Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp2k+
From: mp2k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Palmquist)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why make your IBM act like a Mac?
Message-ID: <8Zp7afu00W0683219E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 20:29:31 GMT
References: <J.90Feb9190004@bucsf.bu.edu>
Distribution: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 34
In-Reply-To: <J.90Feb9190004@bucsf.bu.edu>

J. Allard writes:

>Please stop trying to make my mouse run my system (Windows),  stop trying
>to make my word processor look like it's Mac counterpart.  I bought a PC
>because I wanted a command line.  I wanted arrow keys.  I wanted to
>compute.  I didn't buy it to click.  If you want to click,  go to
>comp.sys.mac,  if you want to compute,  be satisfied that you don't have a
>nice gif in the background of your shell

I use Macs, PCs, RTs, and Vaxes on a regular basis, and I don't buy your
complaint.  I have a powerful graphical interface (an X-window
forerunner) on my IBM RT workstation that relies heavily on a mouse, and
also supports keystroke commands.  When I want graphics (MacDraw II, for
instance), I use a Mac, but even there I rely heavily on keystrokes to
speed things up (BTW, I despise Mac keyboards that lack arrow keys). 
When I want statistics, I run BMDP on the vax or systat on my 386.  And
when I'm using the workstation or the PC, the mouse helps move data back
and forth quickly between windows.

I think it's better to have both (a mouse and an intelligently designed
set of keystroke commands -- I'm ruling out WordPerfect here), than only
one or the other.  And after using both MS Word 4.0 for the Mac and 5.0
for the PC, I'm looking forward to my upgrade to Word for Windows.

Happily pointing and clicking,

Mike Palmquist


************************
mp2k@andrew.cmu.edu
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
voice:  412/268-5636