Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!awessels From: awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: What can't it do? Loss of... Message-ID: <33804@ut-emx.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 90 20:16:05 GMT References: <886@mdavcr.UUCP> <28778.269229da@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <1990Jul8.220052.24143@spectrum.CMC.COM> <2977@tellab5.tellabs.com> <893@mdavcr.UUCP> Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP Reply-To: awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Lines: 98 In article <893@mdavcr.UUCP> van-bc!mdavcr!ewm writes: >This begs the point. At least with a CLI you CAN easily invoke >programs to do things like deleting files in nested directories. I can do it just as easily with the Mac interface. A command key to invoke the DA, another to bring up the parameter dialog and a return key to set the process in motion. Not hard at all. >I find one of the greatest pains of the Mac OS is the difficulty of >executing small utility programs. One generally has the choice of I'd agree that it is difficult to run a seldom-used utility on one or two files, but people in general don't need to do it. I do occasionally and that lack is one of my complaints about the OS as well. > a) dragging everything you ever use to the desktop There are several launchers available to help with that problem. > b) finding a third party utility that allows easier access to files This is equivalent to finding a third party program to run under the CLI. > c) clicking through nested levels of folders As opposed to typing a monstrous pathname to the target file? With the 3rd party Standard File dialog enhancers, I get along just fine. >What a drag ;-). Through my UNIX CLI, I can set paths to various >directores, then invoke programs by name, without specifying their exact >location. This permits me to sort my directories logically and still >have simple access to programs. There are seventy bezillion ways to do this on the Mac as well. The Finder is just a fancy program. There's no law that says you have to use it. The problem with the Mac OS is that it is structured and can be hard to get behind that structure. For people who do lots of work with files rather than within files, this can be a tough problem to overcome. >Another problem is that CLI invoked programs can be made much simpler >than the typical MAC application, since there is no nead to support a >user interface. In UNIX, parameters can be passed to the program by >typing them on the same CLI line when invoking the program. Very handy >if you need to execute some utility program (like "find", "grep", >"more", etc) quickly. On the Mac, one has to invoke the program, then >wait for some user interface (ie: dialog box) to come up, then enter >the parameters in the correct place, etc. This means greater user >overhead, greater programmer overhead, and greater CPU overhead. The flip side of the coin is that with an interface, you don't have to remember parameter orders or fancy switches or the proper syntax to pipe the files etc. Would you rather spend your "user overhead" on waiting for a dialog to pop up (not too long a wait), or trying to remember the correct syntax for a command? I can think of operations on the Mac that wouldn't be too easy to accomplish in a CLI too. > >This leads to yet another deficiency - the lack of a CLI scripting >language. While the Mac now has a number of Macro utitlities >available, they are a poor substitute. (At least the ones I've seen - >If you can suggest a good one, TELL ME, PLEASE). One of the great >things about UNIX is the ability to take a bunch of small utility >programs and assemble them in a CLI script to perform some operation >that you need. I use this all the time (power user?). One of the things that can define a power user is the kind of task that user requires of the OS. I personally like that way I can pile dozens of inits into the OS and have all those functions enhancing the functionality of my machine. (power user?) The best CLI for the Mac is probably MPW. I suspect that its scripting facility can accomplish many of the things you require, though I'm no expert. >- unquestioned defensiveness. I think it is pretty ignorant how a lot >of people dismiss other users' criticism of Mac deficiencies by saying >that certain features are not really needed, or can be done in some I think you're ignoring the realities of the marketplace. How many of us need a Unix workstation at home? If you need it at work, there's AUX 2.0. First and foremost, an OS should be written for its intended market, not the theoretical whims of somebody who has no idea of what I need in a machine. >other roundabout way. If I need a certain feature, I generally need it. >Period. It is not appropriate to dismiss my need with a "You don't >really need to do that" argument. In the "who has the best box" argument, I usually say that the Mac does what I need it for better than any other box out there. I'd not presume to think that my Mac does what you need better than your box. If we're looking at the best box overall, I think a good measure is what exactly the people using these machines will be able to them. I think the Mac would do quite well in such a comparison.