Re: DOS and Windows
- From: Bill <bill.cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:06:15 -0500
will your view is some what differant from the view i have.
first m s did not create or make the gui interface, secondly the first gui
they maid that was true 32 bit was o s 2.
yes originally m s and i b m worked on that together.
o s 2 included a 32 bit text based interface as well as a gui.
no reason both could not coe exist.
in addition many task such as the ones you put forth such as copying files
is much easier from a commandline interface.
copying a single file for a sited user may not be, but if your copying
needs exceed a single file then all changes.
lets say you want to copy only the bat files, or the txt files, or the doc
files, in a folder with numerous other files, command line is much faster
in those cases.
believe me most system administrators no this.
the real reason m s left out command line is because they wanted people to
move to strickly gui apts because it benifitted them because they new the o
s and kept much info from competitors.
so they could get the jump on their competition.
one reason office is number one, m s had the inside scoop prior to word
perfect.
so the m s operating system is more a reflection of what micro soft wants
more so than the consumer.
another thing m s did, they laid out the standard controls for
applications, and guess who was the first to break the m s guidelines doing
stuff m s recommended not doing.
micro soft them self.
one only need see that linux is on the rise due in part to microsoft lack
of respect for what corporate clients want.
security and command line.
in addition ask your self this simple question, why did win 9 5 not create
several backups of the registry.
a person with an i q of 80 can see the obvious need for such a feature.
secondly 98 and win me did do so but why does xp remove that feature from
the o s.
i just had a corrupted registry and system restore was unable to right the
wrong, if they had not removed that feature it would have been a non issue.
good thing i had a backup.
in addition xp also removes some of the features found in system restore in
windows me.
like the ability to turnit off and on with out losing restore points.
plus the ability to backup for longer periods of time.
plus m s refuses to allow backup programs to be able to make copies of the
xp o s with out paying through the nose to m s.
one reason my stomp backup exec is easier for sighted users in windows me
than it is in xp.
now to tie this to jfw, well guess what m s did in win 95, they left out an
off screen model and access to the o s and applications through such an off
screen model.
one might assume they had no knowledge of the off screen model or its
benefits, except for one thing, they help write o s 2 which did have such a
feature.
plus the constant change of standard controls to non standard controls
often requires more work on the part of the screen reader developer to
put forth effort in maintaining groung on accessinstead of gaining ground.
one last point m s has no requirements that one follow standard gui look
and feel.
i would actually welcome requirements and comditions on the part of
applications put forth by m s.
lets say during the install that m s puts up a warning that says this
application does not meet with xp requirements put forth.
proceed at your own risk.
what could trigger such a message.
for starters any program that does not allow end user to decide what goes
into the system tray.
plus any program that is totally unable to remove all components during a
uninstall.
hmm how about if the program fails to work with active accessability.
plus standard pull down menu's.
if ms did put forth such a message most of the applications would start to
do these things because they would be afraid of loss of sales other wise.
the main reason m s will never do this, is because many of their on
applications would fail the test.
due in part to the lack of meeting their own standards.
one last point, many features in wndows are much harder than dos.
to copy a program in dos one only need copy the folder.
try that in windows and see if it works.
plus the problems of resources in earlier windows, so why did m s allow
apts to install in the system tray and registry if it would cause stability
issues.
trouble shooting these issues was a real pain for everyday users and nobody
in dos days had to do that either.
my guest if you never do any matenance on your p c and your sited its
easier to use, but if you do recommended maitenance then the gui is
probably no easier for the average end user than dos was.
the hardest part of configuring dos applications had to do with memory
management, and all these issues would not have existed if windows had a 32
bit text mode as well using flat memory that worked in extended
memory like windows does.
this is not to say that gui does not have its place, only to say gui in
and of it self does not insure uniform layout, better access, or ease of
use over text based apts.
in fact its uncanny how many people have to reinstall windows from the
ground up to solve their problems and then reinstall all software.
trouble shooting issues in dos day was so much easier.
bill
p s my view on why they have the registry also differs.
i personally suspect its to appease software companies because it does make
copying a program harder and hence harder to steal with out access to the
original software install disk.
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
