🚀 go-pugleaf

Henrik Wetterström (henke@hv.se) wrote:
: In article <DCywsM.2H5@inesc.pt>, jlp@cheeta.inesc.pt (Jaime Lares Rebelo Pinto) writes:
: :    My brother didn't know a thing about computers, refused to learn DOS,
: :but with just a few hours of help, he started using my Mac. I sold it to
: :him, and since then he does his works very well on it, alone, for his
: :university studies (not related with computation). Does his brilliant works
: :matter? No, because he doesn't even know what sendmail is, and his Mac
: :doesn't have a PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING OS yet.

: Mac people often are biased against anything that doesn't have an apple figure
: on the box. If you brother didn't know anything about MSDOS (or any OS or DOS)
: wouldn't he know if MSDOS or Mac was worse than the other, but I guess you
: helped by showing disgust for MSDOS, which was directly transported to him.

    You 'forgot' to include part of my article:

[...]
>>    Well, while I like unix very much, and learned it before I ever
>>touched a Mac, and I think that it makes sense to use it at work,
[...]

    I did learn DOS and UNIX before ever touching a Mac.

    My brother had access to DOS, and even had a couple of lessons, at a
time where I didn't know and was not interested about Macs, so I couldn't
be a bad influence. In fact, I even did try to teach him a bit of DOS.
Since he didn't learn with the lessons nor with me, I did think that he just
wasn't interested about computers, so he wouldn't learn any.

    When I realized that I wanted to use some Mac software, and bought
a Mac, I was surprised by his interest. I never said "this is better than
DOS, so use it". He just saw me using it, asked some questions, and started
using it.

: Starting with computers is always a big problem, there's lot of things to
: learn, no matter what platform it is. For example, have you ever noticed how
: some people find it hard to even understand how the little dot on the screen
: can react to that device on the table, and even make that dot go where they want.

    Haha! People can have this problem, yes.

    But DOS is much more confusing and requires much more critical learning.

    Just learning paths and files and directories ends up being confusing,
since files and directories are specified the same way. I mean, c:\joao\fich
can be either a file or a directory. If a beginner thinks that it's a
directory and in fact it's a file, he can do something like
copy ..\..\lixo\xpto c:\joao\fich , deleting it. If he doesn't realize it
at the moment, he'll probably think, later, that the computer is failing
because some files are missing.

    DOS users need to know about PATH. Messing with it, some DOS commands
do not work. They have to know about internal and external commands.
They need to know about autoexec.bat and config.sys .

    It was usual to teach to edit files with edlin. I like UNIX vi, and
in fact I still use vi both in UNIX and DOS. :-) But edlin interface is
to awkward even for me! You are not going to tell me that edlin is easier
to learn and use than Teach Text, because it doesn't require a mouse, are
you? :-)

    A user suspects the disk is not OK. The MacOS comes with the Disk Aid
app., with an appropriate icon. An unexperient DOS user may think if
he should use CHCP, CHDIR, CHKDSK, CLS... For the experienced user, it's
obvious that CHKDSK (check disk :-) is the thing to use, but for beginners
the abbreviations are very confusing.

: Most people can use a keyboard, because of its similarity with typewriters.
: It is known, it is big, and it is located very visible.
: See, I even found an advantage of the hated MSDOS. Suppose I tell this to a
: guy who never seen or heard of computers. I go on with learning him the
: "DIR", "COPY" and the different extensions "*.EXE and *.COM to start with".
: He could start using some MSDOS wordprocessor quite fast. 

    Are you joking?!? Did you ever learn the DOS versions of Word Perfect
or Word Star, for example? They were good if you consider the features, they
had lots of them. But to be able to use the features, the user had to know
considerably complex menu structures and many keys and combination of keys.

    If a DOS user would learn to use, say, Word Star, and then need to
use Word Perfect, he would probably be unable to do it, since the interfaces
were totally different.

    I mean... If a user wouldn't use an application for a while, he could
start the application, do some work, then realize that he doesn't remember
the combination of keys that brings the exit and save menu, and end up
reboting the computer to quit the application. I would call this chaotic
interfaces... Can you really say easy to use?

: If I left him here, and came back a few weeks later with a Macintosh and
: confronted him with a graphical user interface. I believe he wouldn't
: understand a thing at first, and maybe start thinking that he can't learn,
: or don't want to learn that GUI, because MSDOS is enough for him. and guess what,
: his computer doesn't even have a graphical user interface.

    It's not the case, as I said.

: What I mean is that many people (mostly Mac fanatics) live in an illusion where
: they believe multitasking is NOT essential for future evolution. The same

    UNIX fanatics always lived in an illusion where multitasking is essential.
But while DOS and MacOS and Windows have been selling alot, companies supporting
VMS and UNIX and Amiga had severe problems.

    MacOS and Windows have multitasking for years, Windows NT has preemptive
multitasking, and MacOS will have it too.

: thing happened when DOS fanatics believed a GUI was not essential. Today would

    So, now you admit that it's essential?

: everybody laugh at people who refused to use (or even learn to use) a graphical
: user interface. Amiga, OS/2 and Unix (and soon to come, win95) user already
: smiles when they hear people say "preemtive multitasking isn't necessary".

