🚀 go-pugleaf

PJ (pjuang@hawking.nhgs.tec.va.us) wrote:
: jlp@cheeta.inesc.pt (Jaime Lares Rebelo Pinto) wrote:
: >Henrik Wetterström (henke@hv.se) wrote:

: >    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.
: >
:    What?  I don't quite understand. " Copy" copies and not deletes, right?  So,
: what are you saying?

    If you have 2 diferent files, A and B, and COPY A B , you get 2 equal
files, the previous content of file B is lost (deleted).

    So even you get confused with DOS.

: >    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 .

:    Memmaker works real well, for the learning-impaired.  Personally, I make
: better autoexecs and configs than memmaker does, though.

   Several tools exist to do things that you could do with the DOS commands
and editors. This doesn't mean that DOS is easy to use, it means the oposite.
If DOS would be easy to use and powerful there wouldn't be so many people
using tools to do things that can be done with DOS alone.

: >    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? :-)
:  
:       You must have learned DOS way back.  Edit is the thing now.  I haven't
: fooled with edlin in years.  

    I learned DOS way back, when it was proudly a CLI.

    Edit is an influence of Mac and Windows. It has pop down menus, works
with the mouse, well, it tries to look like GUI apps.. But it doesn't have
the same support from the OS, so it's not as powerful: no cut and paste
betwen apps, no resizing of windows, etc..

: >
: >    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.
: >
:      Maybe.  How hard can it be?  Checkdisk without vowels = CHKDSK.  Easy.
: I have System 7.5  Where is Disk Aid?  "Find File" can't find it either.

   btyllhvhrdtmfgrngtthmnngfthssntnc.

   Surely it's easy to join words and take out the vowels. What can be
dificult is guessing the original words. If you doubt, just tell me
the meanig of the above sentence. I just wrote a regular one, then
I joined the words and took out the vowels. I'm sure you won't find
it more confusing than what it would be if the words were complete and
separated!

    To make things worse, other methods were used to get other commands,
like CHCP or DIR.

: >: 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.

:      In Wordperfect (I know this works in 5.1) for DOS, try clicking the
: third (right) mouse button.  A toolbar will come up on the top of the screen,
: eliminating the need to use the annoying little thing you lay on top of your
: function keys.

    I dont use Wordperfect for DOS for ages, but from your description,
it seems like it already has a GUI, or at least it looks like it. It looks
like another GUI app. cripled by not runing on a GUI OS.

    DOS apps. try to look like Mac or Windows apps. because the original
looking was bad. Otherwise the oposite would hapen, it would be the
Mac and Windows apps. imitating the DOS apps..

: >
: >    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?
: >
:      Hmmm....maybe.  But most of us don't have Alzheimers, so it shouldn't be
: a problem to remember key combinations.  You still remember CTRL-ALT-DEL, right?
: And you know OPTION-OPENAPPLE-ESCAPE for the Mac, right?

    Please think before posting.

    Lets say you already used 100 different apps. Lets say that each one
required you to know 15 key combinations. This is a total of 1500 key
combinations. Some are repeated, of course, but that just helps
bringing confusion.

    Obviously it is easy to remember one, or even a few key combinations,
but it is very dificult to remember 1500.

    Before it became obvious that GUIs were the way to go, each DOS app.
had an original interface, and used key combinations in an original way.
If you want to test 10 Mac word processors, you'll probably be able to
to just run them and start using them, since the interfaces have many
similarities. If you wanted to learn 10 DOS word processors you had
to learn 10 different interfaces.

: >: thing happened when DOS fanatics believed a GUI was not essential. Today would
: >
: >    So, now you admit that it's essential?
: >
:       It's not.

: >: 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.

:      You're probably right.  But, seeing as how many companies that make both
: Mac and IBM PC software quickly jumped to the PowerPC platform, I would bet 
: that they would make at least an effort to get something out within a couple
: weeks of Win95's release.

    I don't agree.

    Many products were quickly updated for PowerMac, but I believe that most
of them were not. Even a popular app like word only got native something
like 8 months after the PowerMac release.

    Since emulated apps run much slower in PowerMacs than native apps,
I would say that the advantage of upgrading was higher than the advantage
of upgrading from Win3.1 to Win95.

: >    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.
: >
:       And I've seen DOS 6.22 and Win 3.1 on an 8088 (I'm not kidding!).  You
: need less than 960k RAM to run both.  How about a Mac Plus?

    Realy?!? Ha Ha!

    Whell, some years ago I tried to run Word on Win3.1, in a 386 2M RAM,
and it would take up to a couple of minutes to draw a page on the screen,
if the page had several fonts. With documents biger than 16 pages
it would start complaining about lack of memory.

    It would run, but it was almost unusuable.

    I believe that 4M are required to run system 7.1 properly on Mac pluses,
but I'm not sure. I just know that sometimes I see ads of Mac pluses with
recent OSs for sale, and recently I read an article of a Mac plus user
wanting advices about PowerMacs, so I supose that there are still a good
number of them being used productively with recent OS and apps..

: >    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.
: >
:      Whenever Copland arrives....680x0 will be "dead"....

    Lets wait and see. I expect the 680x0 to live for at least 4 more 
years. I believe that what's really important are the apps.

: >: 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.

    By the way. Apple already sold more PowerMacs than what they were
expeting to; they are doing well finantially; they are building a
new factory to increase production; there are several companys
producing Mac clones already, and it seems that next year even IBM
will make them; several products will be released this year
and the next, from OpenDoc to Copland to the Hardware Reference
Platform.

   It seems to me that the probability of Apple and/or IBM fading
away quickly is not higher than the probability of MS and/or Intel
fading away quickly.

   Not that this will stop some people from expecting Apple to die
tomorow for the rest of their lives. :-)

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

:      Probably one, two at most :).
: >

: >    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!
: >
:       Not really.  Ever seen Wing Commander 3 on anything but an SGI or an x86?
: Amazing.

    What is absurd is buing a fast expensive computer, instaling, testing
and configuring UNIX, believing that nothing shorter than UNIX should
be used, and end up using the computer just a bit for word processing kind
of tasks, and almost all of the time for games in DOS.

    There are good word processors for the Mac, and good games, but there
are other interesting programs too, from sequencers with audio to
multimedia apps like "A Brief History of Time" or "The Louvre", or
enciclopedias, atlas...


    Cheers,
    Jaime.