From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:21:24 EDT
Followup-To: wpi.wpi.edu>references:  <tomster.92sep28211146@bigwpi.wpi.edu>

Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <TOMSTER.92Sep28211146@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
> In article <6029.2ac1cd3b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>    In order not to use DOS, you have to have either OS/2 or a Unix variant. If
>    you are running 4-DOS, you have replaced the command interpreter, but the
>    DOS operating system is still there. Same for Windows, it runs over DOS.
> 
> Which is exactly what I just said.  Most people don't use *straight* DOS.

Straight or not, it is still DOS. It is still the (defacto) operating system.
Just adding a different command shell doesn't make it a different OS. I
think we'll explore this in my subsequent comments.

But think about this. How does replacing the command shell affect the
applications you can run?

> Most of the complaints I have seen regarding DOS (not hardware itself) can
> be repaired by utilizing a different command shell.  

I disagree. (We'll get into that)

> 	1)  'I just spent hours typing in that command line, misspelled one
> 		word, and now have to start all over again!'  

Well, "hours" is an exaggeration, but certainly this happens frequently.
CLIs are notoriously intolerant of errors, requiring repetion or editing.
Bothersome.

> 		First, this
> 		doesn't happen as often as you'd like to think.  Somebody
> 		(was that YOU Bill?) a few days ago estimated that this
> 		happens one out of every ten times.  

(Wasn't me -- I wouldn't give a figure to it, but it does occur regularly)

> 		In order for that to
> 		happen, however, the typist would have to be particularly
> 		inept, an assumption I am unwilling to accept without proof.

This assumes the only errors possible are typing errors. Even if you are
an excellent typist, it is definitely possible to make mistakes. Further,
the command verbs and options on a computer make particularly difficult
typing, since they don't follow the patterns of normal words.

I frequently mis-type 'dir' as 'dri'. Comemnts from CLI users about
using aliases to correct spelling errors would indicate this type of
error is common amoung even experienced users.

> 	2)  'I don't like having to retype commands ...'  Command History nixes
> 		this complaint.  

Well, you still have to edit the damn things. This can be a pain. If your
fingers are cold or the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, it can often been more
painful a process to edit to get what you want then to re-type.

> 	3)  'I can't provide a sufficient description of my files in only eight
> 		letters.'  Great.  You shouldn't.  Type 'describe' and add
> 		a description to any file you want.  40 chars max, of course.

Too bad you can't access this description in any of your applications. (Hence,
it is the same damn OS)

> 	4)  'I don't know where to begin <copying, editting, etc>'  Press
> 		F1 for sytem help.  The help system is more than adequate
> 		if not almost intuitive.

Too bad you can't access this standard help system in any of your applications.

Frankly, I doubt if the majority of DOS users spend any length of time in the
DOS shell. Many people who use DOS as a part of their job (ie not computer
people, but people who use computers) and up running automenu or other 
menuing shell. They spend their time in DOS applications.

Replacing the DOS shell doesn't overcome the limitations of DOS, since it
fails to change the applications, the way applications use the computer
resources, or they way applications communicate. 

>    That leaves 32 million running DOS. That's a vast majority.
> 
> Again, you missed my point.  *Straight* DOS.  

Straight or crooked, it is still DOS. See above.

>    Just adding utilities or command interpreters or even a graphic shell doesn't
>    change the fact that there is DOS running underneath. The user is still
>    fraught with the stupid DOS limitations.
> 
> Granted, but many of those 'stupid limitations' 
> are aleviated if not annihilated altogether by these 'shells'.

They are not. Command shells do nothing to overcome the OS limitations, only
the command interpreter limitations.

Windows at least gives a completely different application environment. It is
tons better than plain old DOS, but it makes significant additions to DOS.
Yet it can't overcome fundamental problems such as the 8.3 filenames.

> Which brings up an interesting point.  What is the benifit in having to eject
> the disk on the screen with a mouse rather than with your hand.  I have often
> been told that it is so you don't take the disk out while the drive is reading
> or writing from it, but this is an extremely lame reason.  

Not lame at all. It removes a possible source of user errors, one that could
easily corrupt data. 

Further, it also makes it possible to automatically MOUNT disks when they are
inserted. This is a great benefit. Compare this to (even crooked) DOS 
users, who have to manually register the disks when a new one is inserted. 
The MacOS immediately identifies a new disk when it is inserted. There's no
confusion.

I don't see how you can call this "lame." It is a better system.

> We Cloners can figure out that when the light is on, the drive is busy.  

So can the majority of Mac users. The benefit is, we DON'T HAVE TO!

> I normally wouldn't really care about this, but I have so far, in my 
> limited Mac usage, had three seperate disks gotten stuck in three seperate 
> Macs here at school.  I can think of nothing more inconvenient than the 
> stupid little drill-hole provided beside the drive bay.

My experience with this runs a little longer. In the early Mac days, I had
a Mac with two 400K floppies. The eject mechanism on the 400Ks was a kludge
and had a great tendency to break down or jam. Since the machine was diskette
based, I frequently had to use the paperclip release. I had an assortment of
these little tools in my cube.

When I finally replaced this unit with a Mac Plus with an 800K drive, things
got a lot better. The 800K drive eject mechanism was orders of magnitude more
reliable, and since the Plus soon had a hard disk, diskette problems were a
thing of the past.

It sounds like some of your fellow students have been abusing these drives, if
they are so sticky. It could be simply that such public machines are subject
to so much use they have come out of alignment. 

> BTW, when I need to eject a floppy disk, my hand is going to travel to the
> drive bay anyways, whether the computer popped the disk out or I have to press
> a button (oh, such labor!).  I don't see any time or energy savings here.

The savings isn't in motion, but in the avoidance of possible (and in this
case avoidable) errors. 

>    I've stated repeatedly that you cannot separate the hardware from the software.
>    The two are inseperable. Hardware is just so much silicon space heater without 
>    software. Software won't run without hardware. It is the combination that 
>    makes a computer useful, not one or the other.
> 
> But on systems such as the one *I* use, outside companies can -- and have, and
> *will* -- produce different os's which put DOS to shame.  Think os/2.  

That's great. But until massive amounts of people use OS/2, most won't see any
benefit. That was the whole point of my posting -- OS/2 or Unix may be great,
but people aren't using them. They are running DOS. Sad but true.

> Think Windows NT.  

It isn't released. Therefore, no users are running it.

>    > But then, I wouldn't expect a Macoid to understand the benifits of 
>    > competition.
> 
>    If you really feel this way, might I suggest that there's really no point
>    in your continued reading of this group.
> 
> No, I don't really believe that *all* Mac users are beyond the help of modern
> economics.  It just seems that way many times when I read this NG.

If you feel this way, I reiterate my suggestion. You'll be happier. I'll
be happier.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy