dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) (09/16/90)
I am able to agree 100% with what Marshall Buhl said about Windows. One thing people don't consider when criticising Windows is that even though it's been around for a few years, in many ways it is still "immature." Up until version 3.0, not very many people considered using it for their one and only interface. Most people stayed in DOS and ran DOS terminals, DOS word processors, and used DOS file utilities, and only jumped into Windows for their desktop publishing or graphics work. Now with version 3 we are finally able to replace DOS almost completely - though there are still times when I use DOS programs (I haven't found a really good Windows terminal yet, and I admit I jump into DOS to do file functions - File Manager is a pain in the neck if you already know DOS). Because of the effect of the many people who are switching to Windows (including the organization I work for, and I take most credit for the Windows push there) then the gaps will be filled and it will be "fair" to compare Windows to a "mature" environment like DOS or the Mac or Unix. I expect to see in the next year either improvements on the existing comm programs or better ones, better utility programs (something like the File Manager with a command line would be perfect in my opinion), and many other programs. I'm not putting Windows down in any way, but I don't blame people if they occasionally call up the DOS prompt for a few operations. I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more effective and powerful than straight DOS? It's true that Windows does have high demands on hardware, but that's the price that must be paid. I think Microsoft is doing an excellant job and they are suffering from Big Company Syndrome - everyone picks on them because they are a big company. If you mak a support call to Microsoft, let them know right away that you know what you are doing and they won't quote you the manual. In addition I have heard that Microsoft is making efforts to improve their support system, and will even be providing support for MS-DOS. I'm not a total Windows fanatic - if something better came along, I'd switch to it, but the fact is that there is nothing that is cheaper, easier to usem and as powerful as Windows. The only thing I dislike about it isn't it's fault - the lousy #$)(*&$# 8-character filenames. Anyone have any ideas if it's possible to fix THAT?
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (09/18/90)
In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes:
I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total
opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more
effective and powerful than straight DOS?
This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a
toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line
oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks
rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:>
far exceeds any point and click ability.
And the reason is quite simply this. The folks who design the point
and click have some operating paradigm in mind when they write there
environment. If you wish to do anything they didn't think of, you're
SOL. Futhermore, these point and click environments are geared
towards novices, so that nayone canuse a computer. This tends to
force everyone to a level of mediocrtiy as opposed to leting truly
knowledgable individuals soar to heights of excellence.
The only thing that Windows has to offer the DOS world is
multitasking. Now, if only DOS with wither away and die, to be
replaced by UNIX, then the world would be a much better place.
--
gerry roston, field robotics center
robotics institute, carnegie mellon university
pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557
gerry@cs.cmu.edual1@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Carl Engman) (09/19/90)
John Dvorak is against Windows because he has an interest in the MAC.
(Can you say "Book Slaes?" ... I knew you could)
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!al1
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!al1@nosc.mil
INET: al1@pnet51.orb.mn.orgyoon@aludra.usc.edu (Dae-Kyun Yoon) (09/26/90)
In article <GERRY.90Sep18115644@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > > This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a > toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line > oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks > rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> > far exceeds any point and click ability. This is true when each user is able to memorize all(most of) the cryptographical commands/options. When I was exposed to the UNIX system for the first time in the early 80's, I'v spent quite a bit of time to *encode* huge volume of Unix manuals. To run an application for the first time, it was generally true that the one should start to read the manuals first. Consider the Mac environment. You can easily figure out what kind of applications or operating commands are available by just browsing menus and icons. Well, you can say this is a toy environment, but I would accept the word *toy* if using a computer can be just *fun* rather than *pain*. > And the reason is quite simply this. The folks who design the point > and click have some operating paradigm in mind when they write there > environment. If you wish to do anything they didn't think of, you're > SOL. Futhermore, these point and click environments are geared > towards novices, so that nayone canuse a computer. This tends to > force everyone to a level of mediocrtiy as opposed to leting truly > knowledgable individuals soar to heights of excellence. You seemed to agree "point and click" could make life easier than typing commands all the time for novices. Well, I think this is the most important reason why lots of people are struggling with developing GUI environment. And this