite different way, but just as easily. The important thing is the goal which you are trying to accomplish, and different interaction paradigms may require different intermediate steps. None-the-less, the beauty of UNIX is (and was) the idea of small filters being tied together with pipes and file redirection with shell scripts replacing user typing. Even today this is elegant, and many systems (such as DOS) have borrowed many of the same concepts. For many tasks, the CLI is great. I use UNIX by day and Mac OS by night, and I am happy with both. (Actually, I have misspoken here when I say "Mac OS". What we are really discussing is the "Finder", which is the equivalent of sh or csh, a command shell.) -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) (01/02/90)
In article <2701@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL>, jbjones@marlin.NOSC.MIL (John B. Jones) writes: >> about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you >> >> 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). > Double clicking an object activates its application. I have a >lot of dummy files strewn in sub-folders to accomplish this purpose. >Another way is to double-click an existing real file, and then close it >and continue. It's clumsy, but intuitive (more the former). This is a problem, but I think it is going to be fixed in 7.0. I double-click an existing real file. It's not that bad, only a few extra clicks. >> 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. > You don't. Even worse, if you're in a subdirectory, sorry - >folder, and you switch to another drive, and switch back, it returns you >to root, not from where you started. I don't think that was the question, you can't copy anything when you are in the Open/Save dialog. To copy a file in Finder you have to hold down the option key and drag it to another window or icon (if you don't use option the file will be moved instead). Problem occurs as the question says when you can't see the window or icon on the screen. I use two methods to solve this. 1. Increase or move the destination window so I can do a simple drag. 2. Copy to the desktop and then get up the destination window and move the file to it. People use to complain about the 6 zillion windows on the screen, all messed up in a big smog. Nobody could find anything in it. I found out that the new finder (6.1.4 and maybe older) was able to open the "super"-folder (talking OOP) by dubble-click the windowtitle (Use ResEdit and change "Title click" in resource LAYO=128 in the Finder). This and the other new feature "option dubble-click" on a folder to open the new one and close the old, simplifies the work with the finder. The number of windows on the screen can be reduced alot. Funny that option dubble-click on the windowtitle didn't close the current and opened the super-folder (it only opened the super-folder). >> 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that > The clipboard. This is painful. Yeachhhhh..... > In fact most applications don't think in terms of input and >output, they think in terms of "events," some of which might come from >the keyboard... That is correct, applications don't think in terms of input and output. But I can do piping (or whatever you call it) anyway. I use MPW that has very nifty features. Ok, the ordinary Mac user Mr Sven Svensson can't use it because he don't have MPW, but he should almost never use it anyway. >> 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >> feature in the Mac OS?) > There is MacroMaker in system 6. Before that you had to go out and [Deleted stuff about how poor MacroMaker is.] > In other words, if you need a yes or no answer, the sane answer >would probably be "No." It's closer to "not really," or "not as you know >them." There is a common one line batch file that I use on Unix. On the >Mac, it takes almost a minute, and 17 mouse clicks, all of which time the >Mac is frozen (although the "dancing" screen displays impress onlookers. Here is where I use MPW again (Thanks Apple for this great shell). I have to say that the MacOS is a little poor on batch files. I have heard that 7.0 will improve the batch possibility in some way!?! > If you hadn't noticed. I hate the Mac. I use it under protest. Yes, I have noticed. It looks like people have different taste, and that is good. I love the Mac. > Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." PS. I didn't see the original posting so I hope I didn't miss any important. - Martin Carlberg - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (01/03/90)
"" 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder).
" Double clicking an object activates its application. I have a
"lot of dummy files strewn in sub-folders to accomplish this purpose.
"Another way is to double-click an existing real file, and then close it
"and continue. It's clumsy, but intuitive (more the former).
The Mac is document-oriented, not application-oriented (I think).
Thus, you create folders with documents in them, and when you want to
process a document, you do not worry about running the appropriate
application, you open the document, and the Mac OS automatically runs the
correct application for you. This is usually quick and intuitive.
But it can create problems (as described above) when you first create your
folder hierarchy, as you often have to place a couple of empty documents
around in order to conveniently bring up a given application.
