Computer

On 2007-03-08 06:43:00 -0800, "Irby" <irbyb@mindspring.com> said:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks

Well, having just experienced the joys of installing Vista on my Mac, I
am once again forcibly reminded of why I stopped using Windows for most
tasks. No driver at all for the laser printer. A crippled driver for
the all-in-one. A broken driver for the photo printer. Refusal to talk
to the network. Tax applications don't install properly. A bug that
constantly brings up a message reminding me that I don't have 3D
graphics. (I know that, already. Actually, I do have a 3D graphics
care, but Vista has no driver for it.) Key features that are turned off
by default, but turning them on reduces security. Crappy fonts.
Crippled FireWire. Crippled USB. An interface that looks like it was
designed by a demented Warner Bros. cartoonist on hallucinogens.
Microsoft's weird licensing which forces me to buy Vista Business
instead of Home Premium. (I could legally use Home Premium if I were
running Vista using Boot Camp, but Parallels runs a virtual machine,
which means either Business or Ultimate.) Man, I hate using Windows.
Yeah, I will eventually solve most of the problems or find workarounds.
But I shouldn't have them in the first place.

On the bright side, Parallels allows me to run Vista in Coherence view,
which helps me to forget what a crappy operating system it is. Vista
windows are tamed and made to look and behave exactly like OS X
windows, complete with drag and drop between the two operating systems.
The only time I am reminded is when I go to actually print something
(Vista's drivers problems again) or sometimes when the Vista bar peeks
up behind the Dock.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:29:43 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> A lot of people, including myself, don't like having to take their
> hands off the keyboard in order to manipulate a mouse. Such people are
> called typists. They can do things a lot faster if not forced to use a
> mouse.

Those are the touch typists, as opposed to the (hunt'n) peckers.
Those that don't make the one-time effort to learn keyboard
shortcuts end up wasting more time overall by operating their apps
less efficiently. I've found mice to be better for a few things and
interestingly, some of those probably required non-standard Windows
programming to achieve.


> Anyone who has tried to copy a lot of files using a windowed
> operating system can surely appreciate the flexibility and power
> of a simple command like XCOPY. Windows has a limit on the
> number of files you can move at once. Not so, XCOPY.

How is that limit manifested? Refusal to start the MOVE, partial
completion of the MOVE, eventual crash during the MOVE, or ???

On 2007-03-15 10:32:29 -0700, ASAAR <caught@22.com> said:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:29:43 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> A lot of people, including myself, don't like having to take their
>> hands off the keyboard in order to manipulate a mouse. Such people are
>> called typists. They can do things a lot faster if not forced to use a
>> mouse.
>
> Those are the touch typists, as opposed to the (hunt'n) peckers.
> Those that don't make the one-time effort to learn keyboard
> shortcuts end up wasting more time overall by operating their apps
> less efficiently. I've found mice to be better for a few things and
> interestingly, some of those probably required non-standard Windows
> programming to achieve.
>
>
>> Anyone who has tried to copy a lot of files using a windowed
>> operating system can surely appreciate the flexibility and power
>> of a simple command like XCOPY. Windows has a limit on the
>> number of files you can move at once. Not so, XCOPY.
>
> How is that limit manifested? Refusal to start the MOVE, partial
> completion of the MOVE, eventual crash during the MOVE, or ???

Refusal to start the MOVE.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Shawn Hirn wrote:

>> That's what I say, but it's always good to have the knowledge to pop
>> the hood and get some grease under your fingernails should the need
>> arise. The sad part about most Mac users is they are dead in the
>> water when a minimal problem arises.
>
> Don't be so sure about that. And in terms of popping the hood, I
> honestly don't know how you Windows users get along without grep. If I
> was forced to do work at the command line in Windows, I would install
> cygwin just to get the grep utility.

It's totally irrelevant since basic command line should be learned by every
Windows and *nix user.







Rita

On 2007-03-15 16:58:16 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall" <JCornwall@cox.net> said:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall" <JCornwall@cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Pat O'Connell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellnospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble free and they
>>>>>>>> are prettier. I cannot speak for others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the fact that the base operating system is
>>>>>>> unix make any difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, I'm not that old!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
>>>>>> with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
>>>>>> interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows interface.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_ when
>>>>> I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP or Aero
>>>>> "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and Unix Motif
>>>>> and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on mouse pointers,
>>>>> menus and windows that slowly display and hide (Aero/OSX/WinXP if you
>>>>> don't disable that crap), and things like semi-transparent windows
>>>>> which act like a bug, not a feature. I do use the command line on
>>>>> Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX) but am not tied to it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert to
>>>> Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)
>>>
>>>
>>> Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look like OS X.
>>>
>>> Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
>>> quick and instant.
>>>
>> I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
>> things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I also
>> like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not like
>> it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS and
>> command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using old DOS
>> programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!
>
> We have a few programs that our field techs use (to download from our
> dataloggers on site visits) that are still DOS or Win 98 modes. When
> the vendor doesn't update their programs, we do what we gotta do...
>
> For some things, yes I do use a DOS command line. For others, I use
> the GUI, but I want a small, fast GUI. Not a bunch of eye-candy.
> Hell, most of the time I've got a half-dozen or more xterm windows open
> to our development system, writing my Fortran code using vi...
>
>
> Jim

And for maintenance like that, DOS may still be the best solution.
However, DOS is a terrible interface for doing anything with a computer
other than, um, tinkering isn't the word I was looking for, but close.

