From: johnsd2@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:43:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.m#jz8j+
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <0elb_xS00VRB4=YItF@andrew.cmu.edu>, fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
|> johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> > I see. Menus, but not mice. Well, that helps but its hardly
|> > better than mousing (instead of finding the mouse, you
|> > find the alt-key.)
|> 
|> agreed - the alt key is just a poor substitute for a mouse in this
|> case
|> 

Wow... we agreed on something.  That can't be right.
I have it!

The Alt key is superior! Nothing can compare! The speed
savings are amazing! Just trust me! :)

That feels better.

|> > Finding the mouse doesn't take long, if you are good at it.
|> > Its always right where you left it.
|> 
|> but you still have to reach for it with your arm

And you still have to remember what key combos to use.

|> > :) That's a good way out of ANYTHING. Basically, "if it doens't
|> > agree with me, it must have been done wrong." :)
|> 
|> will someone please show me these studies.
|> I have never seen one.  I have seen mention of studies that Apple did
|> showing that new users worked faster with mousing than with a CLI.  Then
|> I saw someone hypothesize that this was because of the active motor
|> processes involved in rememberring commands.  Then suddenly everyone
|> is taking it as gospel.  I have yet to see any proof to the contrary.
|> I have done some testing (ok not very major tests - timing myself and
|> a few friends with a clock doing basic tasks) that show a CLI to be
|> much faster for certain tasks (a significant enough portion to make it
|> worthwile to have one)

Alas, I can't as I have mentioned elsewhere in teh thread, if you
don't believe 'em, I cant use em, cuz I dont have the study.
I too just heard of it, and wanted to drag it into the fray.

Its just that that rebuttle was rediculous, I had
to say something. Please dont take that to mean
"since your counter-arguement is no good, you MUST
AGREE WITH ME! GRRRRRRR!". That's not what I meant.

|> > WindowShade-    Double click window title bars, and watch them roll up
|> 
|> > SpeedyFinder-   Lots of things. It makes your floppy icons display
|> 
|> > SoundMaster-    Everyone's favorite :) Plays sounds on certain
|> 
|> > MaxApplZoom-    This one is wild. It reprograms the Apple High-Resolution
|> 
|> > Wild Magic-     Comes with QuickTime. This fudges things so that apps
|> 
|> > Just TRY to make a batch file do THAT! :)
|> 
|> comparing apples to oranges, i should say :-)
|> but you can do all that stuff in a real operating system like os/2 as
|> long as you have the right hardware (sound card for sounds, etc.)

I was just being a little silly. I know these things aren't
anything like batch files. Someone had said that he didn't
want to use any system wo/ batch files. I said I didn't
want to use any system that did have (among other thigns)
extensions.

If your OS is cool enuf to have all of that wo/ any extensions
(which I doubt, particularly Wild Magic and MacApplZoom), well
thats nice. But what if you want to add something ELSE that
designers of that OS didn't think of? On the Mac you can.

Or were you trying to say the OS/2 has extensions? If so,
its the first Ive heard of it.

-- 
			- 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.