paradigm tends to be globally accepted. > > The only thing that Windows has to offer the DOS world is > multitasking. Now, if only DOS with wither away and die, to be > replaced by UNIX, then the world would be a much better place. > Personally, I might give more credits to Desqview than Windows in terms of Multitasking. However, considering the efforts to build an user friendly operating environment, Windows well deserves lots of credits. I don't think the current version of Windows is the ultimate product for GUI on the PC family. There certainly will be other/updated products which are closer to the goal of GUI. But I think, at least, Windows stimulated many s/w developers to think about what they can do for more user-friendly and reliable environment, especially for DOS users. -- ----------------------------------------------- Dae-kyun Yoon dkyoon@priam.usc.edu, ..!uunet!usc!priam!dkyoon
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (09/26/90)
In article <GERRY.90Sep18115644@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >far exceeds any point and click ability. I'll point out that lots of people just run lots of DOS windows, using the command line for stuff where it's more convenient. I've actually discovered that point-and-click is more useful for some things, and having both techniques of operating simultaneously does enhance my productivity. >And the reason is quite simply this. The folks who design the point >and click have some operating paradigm in mind when they write there >environment. If you wish to do anything they didn't think of, you're >SOL. Futhermore, these point and click environments are geared >towards novices, so that nayone canuse a computer. This tends to >force everyone to a level of mediocrtiy as opposed to leting truly >knowledgable individuals soar to heights of excellence. I'm not sure if you're talking about applications or system software here. If you're talking about apps, then this argument could be made for any program which has a user interface. (Actually, even DOS: tell me how it is that, using ONLY DOS commands, I easily delete a whole set of nested subdirectories.) If you're talking about system software, this is why people are working on alternate interfaces for Windows. PubTech, Aporia, Command Post, etc. are all designed to make it easier to do things than it is with ProgMan. And many of them give you things which Microsoft didn't think off. Besided, if you *really* need something which isn't provided for, just learn Windows programming and write your own interface. :) >The only thing that Windows has to offer the DOS world is >multitasking. Now, if only DOS with wither away and die, to be >replaced by UNIX, then the world would be a much better place. The problem with this argument is that there would be some significant risk that DOS would be replaced by, not UNIX, but OS/2. Also, I'll point out that the big trend in UNIX systems is also towards graphical interfaces. I'm working in SunView right now, in fact. I could be using the character- based TTY right next to me, but I'm not. Would you? -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (09/27/90)
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: > I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total > opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more > effective and powerful than straight DOS? >This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >far exceeds any point and click ability. This is of course true, because the ability to do things at the C> prompt includes the ability to type WIN[ENTER] ;-), and more. But ... what about the ability to launch multiple DOS shells and cut and paste between them and real Windows applications? You may consider this to be playing around, but then your argumentation breaks down to "if it's no hard work, it's no work at all". So what. >And the reason is quite simply this. The folks who design the point >and click have some operating paradigm in mind when they write there >environment. If you wish to do anything they didn't think of, you're >SOL. Futhermore, these point and click environments are geared >towards novices, so that nayone canuse a computer. This tends to >force everyone to a level of mediocrtiy as opposed to leting truly >knowledgable individuals soar to heights of excellence. Writing BAT files, or shell scripts? Oh well... Anyway. Have you noticed that many of the newer non Windows DOS applications try to mimic the user interaction style of Windows, in text mode? Look at the Borland Turbo series, or at PC-TOOLS. These applications seem to sell very well, the people seem to like them. I think this is because these applications are useable for everyone, novices and experts, likewise. >The only thing that Windows has to offer the DOS world is >multitasking. Now, if only DOS with wither away and die, to be >replaced by UNIX, then the world would be a much better place. What do you think about X-Windows, Motif and such? Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (09/27/90)
In article <4991@hsv3.UUCP> jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) writes:
The problem with this argument is that there would be some significant
risk that DOS would be replaced by, not UNIX, but OS/2. Also, I'll point
out that the big trend in UNIX systems is also towards graphical interfaces.
I'm working in SunView right now, in fact. I could be using the character-
based TTY right next to me, but I'm not. Would you?
But, the fact is, that you are using SunView to give you multiple
tty-like shell windows! You are not restricted to simply point-and-
click, like on a Mac. Try, for instance, to examine a file on a Mac.
This is done by opening the application that created the file, which
can be quite slow. The problem with graphical interfaces (without
a fall-back to good ole tty-like input) is that is forces all users
to some level of mediocrity.