In Mac OS 7.0, you will be able to place applications in the Apple Menu
(like Desk Accessories presently) and access them with one menu selection.
(Desk Accesories are much like TSRs--always present--without the problems
that I have heard that TSRs have in terms of conflicts. The Apple Menu is
always present at the far left of the menu bar, and you pull this menu down
to access Desk Accessories.)
"" 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory.
" You don't. Even worse, if you're in a subdirectory, sorry -
"folder, and you switch to another drive, and switch back, it returns you
"to root, not from where you started.
I guess my question would be, "For what reason are you doing this copy?"
The reason I ask is that your stated goal (the copy) is difficult on the
Mac. But if that goal is simply a substep in a larger goal, maybe the
Mac can accomplish the larger goal with different substeps.
For example, maybe you want to copy the file to the current directory in
order to edit the copy, using the original as a template. On some systems,
the most logical way would be to copy the file with a command (say,
"cp ../../templates/memos/status status11") and then to edit the file. On
the Mac, one would be prone to start up the word processor, use the "Open"
menu to select the template file, then use "Save As" to save the new
copy to the current directory. Same idea, a little more work (unless you
have a hard time remembering file names, in which case the Mac Open File
dialog, which shows you the file names, might save you time over guessing
and misspelling the file name), but quite different approach.
Still, a Command Line Interface is better suited to this type of "random
file access" than an iconic interface.
>
>> 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example:
>> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that
> The clipboard. This is painful. Yeachhhhh.....
> In fact most applications don't think in terms of input and
>output, they think in terms of "events," some of which might come from
>the keyboard...
Well, for programmers, Apple has a UNIX-like development (MPW) which has
pipes, redirects, and filters. Again, though, it depends on what you want
to do. For instance, in UNIX you use pipes to do spell checking, which is
built into most wordprocessors on PCs.
The Mac OS doesn't really have the concept of filters, such as AWK. I
really miss AWK, LEX, SED, etc., on the Mac.
>
>> 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming
>> feature in the Mac OS?)
Depends on what you want to do. If you want to string together filters, or
manipulate files, nope. If you want to, say, write a nifty little application,
HyperCard might fit the bill. I don't think any CLI systems really have the
equivalent of HyperCard, which allows you to throw together programs in
a fairly simple (certainly as simple or simpler than sh or csh) language,
complete with graphical interface, sound, etc.
Note that programming languages, like on the PC, have built-in make-like
abilities, which compile and link appropriate routines based on dependencies,
if that is what you wish. And MPW provides shell scripting ability.
[referring to batch files...]
> In other words, if you need a yes or no answer, the sane answer
>would probably be "No." It's closer to "not really," or "not as you know them."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is the key here. To accomplish a task, there may be several
ways. If you try to translate a UNIX way directly to the Mac, lottsa' luck.
But you may be able to accomplish the same thing in a quite different way,
but just as easily. The important thing is the goal which you are trying to
accomplish, and different interaction paradigms may require different
intermediate steps.
None-the-less, the beauty of UNIX is (and was) the idea of small filters
being tied together with pipes and file redirection with shell scripts
replacing user typing. Even today this is elegant, and many systems (such
as DOS) have borrowed many of the same concepts. For many tasks, the CLI
is great. I use UNIX by day and Mac OS by night, and I am happy with both.
(Actually, I have misspoken here when I say "Mac OS". What we are really
discussing is the "Finder", which is the equivalent of sh or csh, a
command shell.)
