NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/mswindo/advocacy/2861

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 10.1 KB | 259 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!jec312.its.rpi.edu!johnsd2
From: [e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: jec312.its.rpi.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:07:47 GMT
Lines: 246

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>|> In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Fred Bent) writes:
>[stuff on RAM requirements deleted]
>|> [deletia- HP printer problem. I dunno whats wrong]
>|> >I think that copy has switches to handle binary files.  Off the top of my
>|> >head try:
>|> >
>|> >COPY /B FILE.TXT PRN
>|> >
>|> >and see if this works.
>|>
>|> Waitasec. What does the /B flag do? Why should COPY care
>|> what its spewing to the printer?
>|>
>|> Me confused.
>|>
>
>The /B flag tells the system that a binary file is being dumped to the printer.
>In other words, a file printed without this flag will be directly printed, using
>your printer as an overglorified typewriter. The /b flag is a message to the
>printer that there are control codes in the file that the printer understands,
>and that the printer should interpret the result before printing. BTW /b stands
>for Binary.

What is the difference, tho? What does copy do if the /b
flag is not set?

[deletia- UI analysis]
>
>|> >  But once you know how to do something in a GUI or any environment
>|> >it then becomes obvious :-)
>|>
>|> Well, it SHOULD. IMHO, the Mac manages this trick.
>
>Well, once you get the hang of it, entering code into the machine in binary is
>intuitively obvious :)

Yeah, and it only takes 2, 3 centuries to get the hang of it! :)

[deletia- more UI analysys]
>|> >>complicated mouse maneouver to a computer illiterate over a telephone?).  In
>|> >>general, Dos is less hassle for new users.  I can set up their machine to boot
>|> >>in a given manner, and write a list of things that they can type to achieve
>|> >>given results, and provided they type is exactly as it is written, you have no
>|> >>problems.  My wife got to the stage where she could find her way around Dos in
>|> >>a couple of weeks, and in general, i can help her over the telephone.
>|> >
>|> >This is because there is not such a steep learning curve for command line
>|> >interfaces.  You simply have to remeber a handful of commands.
>|>
>|> Which do not apply outside of the DOS shell. :/
>
>You can use keyboard commands to manipulate Windows. Example "Hold down the Alt
>key and the Tab key until the name of the program that you want to switch to
>appears, and release. The program will be activated. You can run Windows fairly
>effectively on systems without a mouse. I've done it. This CANNOT be done on a
>Mac.

I know that. (I dont consider it important, but thats not very relevant).

But we were talking about DOS. Windows provides ANNOTHER UI in ADDITION
to the DOS command line.

The advantage being that all Windows apps SHARE this UI.

[deletia why de Mac is soooooooooooooooo cool]
>
>Essentially what you are saying is that most of the functionality of the Finder
>is contained inside the Windows File Manager. BTW, you can open docs from File
>Manager without the right extension by dragging them to the program file and
>dropping them.

Check. You can do that in the Mac. Taht's basically true, but the File
Manage is inconvinient for most things, so you use the program manage
instead.

Also, there are a number of function the Finder has the the File Manage
does not have, some minor, some important. Font Installation is one.
Also file-commenting.

>|> > Each MAC app steals the main menu bar when it is active.
>|>
>|> I prefer the term "politely snarfs it up"
>
>Steals is probably more accurate.

I would not say so. The Menu Bar is communal property! :)

>|>
>|> >  Windows each app has its own menu bar.
>|>
>|> Yeah, I prefer this approach as I find that the one menu bar approach
>|> is very, very, confusing to new users. They dont realize they have
>|> left apps running if those apps have no windows open, and there is
>|> no visible clue to the fact that they have.
>|>
>|> However, the one-menu-bar approach is not without its charms. It
>|> has a speed advantage in that you dont have to aim vertically. (this
>|> would eventually be offset if your monitor is big enough, but Ive never
>|> met an monitor that big myself)
>|>
>
>IMHO, the prime advantage of a single menu bar is less visual clutter on the
>screen.

IMHO, it isn't either. The visual clutter thing is minimal. There
is a speed advantage and also the menu bar provides a central, stable
spot for things like the application menu and the apple menu.

> OTOH, this is offset by the convience of being able to have the
>information in the multiple bars, which makes multitasking _much_ easier.

I agree here, tho I dont see the information content as significant-
the reason (in my mind) is that the Windows approach to menu bar
handling is less confusing.