Another example of this is comparing TeX to Framemaker. Yes, Frame-
maker is easier to use (for simple documents), and Yes a novice can
come up to speed more quickly, but in terms of power (= flexibility)
TeX has Framemaker beaten every which way! Anthing you can imagine
(with the exception of graphics) TeX can do in more ways than FM can.
Why? Because it is a document formatting language and is only limited
by your imagination and creativity. FM (and all point-and-click
systems) is limited by the original author.
--
gerry roston, field robotics center
robotics institute, carnegie mellon university
pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557
gerry@cs.cmu.edukeating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/27/90)
Gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > >In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: > > I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total > opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more > effective and powerful than straight DOS? > >This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >far exceeds any point and click ability. This would be absolutely true, except that under Windows 3.0 (in 386 mode) and OS2 PM, you can open command line windows. These come in very handy when you are trying to do more than one thing at once. >And the reason is quite simply this. The folks who design the point >and click have some operating paradigm in mind when they write there >environment. If you wish to do anything they didn't think of, you're >SOL. Futhermore, these point and click environments are geared >towards novices, so that nayone canuse a computer. This tends to >force everyone to a level of mediocrtiy as opposed to leting truly >knowledgable individuals soar to heights of excellence. This only makes it fun... Rather than user ready-made applications, build your own. :^) :^) :^) (Actually, this is something I'd like to do, except for the prohibitive costs of the SDK and MSC... Anyone want to donate to the "Get John a Language" fund? :^) >The only thing that Windows has to offer the DOS world is >multitasking. Now, if only DOS with wither away and die, to be >replaced by UNIX, then the world would be a much better place. Actually, I wouldn't mind if OS2 took DOS's place. (Still hate those pesky backslash directories, though...) -- **************************************************************************** * \|/ John William Keating, III >Ragnorak< keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu \|/ * * --*========================= //////\\\\\\ =========================*-- * * /|\ "Wands don't kill people, people kill people." /|\ * ****************************************************************************
jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) (09/27/90)
In article <GERRY.90Sep26190902@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > Another example of this is comparing TeX to Framemaker. Yes, Frame- > maker is easier to use (for simple documents), and Yes a novice can > come up to speed more quickly, but in terms of power (= flexibility) > TeX has Framemaker beaten every which way! Anthing you can imagine > (with the exception of graphics) TeX can do in more ways than FM can. > Why? Because it is a document formatting language and is only limited > by your imagination and creativity. FM (and all point-and-click > systems) is limited by the original author. > Why, you're right. Let's all go back to programming in octal ! -Jaz | Jack A Zucker {cwjcc,pyramid,decvax,uunet}!jaz@icd.ab.com | | Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. or ICCGCC::ZUCKER | | 747 Alpha Drive | Highland Hts., OH 44143 phone: (216) 646-4668 FAX: (216) 646-4484 |
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (09/27/90)
In article <3401@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
What do you think about X-Windows, Motif and such?
I guess I have not yet made myself clear, and I apologize.
Windows is okay because you can fire up a DOS shell from
within Windows, but this is NOT the paradigm that the folks
at MS are envisioning. They want everyone to use Windows
applications and to never to see C>. This is the case with
the Mac, and this is what I am so very afraid of. I don't
want my user-extensible, infinitely flexible interface taken
away because GUI's are the "in thing" which will solve every-
ones computer problems.
To answer you question, X is okay because you normally use
it to fire up shell windows. I am still using SunView and
can not imagine working on a system without multiple windows.
--
gerry roston, field robotics center
robotics institute, carnegie mellon university
pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557
gerry@cs.cmu.edumutchler@zule.EBay.Sun.COM (Dan Mutchler) (09/28/90)
In article <GERRY.90Sep27113210@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
I guess I have not yet made myself clear, and I apologize.
Windows is okay because you can fire up a DOS shell from
within Windows, but this is NOT the paradigm that the folks
at MS are envisioning. They want everyone to use Windows
applications and to never to see C>. This is the case with
the Mac, and this is what I am so very afraid of. I don't
want my user-extensible, infinitely flexible interface taken
away because GUI's are the "in thing" which will solve every-
ones computer problems.
To answer you question, X is okay because you normally use
it to fire up shell windows. I am still using SunView and
can not imagine working on a system without multiple windows.
