markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (04/12/91)
Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste?
steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) (04/12/91)
In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? > > Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an >aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste? The whole GUI thing has come about for ease of use and productivity. I agree that there are many places where the ol command line is quicker, but I do like having multilple windows for doing more than one thing at a time. I like having a clock on the screen while I'm working on something. I personally like having folders. For me, it makes it easier to find things that I havn't worked on for a few years - I don't have to remember what sub-sub-sub-subdirectory it might be in. Its more like my file cabenet or my desk. I like to think of it in terms of an analogy to when Dos added the directory/subdirectory ability. At first, people asked why - now its a standard reuirement. I suspect that GUIs will be the norm in a few more years. I don't mind because I still have access to the command line, and I can take advantage of those features of the GUI that are useful to me. Steve -- .-------------------..-------------------------. | Stephen C. Daukas || sdaukas@csd.harris.com | | (617) 221-1834 || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas | `-------------------'`-------------------------'
jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (04/12/91)
In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows
anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command
shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities?
Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an
aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste?
The only reason for using widows is because you have to for programs like
Micrographix Designer or Corel Draw. I use Ventura GEM/DOS because it's
much faster, and WP5.1 as well. There is no possible way that I will even
consider WP for Windows, W4W, or AMI PRO -- Windows is just too damn slow.
Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, no: the purpose of language
is to cast spells on other people ..."
Lisa S Chabotstephenc@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Stephen Chung) (04/12/91)
In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? Well, at least to me, it is the multi-tasking (I know I know, DESQVIEW is supposed to be much better in multi-tasking, but Windows looks a lot better... :-> ). Being able to look at a spreadsheet in one window, a graph in another, while writing a report about the figures beats anything else on the DOS command line. And yes, I still do a lot of things with the command line, like copying files, deleting files etc. Last night, I was dialing in to a UNIX host to write a program. That program was eventually supposed to be run on the PC, and there is a PC program that it needs to run with. I was able to run TELIX in one window and debug my program on the UNIX host, while checking the results of the PC program with a DOS window to verify that they work together well. Just a few cents' worth. - Stephen
pottera@infonode.ingr.com (Andrew Potter) (04/13/91)
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? It may not get you anything, depending on what you're using your computer for. If you like to run more than one application at a time, and be able to see what you're doing, windows is useful. This can be convenient for switching among sequential tasks, such as compile & edit; or for performing concurrent tasks, e.g. downloading a file & playing a game, or composing a document that contains graphics. If you want to cut and paste, e.g. a drawing into a text document, windows is useful. There are a number of things like this that are easy to do under Windows that you might not do at all with a command-line shell. There's also something to be said for the consistency among Windows applications. > Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an >aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste? I can't speak for everyone, but I have no aversion to command-line shells. I run one all the time. In a window! -- Andrew Potter | "t-crosser Intergraph Corp 205-730-8673 | i-dotter" uunet!ingr!b23b!entropy!andrew | Dr. Seuss
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (04/13/91)
In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? In article <1077@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: >I personally like having folders. For me, it makes it easier to find >things that I havn't worked on for a few years - I don't have to remember >what sub-sub-sub-subdirectory it might be in. Its more like my file >cabenet or my desk. This is actually one of the things I had in mind when asking the question. The find command, or even better, piping ls -R through grep would give you that kind of utility and a bit more. I use that all the time on my PC. >I don't mind because I still have access to the command line, and I can take >advantage of those features of the GUI that are useful to me. I played around with Amiga Workbench for a while (which Windows appears to be practically the same thing as), but basically had to go to the command line interface, when it started becoming apparent that the windows were getting in the way of actually talking to the machine. It felt like wearing a hood with a window-shaped viewer in the front while talking to another person, and it really wears down on your productivity. I use the multi-tasking ability of the machine, but rarely in the windows environment.
elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) (04/14/91)
In article <11003@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >> Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >>anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >>shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? > >In article <1077@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: >>I personally like having folders. For me, it makes it easier to find >>things that I havn't worked on for a few years - I don't have to remember >>what sub-sub-sub-subdirectory it might be in. Its more like my file >>cabenet or my desk. > >This is actually one of the things I had in mind when asking the question. >The find command, or even better, piping ls -R through grep would give you that >kind of utility and a bit more. I use that all the time on my PC. > >>I don't mind because I still have access to the command line, and I can take >>advantage of those features of the GUI that are useful to me. > >I played around with Amiga Workbench for a while (which Windows appears to be >practically the same thing as), but basically had to go to the command line >interface, when it started becoming apparent that the windows were getting in >the way of actually talking to the machine. It felt like wearing a hood with >a window-shaped viewer in the front while talking to another person, and it >really wears down on your productivity. I use the multi-tasking ability of >the machine, but rarely in the windows environment. This debate has been going on for a long time. Basically, it comes down to this: SOME PEOPLE LIKE GUIs AND SOME DON'T. Some people, like you, feel that the command line is the quickest and simplest way to "talk" to the computer, and a shell like Windows just gets in the way. Others, on the other hand, find DOS or UNIX commands cryptic and difficult to learn, and for those people it is MUCH, MUCH easier to copy a file by dragging it between windows than to learn how to use pathnames, or to use a simple pull-down menu than to remember a cryptic function-key combination. On the other hand, some feel that the pathname or the function-key combo is QUICKER, and it's worth it. So at least for now (and I doubt that this will change for a LOOOOONG time), there is still plenty of software that doesn't use a GUI, and if you've tried Windows (or the Amiga Workbench, from what I've seen they are very similar, or for that matter a Mac), and you don't like it, there's no reason to change. So to sum up, it IS a matter of personal taste. Adam Elman elmanad@leland.stanford.edu
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (04/16/91)
In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows >anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command >shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? > > Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an >aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste? I guess the boat sailed away without you... :-) It gives you.. 1.) A nice graphics based windowing system. (A picture is worth a 1000 words!) 2.) The ability to multitask applications (DOS apps on a 386 too.) While it has its drawbacks, it is not a bad start. Hopefully uSoft will keep improving it. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr12.142258.15226@cbnewsj.att.com> jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: > >In article <10960@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > Maybe I missed the boat somewhere, but what is so great about windows > anyhow? What does it get me that I already can't get with reasonable command > shell, a good editor and a few good UNIX-like utilities? > > Or was it simply meant as something to be marketed to people who have an > aversion to command-line shells? You know, personal taste? > >The only reason for using widows is because you have to for programs like >Micrographix Designer or Corel Draw. I use Ventura GEM/DOS because it's >much faster, and WP5.1 as well. There is no possible way that I will even >consider WP for Windows, W4W, or AMI PRO -- Windows is just too damn slow. People don't buy Windows just to run Windows, any more than they buy OS/2 just because it's OS/2 (which, clearly, they didn't). People buy the operating environment they need in order to support the applications they want to run. If Word for Windows does what you want, then you will buy DOS, Windows and whatever hardware is required to make it run adequately. If you're satisfied with WP5.1, then you'll buy DOS and forget Windows. The "I won't run Windows applications because Windows is too slow" argument is irrelevant and naive. Windows runs just fine on my 20MHz 386. GUIs present more benefits to the application developer than to the end user. The application developer can simply FORGET about supporting 2,427 different graphic display devices, 1,912 different printer devices, 327 different plotters and 9 different mouse interfaces. Your application under Windows automatically runs on any combination of devices supported by Windows, at whatever resolutions the device drivers support. That is a BIG improvement is marketability and productivity for the application developer. -- timr@gssc.gss.com Tim N Roberts, CCP Graphic Software Systems Beaverton, OR This is a very long palindrome. .emordnilap gnol yrev a si sihT