    I don't think it's right to place, at least, Win95 side by side with
UNIX. And remember that users won't upgrade all Win3.1 applications
immediately, probably there will still be many Win3.1 apps running when
Copland arrives.
    
: Store the text you wrote above in your previous article in a textfile and
: look at it in August 2000. I bet you will laugh at it and wonder how you
: could write such silly things in aug. 1995.

    No offense, but I expect you to realize that you wrote silly things
immediately.

: :    There are lots of brilliant software for the Mac. For example,
: :the Mac still has the best music software, no doubt about it. I believe that
: :it is still the best platform for DTP, but that's probably debatable. There
: :are many kinds of good software for it, from word processors, to games,
: :to multimedia titles ("The Louvre" and "Brief History of Time" come to
: :mind). But does any of this matters? No, because the MacOS doesn't have
: :PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING yet.

: Well, for the moment does it matter less, but I guess 99.99% of the programs
: for win95 in use will be 32-bit version and taking advantage of a multitasked
: Win95. If this platform by most people is found as excellent would a lot

    Yes, but when? I guess that many companies wont have a release just
for that, so some updated software will be released in more than 6 months
from now. And I guess that not all owners will immediately upgrade, so you'll
see Win3.1 software in use for years.

: of people move to it, developers would follow them and abandon other
: platforms. In a few years would the Macintosh end up just like the amiga.

    Or the PowerPC can expand faster than P*, and the Hardware Reference
Platform can take of, and the 80x86 family end up just like the Amiga,
but with no one wanting to bring it alive again.

    Anyway, no mater what computer and other hardware you choose, it will
die. I wouldn't be too surprised if we could find more 386 or less computers
then 486 or more computers, in Europe. And what's the worth of 386 or less
computers today? But I believe that you can have system 7.1 on Mac pluses,
so I would say that Macs have been living longer.

: Face it, multitasking is a damn good feature to boast with, it is a trend,
: just like being connected to the net. No, I wouldn't buy a Mac, because it
: lacks preemptive multitasking do I think it never can match Win95, and therefor

    Win95 will be good if it gets IBM compatibles close to Macs in several
fields, like plug and play (which I doubt). I believe that Win is a bit
ahead of MacOS when it comes to preemptive multitasking, but I guess that
many people, if not most, won't really take advantage of that before
Copland arrives.

: will it be wasted money in a few years. I saw my amiga fade like this, and I
: certainly don't wan't it to happen again with a Mac of my own.

    Whatever you buy now will be obsolete in a few years.

: :    My Mac only crashed about 4 or 5 times during the last year, all of
: :them because of badly designed freeware/shareware/demos I was testing.
: :I didn't lose a single document because of it, not even a bit of a
: :document did I lose. And I use it almost every day. Does this matter?
: :No, because it doesn't have PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING yet.

: Several unix systems have been up for years (or even decades) without a crash

    Gross exaggeration.

: or lost data, and under that period been serving thousands of users and uncountable
: jobs. Does this matter? No, because Mac users find it hard to learn to
: master Unix...

    You keep forgetting I said:

[...]
>>    Well, while I like unix very much, and learned it before I ever
>>touched a Mac, and I think that it makes sense to use it at work,
[...]

    As I said, I consider that Macs with MacOS can be wonderful personal
computers. I never said that the MacOS is better than UNIX for multiuser
environments, for servers, or for some specific tasks.

: :    Is it all clear now? You were having problems understanding their point
: :of view, because you were thinking about the end user, instead of thinking
: :about the programmer, the system administrator, and, most important of all,
: :PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING.

: When you go and buy a new car, your don't understand and want to think
: about technical things like computer-controlled-ignition, pistons made of
: some strange new metal with some strange new design. you leave those things
: to the people who designed the care. They are the experts, they should made
: every possible attempt to make the car better, faster, cheaper, lighter
: and nicer. They should added all new and good technology.
: Now, assume you have cooperative multitasking and preemptive multitasking,
: don't think of anything else, which one is the better? I feel sorry for you

    Preemptive multitasking is better, that's why the MacOS will have it.

: if you choosed CMT. Is it fair to fool low-end users which don't understand
: these thing by not using the new technology? Would it be OK to sell a modern
: car that consumed 10gallons/mile of gazoline, if he didn't understand these
: thing? No, I think that would be dishonest. 

    So, in your opinion, it is dishonest to sell DOS, it is dishonest to sell
software and hardware that have severe incompatibilities, it is dishonest
to sell hardware and software that isn't plug and play?

: Thosed who don't know much about computers are fooled into that multitasking
: is not needed, if they for some reason ask the question. Ofcourse they
: believe you, because, in their eyes, you are the expert.

: /Henrik

    Strangely enough, several people that know alot about computers would/did
advise me to sell my Mac and buy something and install some free UNIX. No
mater the fact that then I wouldn't be able to run the software that is
important to me. This means that I would use UNIX not to do something, but
just to run PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING. That's absurd!

    A friend of mine bought a PC years ago and installed a free UNIX. He said
I should do the same. Recently he admitted that he has DOS too. He said that at
home he doesn't have much patience to do the same kind of work he does at work,
so he uses his computer almost only in DOS (no preemptive multitasking, no
multitasking at all) for games. That's absurd!


    Cheers,
    Jaime.