From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:51:31 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <pf11t4h@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> In article G5t@math.uwaterloo.ca, fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (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.
 
[stuff deleted]

|> >>I've come to the conclusion that Windows is more trouble than it is worth for
|> >>new users.  Macintosh is my prefered desktop interface, but this still requires
|> >>training for new users (how to use a mouse etc - have you tried explaining a
|> >
|> >Yes, about two months training IMHO.
|> 
|> Doesn't usually take me that long to start someone on it. Takes me
|> a few days, at worst. But then I have never tried to start anyone
|> who didn't already have SOME experience on SOME computer.
|> 
|> >  It is not very intuative, no GUI is.
|> 
|> I agree completely.
|> 
|> >  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 :)

|> 
|> >  It's just that DOS has a small user interface.
|> 
|> By the DOS UI I pressume you basically mean the shell; but this is not
|> good enough for anything much. Programs must invent their own UIs, and
|> there goes the above trick..
|> 
|> >>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.

|> 
|> >>
|> >>In my opinion, the ultimate environment would be the OS/2 kernal with a
|> >>Macintosh user interface, but I hear that Apple and IBM are in bed with each
|> >>other... watch out Microsoft.
|> >>
|> >
|> >I still cannot see what makes the MAC interface soo easy to use.
|> 
|> Hmmm. I presume you mean by "soo", "sooooooooooooo <sarcasm dripping
|> from every o> ooooooooooooooo"... :)
|> 
|> >  You
|> >simply use the Finder to open folders and start apps.  Same as in
|> >Windows, except that the desktop is always there.
|> 
|> Uh, nope. You are not quite right. In the Mac you "simply" use the
|> Finder to open folders, start apps, open documents, make folders,
|> move/copy file/folders, format disks, shut down the computer see how much
|> memory is availiable, search for files, installing fonts, and other things I
|> dont feel like going into now.
|> 
|> In windows you dont use the Finder at all (of course), you use the Program
|> Manager to open groups, and start apps. Opening documents is a hassle to
|> do in progman since you must create an icon for it. You can also create
|> groups and delete icons in progman. You also shut down Windows with it.
|> 
|> You use the File Manager to open folders (directories), move/copy files/folders,
|> format disks, make folders. I think you may be able to open documents, if
|> they have a distinctive extension (which I should hope the would), you can
|> start apps if you like (but progman is easier for this)
|> 
|> If you strech it you can also say the finder can handle switching between
|> apps, and hiding and showing apps. Thats if you say the application
|> menu belongs to the finder. Which is probably pushing it.
|> 

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.

|> > 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.

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

|> >  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.

Also, Task Manager is not difficult to get to. The easiest way to open it is to
double-click on the desktop. It can also be accessed through the system menu on
all document windows. 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.

|> 
|> >  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 :)

|> >  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 :)

|> > 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?

|> >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.

|> 
|> >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?

Daniel Silevitch                                   dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy