From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:51:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Andrew Ross writes:

>OK fine, lets all go out and buy Mac's 'cause you can name disks.  Back
>when floppies were king, this was a MAJOR advantage;  but now...  Well,
>hands up people, how many of you use your floppies more than once a week? 

What about files?  Do you use files more than once a week?  


>No, No, No.  When he said 11 Characters, that is the limit for the DOS
>name, which is stored on the media.  The DRIVE object in OS/2's  WPS can
>be given any name you want.  You misunderstood.

Oh?  And can all the DOS and Windows programs you run under OS2
understand that name, which doesn't correspond to the DOS conventions
they've been written for?  Or are you going to give me 


>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.  


>Like being able to run over your command line and run an applet or
>somesuch just buy typing it's name.  Clicking through folders typically
>takes much more time than typing "clock", or "calc".  

False.  It takes longer to remember and type a command line
than it does to click on an icon.  Study after study has confirmed
this.  The fact that many people believe otherwise has to do with
how the brain works.  Remembering something is a higher-level brain
function.  When you're remembering something, your mind is concentrated
on the task, so it doesn't especially note the time that has passed. 
Recognizing something (a menu item, an icon, etc.) is a lower-level
task, so while you're doing it the higher levels of your brain are
free to think, "Gee, I'm bored, look how much time this is taking."
But if you actually sit down and time the tasks, you will find that
recognizing is much faster than remembering.

Remembering, however, is much more error-prone than recognizing.
Unless you use a command on a regular basis, the chances of your
remembering it *correctly* are very small.  Even if remember it
correctly, that doesn't mean you will type it correctly.  If you
do make a typo, chances are you won't notice it until you have 
hit return.  Most of the time, this is fairly harmless and only
means that you have to start typing all over again.  Sometimes,
however, you will mistype a command in such a way that it does
damage to an existing file -- perhaps one that you spent 10 hours
creating and don't have a backup for.  The time it takes to
retype command lines, fix mistakes, and repair or replace
damaged files must also be considered in assessing the efficiency
of the command-line interface.

So does the time it takes to learn the CLI, with its myriad
of commands, options, modifiers, etc.

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?

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.  The Finder locates
the program and fetches it for me.  I then type cmd-O and, viola,
the file opens -- in considerably less time than it takes you to
type your command line, even assuming that you don't make mistakes.  

Not impressed?  Me neither.  So, if it's a program I use often, 
I'll just create an alias for it on the desktop.  Then, I can 
launch the program at any time just by clicking on the icon or 
typing the first few letters of the filename followed by cmd-O. 
When I get a new program, I can do this without the overhead
of learning a new command line.


>Also, some more complex shell operations are difficult or immpossible 
>with a GUI.  

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


>By the way, WPS *IS* a real name.  It stands for WorkPlace Shell.

WPS is an acronym.  It's the sort of "user friendly feature" one
finds in government agencies, military bureaucracies, and IBM.
The fact that OS2 is loaded with them just goes to show that Big
Blue doesn't understand what user-friendly computing is all about.
The name "WorkPlace Shell" confirms this point.  "Shell" is a
meaningless term to anyone but a UNIX weenie.  It is not analogous
to anything in the real world.  The term was originally "c-shell";
it was coined by some ancient UNIX weenie who thought that it was
a clever pun on "sea shell."  But, while it might be a convincing
demonstration of a programmer's wit, this name does nothing to help
the user understand what is going on.  Everyone understands what a  
workplace is; we all have one.  But a workplace that's a sea shell?
IBM could have chosen an ituitive, user-friendly name for this -- 
just plain "Workplace" would have done fine -- but couldn't bring 
itself to do away with technerdie Power User jargon like "shell" 
and bureaucratic acronyms like WPS.  Just as it couldn't bring itself 
to dump the outdated command-line interface.  IBM's Ferrari still
has a crank starter and requires a thousand-page driver's manual.








Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.misc:16138 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:12345 comp.sys.amiga:252