And for you, and myself I might add, an environment without a command
line is a royal pain. I can copy files or change file permissions much
faster in a cmdtool under Open Windows than I can with the OW file
manager or any file manager for that matter.
But there is a very large class of people that have problems their
paychecks are riding on that do not involve flexibly "programming"
their computer. They need to get a document done or a view graph out,
or some financial data collected and they could care less about how
the computer does it, they just want it to be done. Sort of like a car
with an automatic transmission. I prefer a stick myself, but lots of
folks just want to go, stop and steer and that is all they need to do
to get where they are going. Taking away all options that only confuse
"go", "stop", and "steer" makes their life wonderful.
GUI's allow people that don't care how a computer works to focus on
the problem they want to solve, which typically has nothing to do with
the computer. The computer is a means to an end, not the end.
I like Unix, I like GUI's, I like to get a lot done with minimal
effort. As long as I can have both a file manager and a command window
on the screen simultaneously, I can get all I need done. Fortunately I
can use the "find" command without referring to the man page which
probably more of a curse than a talent and not something a lot of
people care to learn.
--
Dan Mutchler | ARPA/Internet: mutchler@EBay.Sun.COM
Sun Federal System Engineer | UUCP: ...!sun!mutchler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying back from Lubbock, I saw Jesus on the plane
Or maybe it was Elvis, You know they kind of look the same.
-- Don Henleymarshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (09/28/90)
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) writes: >In article <GERRY.90Sep18115644@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu> gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >>This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >>toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >>oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >>rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >>far exceeds any point and click ability. I USED to feel that the command line was the only way to go. >I'll point out that lots of people just run lots of DOS windows, using the >command line for stuff where it's more convenient. I've actually discovered >that point-and-click is more useful for some things, and having both >techniques of operating simultaneously does enhance my productivity. Now, I agree with this. I much pefer being able to mix and match command line with point and click. Some processes are just plain easier using a mouse. Things (and people) change. Come on. Join the party! -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (09/28/90)
jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes: >Why, you're right. Let's all go back to programming in octal ! You must be one of those folks who likes high level languages. I prefer to enter my programs by flipping binary switches on the front of the machine. So far I've got about 0.34% of my new killer Word Processor entered into my IMSAI 8080. It should be ready by the Fall '98 Comdex. See you there! -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (09/28/90)
From article <GERRY.90Sep27113210@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, by gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston): > In article <3401@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > > ... They want everyone to use Windows > applications and to never to see C>. This is the case with > the Mac, and this is what I am so very afraid of. I don't > want my user-extensible, infinitely flexible interface taken > away because GUI's are the "in thing" which will solve every- > ones computer problems. > A MS support line person told me yesterday in response to problems I was having getting a DOS application to launch from Windows "you could launch it from the DOS prompt." Interesting, eh? Tom Laughner DOS Consultant/Analyst University of Notre Dame TLAUGHNE@IRISHVMA
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (09/28/90)
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > ... This is the case with >the Mac, and this is what I am so very afraid of. I don't >want my user-extensible, infinitely flexible interface taken >away because GUI's are the "in thing" which will solve every- >ones computer problems. I understand and support your argument, but I don't think that falling back to old fashioned shells using slow terminal emulations in graphic windows is the right way to get user extensibility back. I would rather like to have some kind of script language to extend and modify parts of the GUI itself. A textual representation of what the usual macro recorders record, enhanced with a few programming language features would be fine. Just think about having something similar to the WinBasic language from WfW, but on the system level, not the application level. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (09/28/90)
Marshall L. Buhl, Jr writes: > jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes: > > >Why, you're right. Let's all go back to programming in octal ! > > You must be one of those folks who likes high level languages. I prefer > to enter my programs by flipping binary switches on the front of the > machine. So far I've got about 0.34% of my new killer Word Processor > entered into my IMSAI 8080. It should be ready by the Fall '98 Comdex. > See you there! > That's nuthin'! I've implemented the entire 'Star Wars' SDI Orbital Particle-Beam Weapon Master Firing Control System (SDIOPBWMFCS) on my KIM-1 in only 1K without using the 6502 Programmer's Reference Card. I used the incredible KIM-1 HEX keypad to do it ('beats the hell out of "binary switches"). You guys can keep your 'high-level' languages and your 'binary switches', I'm a _REAL_ programmer.... :-) Tim Henrion tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim
markad@blake.u.washington.edu (Mark Donnell) (09/29/90)
Welcome to the big kids sandbox... ;-} I find the command line very useful, and in fact some things must be done thru it. This is true on the NeXT, on Suns, and on Dos machines, running NeXTStep, X, and (sometimes) Windows. BUT, I also find that the pointy-clicky thing increases my productivity significantly, as long as I am willing to mix it heavily with command line operation. This is true while programming, writing docs, and administrating NeXTs and Suns. It is just something which you have to get used to. One note: I often stick to the command line in Dos, because Windows is a rather rough product and does slow alot of things down. But I think it will eventually get there (or get replaced). Just because you haven't been able to make Windows work for you, dont condemn all GUI's as useless (except for multitasking, of course). Thats right up there with all of the old timers who stick to VI and TROFF as the only text processing setup worth its weight - It takes a major mental transition and a good replacement to make them switch. Speaking of the possibility of getting windows replaced, Does anyone out there have the address of the folks who make deskView (and QEMM) ? And do you know if they have an educational discount? Have a Day, Mark
sunni@microsoft.UUCP (Sunni ROGERS) (10/03/90)
In article <4297@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >> >>In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >> >> I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total >> opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more >> effective and powerful than straight DOS? >> >>This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >>toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >>oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >>rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >>far exceeds any point and click ability. > I think this guy suffers from the "Real Men don't use Menus" complex. You are limited at the C:> to how many parameters (documented or not) you can remember. At least in Windows it's self explanatory. I think maybe you are just intimidated by the fact that there will be people who can use computers and won't have to have you there telling them what to type in and thinkg that you're a genius because you can remeber every damn backslash, parameter and directory name. Sunni +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: I don't speak for Bill or anyone else. ;) | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
sunni@microsoft.UUCP (Sunni ROGERS) (10/03/90)
In article In article 97@97@9.cs.tulane.edu> keating@re@re@s.ts.tse.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (u.edu (uy Roston) writes: >> >>In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dvevevoid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >> >> I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total >> opponent to Windows. DoDoD people not see that hat h is much more >> effective and powerful than straight DOS? >> >>This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >>toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >>oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >>rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >>far exceeds any point and click ability. > I think this guy lowfers from the "Real Men don't use Menus" complex. You are limited ated atyou can remember. At least in t in tit's self explanatory.tory.tink maybe you are just intimidated by the fact that there re rpeople who can use computers and won't have to have you thereeree Men them what to type in and thinkg that you're a genius because you can remeber every damn backslash, h, hter and directory name. . .i +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: I don't speak for Bill or anyone else. ;) | +----+----+-------------+ #! rnews 91vevh: daveoid.ple!julre,c.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!ng!n.edu!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgil
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/03/90)
In article <57914@microsoft.UUCP> sunni@microsoft.UUCP (Sunni ROGERS) writes: >I think this guy suffers from the "Real Men don't use Menus" complex. >You are limited at the C:> to how many parameters (documented or not) >you can remember. At least in Windows it's self explanatory. I am completely sold that you come up to speed faster in a icon/menu/mouse graphical environment than on a command interpreter. And for programs you don't use very often, they're a lot easier to drive around. However, there are things you can do from the Unix shell, for example, that I have yet to see anything like under a windowing environment, other than in a shell within a window... powerful things like simple programs that manipulate data in standard ways being hooked together with pipes. I wrote a shell script (in Tcl) the other day that recursively descended our comp.binaries.pc archives. For each package, it ran through all the parts in name-sorted order, decompressing each if necessary, ran each through sed(1) to strip off the headers and trailers, catted the parts together and piped the result to uudecode to create the original .zoo archive, then cleaned up after itself. Once I got it right, I let it run through the *hundreds* of packages in the archive. Plus, when I want to do it again later, I have the script. In a windowing environment, you'd have to double click on your compressor, your uudecoder, your editor, etc, and do it by hand, click-click, moving around from program to program and reentering data like filenames and such to each program. You could record a macro, but that's a kludge, really, and besides, there are a lot of