NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/16237

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 5.4 KB | 134 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!Urmel.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE!akela!jochenw
From: [e-mail] (Jochen Wolters)
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Message-ID: <jochenw.716044100@akela>
Sender: [e-mail] (Newsfiles Owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: akela
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
References: <[e-mail]> <92239      <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>      <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>    <[e-mail]> <922 <ajross.715985399@husc10> <[e-mail]>
Date:  9 Sep 92 13:08:20 GMT
Lines: 121

[e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:


>>Because (and I still can't see why you won't admit this)  there are times
>>where a command line interface is just plain easier than a graphical one.

>I won't admit it because it isn't true.

  Can you prove your point? Nope, you can't, since ease of use does
depend on personal preferences. I know a lot of folks, who are glad
that they don't have to use a GUI and others that wouldn't get their
work done without one.
  If you love your Mac and its Finder as much as I do -yep, I'm a Mac
addict as well!- that's fine. But you have to accept that there's
different strokes for different folks. Just because we prefer a GUI
doesn't mean that CLIs are necessarily inferior in general.


>False.  It takes longer to remember and type a command line
>than it does to click on an icon.

  That's a question of practice. And there are things that you
absolutely can't handle in a decent way when using a GUI like
the finder. Just try to rename a list of files with named
<blahblahblah>.FORM to <blahblahblah>.FRM. And let's assume
you have a list of 25 files. 'Lot of work for the GUI user ...
  O.K., all those that are sooo much in love with the Mac will
most definitely ask why they should have to rename those files
at all :-)))))) That won't change anything about the facts,
however!


>Study after study has confirmed this.

  Proof?! A real UNIX hacker wouldn't care for those studies
anyways; they would stick to their CLI and be happy with it!


>But if you actually sit down and time the tasks, you will find that
>recognizing is much faster than remembering.

  That may be the case, but try to start a program just by typing the
name or buy clicking thru a number of folders. The brain work doesn't
make a difference in those cases, the mere motorical work does!
  I have to admt, though, that for those users that are no computer
addicts, dealing with little pictures instead of learning a number
of commands can be easier. I have the impression, that the model
of folders at least helps those folks understand a hierarchical
filesystem better than an OS like MS-DOZE, because the system
on the computer is similar to their "real-life" office.


>But, of course, your example is bogus because you can't type
>just "clock" or "calc."  You've already said those programs are
>nested several directories deep.  Unless you have those directories
>specified in a path somewhere, you're going to have to type the
>full directory name.  Of course, you're probably not going to
>remember where those nested directories are, so you're going to
>have to do several "ls" or "DIR" commands to find them.  Suddenly
>it doesn't sound so simple any more, does it?

  Well, what's the difference in looking for a command or application,
when it is located somewhere deep in the filesystem. If you have to
look for it since you don't remember its name, you have to either
look through the dirs -clicking or cd'ing will take the same amount
of time, I'd say- or "FIND" it. And if you don't remember the name
correctly, "even" the Finder's find command will get you nowhere...


>Now, here's how I'd do this on the Macintosh.  Don't know where
>the program is?  No problem.  I just hit cmd-F, type a few
>letters from the filename, and press return.

  Right, but you have to at least remember part of the filename.
Finding a file on other systems, however, is as powerful and
easy as on the Mac.


>in considerably less time than it takes you to
>type your command line, even assuming that you don't make mistakes.

  Sorry, but there's definitely no proof for the statement!


>I'll just create an alias for it on the desktop.

  Hey, never heard of those aliases on other platforms?!


>When I get a new program, I can do this without the overhead
>of learning a new command line.

  Sure, if you have 100's of programs, you'll have trouble
remembering their names. But the average user will most
definitely use maybe 5..10 programs. Should be no big deal
to remember those names or approach them with aliases...


>Turtles have shells.  Computers don't.  (See below.)

  Bull^H^H. I mean: wrong :-)))))))))) Why bother with names if
they have become a standard?! You wouldn't worry about your
"mouse", since everybody calls it that way, although it
actually shouldn't be eaten by your cat :-))))


>this name does nothing to help the user understand what is going
on.

  Names like "FINDER" or Interface do?


  Jochen.



--
Jochen Wolters       |          [e-mail]
--------------******* America, vote Clinton! *******------------------
"You've never seen a picture of 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'
It takes words to express that idea, or any idea."  ---  Michael Swain