--
Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (01/03/90)
In article <2701@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >In article <1284@marlin.NOSC.MIL>, jbjones@marlin.NOSC.MIL (John B. Jones) writes: >> about the Mac interface. With a mac, how do you >> >> 1. Activate something out of sight (in a sub-folder). > Double clicking an object activates its application. I have a >lot of dummy files strewn in sub-folders to accomplish this purpose. >Another way is to double-click an existing real file, and then close it >and continue. It's clumsy, but intuitive (more the former). I apologize to those of us who have followed the entire thread and realize that better answers have been posted, but I couldn't let this slide by again. There are at least two system utilities that accomplish this in a very nice, Macintosh manner. On-Cue uses a pull down menu to select application (with or without attached documents) from anywhere in the system. DiskTools II will allow you to launch applications from anywhere. DiskTop also has a nice pull down menu that is user configurable (like On-Cue) that will launch applications from wherever. BlackBox has the NeXT-like application dock. The list goes on. It is quite easy to do. >> 2. Copy something out of sight to the current or another directory. > You don't. Even worse, if you're in a subdirectory, sorry - >folder, and you switch to another drive, and switch back, it returns >you to root, not from where you started. Again, not exactly right. There are several other system utilites which allow you to return to the last subdirectory you were in, in fact with your last selection highlighted for you already. These are Boomerang, Shortcut, and SFVolInit. There may well be others, I'm not familiar with every Macintosh utility. >> 3. Redirect the output from one program to another as input; example: >> prompt>awk -f fil.awk this | awk -f fix.awk >> that > The clipboard. This is painful. Yeachhhhh..... > In fact most applications don't think in terms of input and >output, they think in terms of "events," some of which might come from >the keyboard... I'm not a unix hacker, and I've never used an awk, so I really can't comment on it. But I don't think Craig is presenting an unbiased view of the machines capabilities here. >> 4. Write batch files(i.e. is there any highlevel, simple programming >> feature in the Mac OS?) > There is MacroMaker in system 6. Before that you had to go out and >buy something (and there are several packages available.) But note that >MacroMaker doesn't remember what you clicked, only WHERE you clicked, so >if someone else uses the Mac and moves an Icon or window, OR you start up >the application in a non-standard way so the desktop is different, the >macro fails and cannot be edited. You either have to restore the former >state, or rerun it through. ALso, macros don't run in background. You >see everything (there's no echo off). And if applications are opened in >the macro, the macro might outrace the Mac, and try to click a menu >before the menus have actually changed. In this case, the macro >mysteriously fails (this is why I try to use keyboard commands in macros >as much as possible, but not all Mac commands in most applications can be >shadowed by the keyboard.) Also, as far as I can tell, you can't transfer >these macros as you would a batch file. > In other words, if you need a yes or no answer, the sane answer >would probably be "No." It's closer to "not really," or "not as you know >them." There is a common one line batch file that I use on Unix. On the >Mac, it takes almost a minute, and 17 mouse clicks, all of which time the >Mac is frozen (although the "dancing" screen displays impress onlookers. As I've remarked before, I've never had any problems with Macro-Maker. But for those who don't like it, there are alternatives - Tempo II, and Quick-Keys spring to mind right away. Seems to me there is at least one other macro-utility available, but the name escapes me. Oh, and it's hard to beat Macro-Maker's price - it is free from Apple. > If you hadn't noticed. I hate the Mac. I use it under protest. Really? I'd have never guessed! :-) Perhaps you should consider investing in a used PDP-11? Or perhaps buy the machine of your choice? I can't imagine a campus where only one kind of machine is available, particularly a Macintosh. >-- > Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." Never go to a doctor. The medical profession *still* does not understand how athletes foot is transmitted. The only thing I know for sure about a doctor is that he/she will indeed lie to me. Terry - me, I'm just a technodweeb engineer. Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
scott@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Scott Linn) (01/06/90)
/ hpcvca:comp.sys.ibm.pc / rob@disk.UUCP (Rob Miracle) / 9:59 am Dec 31, 1989 / >In article <30290@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, srt@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Turner) writes: >> Differing computing paradigms but the same task paradigm. Rephrase >> the question slightly: How do I take the output from my test program, >> pull out the column of numbers I'm interested in, sort it, and print >> it on my LW? Not terribly difficult in the PC/Unix world - you just >> string together some tools "test | awk | sort | print" or whatever. >> Nearly impossible on the Mac. >Not so, not so. In the Mac, you run the test program, take the mouse and >cut the column out, quit the test program and load it into a utility that can >sort and print (Column of numbers and Excel are a likely pair) and paste the >column back in. Yeah, if the column of numbers line up, they are contiguous, etc. The beauty of awk, etc. is that they can grab numbers out of a column of numbers, and then *selectively* use it. Also, the column doesn't have to physically "line up" from top to bottom. There is a big difference between using awk and cutting a column of numbers out of a file. And, there are a lot of programs which will cut columns out on the PC, too. Scott Linn