Most people actually expect computers to produce something. Like
documents or movies or balance sheets. Who'd a-thunk-it? For actually
doing something useful -- the raison d'etre for computers and their
support teams -- the GUI is king. Most people want a word processor
somewhat more powerful than EDLIN. And they don't like having dangerous
commands like RECOVER just hanging around the disk, waiting to bite
them. They don't want to use DEBUG, couldn't care less about it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article <12vjft84pj3as37@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> >> That's what I say, but it's always good to have the knowledge to pop
> >> the hood and get some grease under your fingernails should the need
> >> arise. The sad part about most Mac users is they are dead in the
> >> water when a minimal problem arises.
> >
> > Don't be so sure about that. And in terms of popping the hood, I
> > honestly don't know how you Windows users get along without grep. If I
> > was forced to do work at the command line in Windows, I would install
> > cygwin just to get the grep utility.
>
> It's totally irrelevant since basic command line should be learned by every
> Windows and *nix user.

The basic command like in Windows lacks grep. Do you know what grep is?

In article <pgoiv21phhi6nqd4ertlg41p81qaha67us@4ax.com>,
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:34:41 -0400, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> > Don't be so sure about that. And in terms of popping the hood, I
> > honestly don't know how you Windows users get along without grep. If I
> > was forced to do work at the command line in Windows, I would install
> > cygwin just to get the grep utility.
>
> Why have you assumed that? I used grep almost a dozen times
> earlier this morning, and have been using it long before Windows
> poked its nose under the PC tent. The version used was actually
> Chris Dunford's fgrep (for DOS), and I'd probably be still be using
> the MKS toolkit's grep that I purchased long ago if a friend hadn't
> "borrowed" it and then disappeared.

Right, but out of the box Windows, has no grep feature at all. Unix has
it built-in.

Ron Hunter wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall" <JCornwall@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> Pat O'Connell wrote:
>>>
>>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellnospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
>>>>>>> free and they
>>>>>>> are prettier. I cannot speak for others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the fact that the base operating system is
>>>>>> unix make any difference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I'm not that old!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
>>>>> with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
>>>>> interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows interface.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_
>>>> when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP or
>>>> Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and Unix
>>>> Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on mouse
>>>> pointers, menus and windows that slowly display and hide
>>>> (Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that crap), and things like
>>>> semi-transparent windows which act like a bug, not a feature. I do
>>>> use the command line on Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX)
>>>> but am not tied to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert to
>>> Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.
>>>
>>> Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)
>>
>>
>> Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look
>> like OS X.
>>
>> Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
>> quick and instant.
>>
> I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
> things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I also
> like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not like
> it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS and
> command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using old DOS
> programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!

We have a few programs that our field techs use (to download from our
dataloggers on site visits) that are still DOS or Win 98 modes. When
the vendor doesn't update their programs, we do what we gotta do...

For some things, yes I do use a DOS command line. For others, I use the
GUI, but I want a small, fast GUI. Not a bunch of eye-candy. Hell,
most of the time I've got a half-dozen or more xterm windows open to our
development system, writing my Fortran code using vi...


Jim

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:42:35 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>> How is that limit manifested? Refusal to start the MOVE, partial
>> completion of the MOVE, eventual crash during the MOVE, or ???
>
> Refusal to start the MOVE.

Thanks. I never saw that, but then I never attempted to move too
many files at a time. Many hundreds, perhaps over 1,000. Whenever
I've had to move tens of thousands of files I've been cautious,
copying first and deleting after the dust settled. But on an older
computer that was otherwise reliable for all operations, including
copying, I had Win9x crash a small percentage of the time when using
Windows Explorer to move hundreds of files at once. The usual
result was either no damage or a couple of "moved" files were moved
to parts unknown. But once, even though all of the "move"
operations were on a different physical hard drive, the crash took
out enough of the system files on the C: drive that most programs
wouldn't run. Fortunately, my tape backup/restore software was one
of the few programs still operable.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:29:30 -0400, Shawn Hirn wrote:

>> Why have you assumed that? I used grep almost a dozen times
>> earlier this morning, and have been using it long before Windows
>> poked its nose under the PC tent. The version used was actually
>> Chris Dunford's fgrep (for DOS), and I'd probably be still be using
>> the MKS toolkit's grep that I purchased long ago if a friend hadn't
>> "borrowed" it and then disappeared.
>
> Right, but out of the box Windows, has no grep feature at all. Unix has
> it built-in.

Right out of the box Windows is missing significant apps that many
or most users will soon add. But I see your point, and most will
buy a Windows app., either by knowing what they need or by browsing
in a computer store. If they don't know of grep it's not very
likely that they'll find any stores carrying it, unless it comes in
a penguin friendly box. :)