cs012116@cs.brown.edu (Mike Perkowitz) (04/19/91)
Actually, I find advantages to both command-line- and GUI- oriented systems. With whatever little batch files, synonyms, command-shells, etc., DOS can work quite well (though, of course, you have to be able and willing to set it up to your liking). But I have also found the MAC interface to work extremely well also. MAC gives you access, through the GUI, to everything you could do, quickly and easily. The problem I have with Windows is not that it's a GUI but that it doesn't seem to be a very good one. Actually, it's an alright shell for running applications (and games), but it's useless as an "operating system". You don't have quick and easy access to file manipulation (or even seeing what/where your files are). You have to run SOMETHING ELSE (i.e. the file manager), which is less of an oppressive-looking and running GUI than the program manager. On a mac, everything is the same sort of object - all of your documents, data files, and applications are right there, in the same place, in the same folder/window or whatever. In Windows, the things you execute are here, the things you load are there, and so on. The person who compared Windows to blinders had it right - it's unsuccessful because it's (relatively) limited and inflexible. (This wasn't meant to become a diatribe... i really do use windows for some things. I just don't expect it to be an operating system.) Mike Perkowitz cs012116@cs.brown.edu ST801627 at BROWNVM (bitnet - less temporary than the above)
jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) (04/23/91)
In article <6640@gssc.UUCP>, timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes: > In article <1991Apr12.142258.15226@cbnewsj.att.com> jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: > GUIs present more benefits to the application developer than to the end user. > The application developer can simply FORGET about supporting 2,427 different > graphic display devices, 1,912 different printer devices, 327 different > plotters and 9 different mouse interfaces. Your application under Windows > automatically runs on any combination of devices supported by Windows, at > whatever resolutions the device drivers support. That is a BIG improvement > is marketability and productivity for the application developer. > It has been shown that the average Mac user masters 7 applications. The average IBM user masters 3. Somehow I am inclined to believe that the reason ISN'T because all IBM users are stupid. Rather, it is because the Mac GUI provided a much more consistent interface than the free-for-all found in DOS. (Before Windows) I don't have to remember 12 ways to get help, or to delete a line, a cut and paste. Lest you haven't written a Windows app (I have), they are *tough*. I would say that writing a windowing app for the Mac or PC is substantially more difficult than writing the same app for DOS. Try writing a simple app, like "Hello World". It will come out at least a couple pages long. Memory management alone is a horror show. Most developers would ignore windowing envioronments if they could. Note Lotus and Ashton Tate, who took years to come out with a windowing version of their software. They obviously didn't see this great developer's advantage. The developer gains the device independence at the expense of a lot of other difficulties. A fairly large application I wrote worked under VMS, Unix and MS-DOS just fine. MS-Windows broke it _badly_. I ended up rewriting substantial hunks of it. So where does that leave me with portability?? I lose big. I don't disagree about the advantages of having device independence. It is probably the biggest advantage that Windows offers. But so many other things are brain damaged that it makes development a _real_ pain. Jim OH NO NOT ANOTHER GUI FLAME WAR PLEASE N O O o o . .
jfv@cbnewsk.att.com (j.f.van valkenburg) (04/24/91)
In article <453@newmedia.UUCP>, jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) writes: > In article <6640@gssc.UUCP>, timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes: > > In article <1991Apr12.142258.15226@cbnewsj.att.com> jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: > OH NO NOT ANOTHER GUI FLAME WAR PLEASE N O O o o . . Not wanting to start any Flame war, big or small, I just want to add my $0.02 worth. I am an old time unix/C programmer, I've seen many "window" type operating systems - GEM (good graphics, color on a CGA tube - no support from public), windows 1.+ (will not support color on CGA,won't support some mouses), integrated packages ( no comment), and my favorite, the AT&T UNIXPC ( real multitasking, multiuser , no color, limited support, real windows in the early 80's). Some of these GUI's are good, some are not. All do work - they all have some weakness's. I just have one question. Should the application be re-written for the GUI - or should the GUI be flexible enough to fit the application? Just a thought from a different point of view. ------------------------ James F. Van Valkenburg a.k.a. "van" AT&T Attmail: !jfv jfv@cbnewsk.att.com Atlanta, GA. Voice 404-810-7920 =============================================================================== ---- Standard Disclaimers included -- Just another grunt at AT&T ---- ===============================================================================