Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo; site apollo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!wivax!apollo!eric From: eric@apollo.UUCP (Eric Peters) Newsgroups: net.cog-eng Subject: Re: long names and hardware... (windows) Message-ID: <198@apollo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Dec-83 14:39:52 EST Article-I.D.: apollo.198 Posted: Wed Dec 7 14:39:52 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 04:20:51 EST References: <410@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass. Lines: 45 Andy Cohill@pyuxa.UUCP writes > As for bit-mapped graphics and "windows," I think the jury is still out. > Windows are cute, exercise and demonstrate the graphics capability of a > system, and the idea is the latest buzzword, but a higher baud rate > (i.e. the ability to re-write the screen quickly with another application) > will address most of the issues that windows supposedly address. As a user of a bit-mapped, window system for the past several years (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the brand), I have to throw my two cents in. I've tried, and I cannot go back to using an ASCII terminal for real work, even at very high Baud rates. It's not nearly powerful or convenient enough. Right now my screen is covered with windows representing several different processes. In fact I just now got some mail on another subject, and took a few minutes to read it and respond to it, without upsetting my session of "readnews" in this window at all. In fact, "readnews" in Process 12 was just underneath a rather large window for Process 16 where I was reading that mail. Bet no one even noticed! It takes only an eyeblink to "pop" one in front of another. I look at my screen and I can graphically see everything going on in my machine. I see several fonts (one called "extremely_tiny" is useful for "readnews"!), and my on-screen clock is a good sized, easy to read seven-segment display. I could go on about the advantages of windows and bit mapped graphics, but I suspect that until you've lived with a really good system and then tried to go back to the old way, can you appreciate the difference. I'm certain it improves THIS human's performance. As for long names, we've taken an approach here that I have not seen mentioned anywhere else: We divided all command names into pairs , and then came up with a fairly short list of abbreviations for the common actions and objects. The result is a large set of command names that can be generated from a small number of abbreviations. For instance, "f" as a noun always stands for "file", so "cpf" is "copy file", and "dlf" is "delete file" and so on; "t" stands for "tree", as in directory tree, so "cpt" is copy tree, and "dlt" is "delete tree". This scheme works best with the most commonly used concepts, such as files and trees, and perhaps gets a bit ragged at the edges (such as in "salrgy" for "salvage registry (of passwords)"), but it does enable a novice or casual user to handle a fair number of the most useful commands while remembering only a handful of the most common abbreviations. Right now, there are 29 nouns and 32 verbs, so both lists easily fit in windows, and are, in fact, lurking right behind this window that I'm in. Eric Peters (...decvax!wivax!apollo!eric)