🚀 go-pugleaf

PJ (pjuang@hawking.nhgs.tec.va.us) wrote:
: jlp@cheeta.inesc.pt (Jaime Lares Rebelo Pinto) wrote:
[...]
: >   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.

:     Don't you use vi or any version of X-Windows?  emacs maybe?  These
: are pretty useful tools that I wouldn't boot up my Linux without.  Same
: with Teachtext or whatnot.

    While many people don't like vi, yes, I like vi. :-)

    I was thinking about tools like pctools. Before Windows became popular,
I saw many people using that kind of tools to do tasks as simple as
copying files around.

[...]
: >   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!

:   "bet you'll have a hard time figuring out the meaning of this sentence"

    Well, you should win a prize here! :-)

:   Am I right?  Took me less than 30 seconds and two tries.  There probably
: are a few mistakes in there, where you can interchange words, but the basic
: gist of the sentence is there. 

    I didn't save the complete sentence, but I think you got it right!

:    And there are no commands that long!  Think abou it - defrag, memmaker,
: CHKDSK even are fairly short.  How are you going to get that sentence into
: 8.3?  Keeps the overly verbose out of PCs, no doubt.   

:    Now, you do have a point.  I would have never guessed anything like
: "cp" in Unix if I hadn't know the commands man, apropos, and ls beforehand.

: >    To make things worse, other methods were used to get other commands,
: >like CHCP or DIR.
:  
:   ???  Keyboard shortcuts and several ways to print files exist in GUIs also
: (for example).

: >    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..

:        Maybe.  But then you have to say the reverse is true - keyboard
: shortcuts.  Alt-F4, OPENAPPLE-Q, etc. 

[...]
:       But you see, you don't use 100 different apps on a regular basis.  Why
: do you need to remember key combinations for fairly unused apps?  Likely, 
: you use one word processor, one spreadsheet app, and several other special
: applications.  
:       I use at least 30 applications on a regular basis, on DOS, Windows, 
: Macintosh, and Unix.  I don't find it hard to remember the key combinations
: (there may be 20 - 30, especially on ones like Word Perfect) and use them
: instead of the mouse.
:      People are different, of course.  But think - most people do not
: need to use 100 applications or are intellectually challenged enough
: to not remember a bunch of key combinations.  You said yourself that you have
: used Unix, DOS, and Macintosh.  There are many different things you need to
: remember to run the OSes alone!  I assume that you stay to your CLI roots
: and use the keyboard shortcuts.

    Yes, I use keyboard shortcuts.

    But I think that it's important to be able to do things from the menus.
Some times I have to do something on other people computers, and they don't
have the same apps I have. Some times unexperienced users ask for help
about apps I don't know. Some times apps we use at work change. With a Mac
or Windows I usually explore the menus quickly and it's enough to guess how
to get something done. It wasn't that easy in the old DOS world.

    Ironicaly, I had to use other people computers much more in the DOS
days. :-) Now it doesn't happen often.

    At the time I used to use several UNIX machines, and some times many
DOS machines, so I had a dos disk with vi, to be able to use the same
editor everywere (some people didn't want vi on their machines). :-)

[...]
:      Yes, of course.  But MS and Intel have been pushing for recompiling, and
: I will wager that many companies are already working on 32-bit applications.
: Moving from the Pentium to the P6 is much more beneficial in terms of reprogramming
: than from the 486 to the Pentium.  The Pentium didn't need too much recompiling.

    Yes, we'll have to wait and see. All I can say is good luck.

[...]
: >    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.
: >
:     The same is true for Mac Pluses (and in my opinion, the entire Mac II line,
: along with the 286s).

    I don't agree with you here. At the time I could run Word perfectly
whell on a Mac LC (68020 16Mhz), with 2M RAM, with system 6.0.7, in finder
mode. :-) It would do some things faster than word on a 33Mhz 486 with
16M RAM, I seem to remember. Adding more memory it can run system 7, it
gets slower, but it's still useful for office kind of work.

    However, it's probably a good idea to keep away from Word 6.

    I have no experience with Mac Pluses.

:     Anyway, I certainly wouldn't try Word and Win on a 386.....I've seen one....
: it's scary....

: >:      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.

:    Yes, most of which will be developed for System 8 instead of System 7......
: Maybe developed also for System 7.  But the advantages of System 8 will be
: too great for the developers to waste their time on System 7.
:     Copland will quickly widow the 680x0 line.

    Devlopers already have to devlop for 680x0 and PowerMac. If no system
8 is released for 680x0, I supose it's not a big thing to keep 680x0
code for system 7, in most cases.

    There are still many milions of 680x0 Macs out there. People will upgrade
for PowerMacs, but I doubt that it will all happen in 6 months, or one
year, or even 2 years. This means that there will be money on the 680x0 market
for developers for some more years.


    Cheers,
    Jaime.