if-type decisions to be made, like is this file compressed or not, and so forth. Hear me out, I do not think there is an inherent, permanent dichotomy between these methods. The Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) holds forth a lot of promise for communications between programs. AREXX has done well on the Amiga as a programming language and interprocess-communications mechanism for communicating between tools. But for the most part, there are not yet efficient windoing equivalents to many of the things we are used to doing, like shell scripts and, dare I say it, programming. Once again, I find the edit-make-test-edit-make-test process much easier from a command interpreter than from the file manager or program manager. Suit yourself. With Windows it's nice that we can have both, plus I expect to see, indeed we are already seeing, an evolution toward windowing programs that can be programmed and can communicate with one another. >I think maybe you are just intimidated by the fact that there >will be people who can use computers and won't have to have you there >telling them what to type in and thinkg that you're a genius because >you can remeber every damn backslash, parameter and directory name. It really wasn't necessary to guess at the guys motivations and then ridicule him for it, I don't think. ...and those ! * ^ $ [ ] characters can do some pretty amazing things. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl (wk), uunet!sugar!karl (hm) "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (10/03/90)
In article <4297@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >> >>In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >> >> I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total >> opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more >> effective and powerful than straight DOS? >> >>This is never the case and never will be the case when you compare a >>toy operating environment (Windows 3, Mac, NeXT) to a command line >>oriented interface (DOS, UNIX). Now, don't get me wrong, DOS sucks >>rocks and is horribly broken, but the ability to do things at the C:> >>far exceeds any point and click ability. > I think this guy suffers from the "Real Men don't use Menus" complex. Sunni Menus are okay, if I can design them and if I don't have to use them. For instance, I use SunView (and the same comments will hold for X, News, etc.) The menu I use most often is the main menu which allows me to open new shells, etc. I tailored the contents of that menu to include only those things I want, none others. I can also call up each of these items from the keyboard, but in these cases the menu is generally quicker. Also, unlike MS Windows, this menu appears anyplace on the screen, just click the right mouse button. I don't have to move the mouse to some predefined location first. However, in application programs, menus are usually the fastest way to impede productivity. Take FrameMaker for instance. These are things I can easily do with TeX that can not be done with FM without a great deal of searching, clicking, cursing and using the program in ways that the designers did not intend. Are the designers stupid? Probably not, but they are incapable of predetermining everyones needs, which is why menus are bad. You are limited at the C:> to how many parameters (documented or not) you can remember. At least in Windows it's self explanatory. Most people remember most of the commands they use regularly, its not too hard. (If you find it difficult, then I wonder about the quality of te rest of the folks at MS... maybe that explains some of the brain-dead products that MS produces...) Anyway, if I/any person can not remember a command, you simply fire up your on-line help system. NOw, I am the first to admit that UNIX documentation sucks, but if it were rewritten ala VMS then anyone could sit down and start working easily. As to you comment about windows being self explanatory that is kinda true, but it is also like saying that anyone can get in a car and drive, but a jet requires more learning. This is true, but I'd rather fly the jet than drive the car. I think maybe you are just intimidated by the fact that there will be people who can use computers and won't have to have you there telling them what to type in and thinkg that you're a genius because you can remeber every damn backslash, parameter and directory name. So, someone from MS finally speaks up, but quite incorrectly. If more people could effectively use computers, my job/life would be MUCH easier. You see, I am considered to be a guru and am constantly being asked questions. I would like to see better user interfaces, and MS Windows MAY be a step in that direction, but it must be clearly understood by SW manufacturers that they should under no circumstances take away the power of the command line interface from those of us who want to use them. (Actually, this conversation reminds me very strongly of gun control nuts and the right-to-lifers... two groups who portend to know what's best for everyone and will enforce their views regardless.) gerry -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cs.cmu.edu
jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) (10/03/90)
In article <57914@microsoft.UUCP> sunni@microsoft.UUCP (Sunni ROGERS) writes: >In article <4297@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >>Gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >>>In article <qFuLP5w162w@zooid.UUCP> dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >>> I can't understand people like John Dvorak at all. He seems to be a total >>> opponent to Windows. Do these people not see that Windows is much more >>> effective and powerful than straight DOS? Dvorak makes a carrier out of taking pot-shots at whatever new, popular software comes along. He hated the Macintosh interface when it was first presented. He later hated Hypercard for the Mac because it allowed programmers to easily write interfaces that didn't adhere to the Mac standard. And now he hates Windows because he likes the c:>. It looks at first like he's come a full circle, but really it's just an automatic reaction to anything new that Dvorak has - attack it until people get bored of hearing about it. - Jim Ruehlin
jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus) (10/03/90)
In article <6I56PF3@xds2.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >However, there are things you can do from the Unix shell, for example, that I >have yet to see anything like under a windowing environment, other than in a >shell within a window... powerful things like simple programs that manipulate >data in standard ways being hooked together with pipes. >In a windowing environment, you'd have to double click on your compressor, >your uudecoder, your editor, etc, and do it by hand, click-click, moving >around from program to program and reentering data like filenames and such >to each program. You could record a macro, but that's a kludge, really, >and besides, there are a lot of if-type decisions to be made, like is this >file compressed or not, and so forth. For a language-creation user interface that is poorly thought out, this is true. But you can also build such macros much quicker in a GUI by displaying icons and disabling those that are irrelavent to the current options you have available. For instance, you would start will all "command" icons displayed - the "if... then..." icon, the "assignment" icon, the "print..." icon, etc. Once one of them is selected, say the "print.." icon, all the command icons are disabled and the icons showing the object that can be printed are enabled. This method makes it impossible to make syntax errors and is a good guide to the language itself, allowing you to bypass some of the "manual", which is hard to get at on UNIX anyway. >But for the most part, there are not yet efficient windoing equivalents to >many of the things we are used to doing, like shell scripts and, dare I >say it, programming. There are a growing number of user interface methodologies that need only be implemented by programmers and software manufacturers in order to efficiently build such things as languages that let you avoid entire classes of errors (e.g., syntax errors). -Jim Ruehlin
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/03/90)
In article <GERRY.90Oct3100125@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: |> |> |>However, in application programs, menus are usually the fastest way to |>impede productivity. Take FrameMaker for instance. These are things |>I can easily do with TeX that can not be done with FM without a great |>deal of searching, clicking, cursing and using the program in ways |>that the designers did not intend. Are the designers stupid? |>Probably not, but they are incapable of predetermining everyones |>needs, which is why menus are bad. First of all, most things in FrameMaker have keyboard equivalents, so you don't have to use menus much at all. As for your point that using menus is a pain because searching, clicking, etc. is hard: it's a lot easier to remember that Marker is under Frame's special menu than to remember some obscure TeX macro or another. Yes, once you really know TeX well, this isn't a problem, but the same applies to Frame (or Word for Windows, or whatever): once you know which menus to use or which keystrokes do what, it's easy. |>Most people remember most of the commands they use regularly, its not |>too hard. (If you find it difficult, then I wonder about the quality |>of te rest of the folks at MS... maybe that explains some of the |>brain-dead products that MS produces...) Anyway, if I/any person can |>not remember a command, you simply fire up your on-line help system. |>NOw, I am the first to admit that UNIX documentation sucks, but if it |>were rewritten ala VMS then anyone could sit down and start working |>easily. As to you comment about windows being self explanatory that |>is kinda true, but it is also like saying that anyone can get in a car |>and drive, but a jet requires more learning. This is true, but I'd |>rather fly the jet than drive the car. Most people also remember where the menu commands they use most often are, and also know the keystroke equivalents for them. The big win for Windows over the command line is that if I don't know a command (or if I don't know an option for a command) I have an easy, systematic way of figuring out what to do next. |>So, someone from MS finally speaks up, but quite incorrectly. If more |>people could effectively use computers, my job/life would be MUCH |>easier. You see, I am considered to be a guru and am constantly |>being asked questions. I would like to see better user interfaces, |>and MS Windows MAY be a step in that direction, but it must be clearly |>understood by SW manufacturers that they should under no circumstances |>take away the power of the command line interface from those of us who |>want to use them. |> |>(Actually, this conversation reminds me very strongly of gun control |>nuts and the right-to-lifers... two groups who portend to know what's |>best for everyone and will enforce their views regardless.) |> Intersting. Your post came off the same way. Note that you say things like "menus are bad," etc. You are taking your feelings toward Windows and similar GUIs and applying them to everyone. Yet most people prefer menus and would rather not have to deal with the command line. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
jimmills@cs.arizona.edu (James H. Mills) (10/04/90)
I have a couple of questions about speed enhancements for Windows 3: (1) Are there any worthwhile benefits of using a math coprocessor with Windows aside from it's benefits in spreadsheet and CAD programs? (2) How can printing speed in Windows be improved?