🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8454@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> mls@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (mike.siemon) writes:

>
>This is a bit obscure.  If I try to select, e.g., the file generated by my
>scanner software *and* a word processor, I find that the Finder doesn't *let*
>me extend selections across different folders.  (surely you *don't* mean for
>me to keep everything in the *same* folder? :-))

That's the way it works.  It made a lot more sense back when I bought
my 128K Mac; back then MFS had folders, but they were just an
organizational convenience, not really used by the operating system.
When HFS (and reasonably-priced hard disks) came along, folders were
used to implement the directory hierarchy.  It seems to me that this
feature still exists primarily for compatibility reasons.  [BTW, I
never found it particularly useful anyway.]

>I can of course drag one of these to the *other's* folder, or both onto the
>desktop (and then must remember to drag them back where I really want them
>:-))  Now if I click and shift click (or whatever) to select them both, a
>double click may launch the application *with* the file I want (at least,
>Word did this for me; I really don't know if this is general or not.  One
>*never* knows whether something on the Mac is general or not.)

You never know what's general on *any* computer, but I think the Mac
is a great deal more consistent than most.  For example, I use Unix at
work; for some commands that I don't use every day, there are
parameters that may or may not require a '-' prefix (e.g. the history
command).

>  Thus, I do
>not need the File menu's Open line -- at least in this case.  I was unaware
>of the possibility until you mentioned it; are you suggesting this is known
>to ordinary Mac users?

Well, I don't know about you new kids on the block, but us old-timers
all know about it....

>  It is not mentioned in Apple documentation that I
>have read.

It's fully described in my docmentation.  Of course, it's been several
years since I got updated docs, even longer since I looked at the docs
I do have.

>  (And what then; must
>I write my own documentation to record these experimental findings?)

The "Macintosh Bible" is a great book; I highly recommend it.  It
makes up for a lot of failures in the official documentation (which
was clearly written for "the rest of them").  [I've never met a
computer that comes with really good documentation; unfortunately,
this includes the Mac.]

> for all I know Word may have buried arithmetic capabilites, too --
>possibly hanging off the KitchenSink menu.)

I don't know about Word 3.x, but yes, Word 4.0 does have arithmetic
capabilites.  I forget which menu, as usual.  But please don't judge
the Mac by MS Word.  MS Word is widely regarded as one of the most
"un-Mac-like" programs around, despite the fact that it's the most
widely used word processor.

>  The idea
>of *all* files being byte sequences, connected via stdin/stdout pipes in a
>*general* combinator, has all the power that algebra does in mathematics.

Yes, this is a great idea.  But the Macintosh has some pretty good
ideas, too.  The idea of "resources" is pretty darned useful.  Less
important, but more visible, I like the fact that files have types, so
that I don't have to keep track of this myself (and no, filename
extensions aren't in the same class).
>
>The Mac draws beautiful Roman numerals; one is almost seduced into thinking
>that the art of reckoning with these numerals is all there is to mathematics.
>

Does anyone out there have a Roman numeral Desk Calculator DA?  Sounds
like a fun thing to have.



-- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com)
-- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA  19301
-- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable.
  << Those who fail to learn from Unix are doomed to repeat it. >>