>|> >  When you "minimize" a MAC app you have to use the silly icon on
>|> >the right of the Bar to maximize it (make it active).
>|>
>|> The Civilized Machead terms are "hide" and "show" btw. And the icon
>|> you refer to is a menu (teh application menu). Its very much
>|> more convinient that the Task List is, imho, for pulling up a buried app.
>
>I find it easier to double-click on an icon thats sitting on the desktop than to
>pull down a menu. I believe that the Mac GUI is the only one that handles
>hidden/minimized apps with a menu, all others use the icon/desktop approach.

You are correct. Well, GeoWorks does something remotely similar, but
it also has icons.

The nice thing about the menu is that you dont have to be able to reach the
desktop to use it. You can have zoomed windows and such covering it completely.
Icons are nice but are blocked by this.

>Also, Task Manager is not difficult to get to. The easiest way to open it is to
>double-click on the desktop.

This is also blocked by a zoomed window, and it involves an extra step the
App menu does not.

> It can also be accessed through the system menu on
>all document windows.

This is true, but it also involves an extra step.

> Task Manager does more than just switch apps. It can
>rearrange all the open apps in a tile or cascade fashion, it can neaten up the
>icons on the desktop, and it can close down any active app, including Program
>Manager, providing another way to exit Windows.

This is nice; Id like to have something like this on the Mac in addition
to the App Menu. (in fact, I do but its freeware).

Well, you can't shut down with it- if you kill the finder it just dies.
(until no apps are running, then the system restarts the finder for you)

>|>
>|> >  The desktop does not change.
>|>
>|> That is so. Why should the desktop change? In windows does your
>|> desktop turn purple if you iconize an app? :)
>|>
>
>I've seen it happen on 8 bit displays where apps remap the palette :)
>

Yech! :)

Fortunately, Macheads do not have to deal with this problem since
we have teh Palette Manage to deal with it.

>|> >  In Windows the active app "jumps to the top of the desktop".
>|> >Windows makes an icon for the minimized apps,
>|>
>|> Yes, it does. To do so on the Mac would be bad, as icons on the desktop
>|> are files, folders or volumes. (ie, finder icons). This is very handy
>|> for drag-n-drop type stuff, but it means that task icons placed
>|> there would need a large number of new abilities- youd have to be able
>|> to stick them in other icons,  get info on them, find them with the
>|> finder's search routine, rename them, etc.
>|>
>|> It would probably be a wonderfull addition to the Mac to DO all that,
>|> though. I can see it now- a folder of suspended tasks to be resumed
>|> at a double-click; you can terminate any task by tossing it in
>|> the trash. Etc.
>|>
>
>Stay tuned for System 8 :)
>

Heh heh heh.

>|> > MAC simply adds it to the menu of the apps that are running.
>|>
>|> Huh? It was already there... all apps with user interfaces that
>|> are running are there.
>|>
>
>Huh? could you clarify?

The app menu contains _all_ applications that have user interfaces. This
provides an easy way to switch between apps- sorta like teh Task Manager
provides. The hidden ones have dimmed icons next to them, but
are otherwise not changed. One way to show a hidden app is to switch
to it, tho.

>|> >Both have sound effects for events.
>|>
>|> Not quite; the Mac does not have anythign like that except
>|> for being able to play a startup sound by putting it in your
>|> startup items folder. But nothing else wo/ a 3d party addition.
>|>
>|> (not that this is terribly relevant to the UI)
>
>It's a nice feature to have more than one error sound. A simple beep is adequate
>for getting your attention when a download is finished, etc; but for something
>urgent ("Your hard drive will expload in 10 seconds. Please Reboot"), you want a
>different sound from your normal error sound to catch your attention.

The Mac only provides one beep at a time to apps normally, but then can
use SndPlay to provide a startreklike redalert sound if they wish to
explode your hard drive. :)

>|>
>|> >Mac only has one button on the mouse.
>|>
>|> That's actually supposed to be a feature. You never have
>|> to wonder which button to push; I find that to be a constant problem
>|> on X-windows systems w/ 3 buttons anyway, but on windows its not a big
>|> deal as you can get away with the left button only.
>|>
>
>Some feature. I like 3 button mice. On the Mac, I'e seen many programs that
>request Command-Click and Option-Click as a substitute for other mouse buttons.
>Does anyone want to claim that this is intuitive?

Not I; its bad design to do it like that. You should design for one button
if you write a Mac app, not try to fudge 3.

---
            - Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.