🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1221@mountn.dec.com> minow@mountn.dec.com (Martin Minow) writes:
>The real question remains: why hasn't anyone written a "Pager" utility?
>(display text in 9pt monoco, scroll, let the mouse copy selections to the
>clipboard, possibly write text in MacWrite format or print it out.)

Because...

What good would it be?  If it were an application, it would be just as
easy to launch real application.  I suppose you could argue that a
crippled word processor would be faster to launch, but I don't think
that's the point.  TeachText is free, and it comes with every mac
system.  Is there a need for something which is less capable but
slightly faster?  DA's are easier to open, but DA's already exist, as
long as you don't mind sticking to 32K of text.

Some people may prefer to use type or less or whatever because it is
more suited to the way they think.  To use an application on the Mac
that didn't create the document you want to work with, you have to
open up windows in the finder until you find the application.  A
little like using MS-DOS without a PATH.  Well, not really, but sort
of.  The frustration lies not in the amount of time taken, but in the
fact that the "obvious" way to do things doesn't work.  "Why can't I
just double-click this like the rest of my documents?"  In addition,
the Mac is supposed to be friendly, but the response it gives you when
you want to open a TEXT file with an unknown creator type is terse at
best.

I personally don't see the need for a pager, but it could be useful if
it were very well integrated into the Finder.  For example:

a) Add a new item, "Preview File" under the file menu.  This would be
   used to display standard file types, such as TEXT, PICT, and maybe
   a new standard format for formatted text.  (Personally, I think
   it's about time we stopped relying on MacWrite format as a defacto
   standard)  or...

b) Modify the Finder so that instead of saying, "...the application is
   busy or missing," it would say, "The creator of the TEXT file
   <blah> could not be opened.  Open with MacWrite II?"  There would
   also be a cdev that would let you pick the default application for
   any file type.  This way, even a pristine system could open any
   TEXT file painlessly with TeachText.  I think Pierce (and others)
   already mentioned this.  Besides, I suppose you could purchase Glue
   or Handoff or something.

   Presumably, you would have to tell it what program to use for what
   type of file, but there's no reason that some of this couldn't be
   built into the system.  A new resource could be added to
   applications which would describe what type of documents it can
   open.  As it stands, the Finder would do pretty well for itself
   just by looking through the Finder BNDL for the app as a first
   guess.  This way, the Finder could automatically present you with a
   list of programs that it thinks can open the file.

Ok.  That being said, why do we *not* need this?  Depending on what
all they manage to include in System 7, some of the problems may be
alleviated.

Q: Why would someone be so lazy as to be upset at the fact that they
   have to go start a word processor to view a document?

A: Who can say?  Maybe people wouldn't complain so much if they didn't
   have to go through Standard File.  There are rumors that the
   desktop metaphor (or perhaps communication with the Finder itself)
   will be used instead of the SF Dialog Boxes.  In either case, we
   may be able to open a document from within a program by clicking
   its icon, which may make some people happier.

Q: Okay, but you still have to go find the application.

A: Well, I just got an MMU, so when virtual memory is available, I'll
   have it load up a bunch of stuff on startup.  It also seems like
   the interface to MultiFinder will be slightly revamped (little
   things like Set Aside, which is in the version you get with SADE)
   to make life a little easier.  

   You will also be able to install applications in the apple menu for
   easy access, and make links so you can have an image of your app
   in, say, two folders where it would be convenient.

Ha!  Ramble ramble.  Hopefully, the sheer volume of this article will
discourage any of the more futile articles on this topic.  Not to say
I've covered the bases, or that I'm anywhere close to right, but just
hoping that boredom will have set in by this point.  An article of
this length deserves a conclusion.

1) For some people, it is easier to use something like more than to
   open up a mac application.  I myself think it's a pain to go open
   up a word processor and open the file from there instead of
   double-clicking.  Not that I prefer more, but you know what I mean.

2) Yes, it is possible to read TEXT files on a mac, but that's not the
   point.  If the dialog box were more clear, it would alleviate some
   confusion.  (god, if it just told you that you might try opening it
   from a similar application, or referred you to read a little
   section in the manual explaining popular types of applications...)

   Besides, a truly friendly system would provide a mechanism for
   finding a suitable substitue for a missing application.

3) Hopefully, it'll be a little less painful with system 7.  Whenever
   that gets here...

-Sho
--
sho@physics.purdue.edu  <<-- and to think there was a time when I
                             couldn't imagine writing something as
                             voluminous as a Ph.D. thesis.  If I can
                             write this much on something I don't care
                             about at all....