PC HELL- The Next Installment (LONGer than the last one)

Bill,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. There are some things in your latest statement that I can both agree and disagree with. However, we're at the point where it is mostly personal opinion and no one can say "I'm right, you're wrong". I'll get to today's exploits later on...

Bill Hansen said:

Hi All,

Click to expand...

Bill Hansen #40902 said:

Some of us WANT to understand the MAC as well as the PC... and that
is VERY difficult. The UI of the MAC is very simple and intuitive,
but how it is developed internally is NOT very simple... but it is
interesting... and knowable, just not easily.

Click to expand...

I can see your point, but I find the Mac easily knowable. Probably the most difficult thing to configure is TCP/IP. And that's not hard, once you understand what TCP/IP is all about. What else is hard? I can see that the Mac doesn't have the depth of adjustability that my PC does...but I don't use all the features on my VCR, either. I will go on a limb and blanketly state that most computer users would be fine if limited to only the features offered on the Mac.

Bill Hansen #40902 said:

My experiences with Mac users is that most of them do not WANT to
find out > how
ingenuity". They have said to me that there are more productive
uses of their time and brains... I suspect those around here dont
feel that way about their cameras or digital photography.

Click to expand...

I think its not so much that Mac users don't want to know about the computer, its just that they don't have to know nearly as much out of the box as the average PC owner does. One does not have to be a Mac power user to run Photoshop, but all regular Photoshop users (on Macs) would be intermediate users or more advanced. I might agree that the average digital photographer, by definition is pretty computer saavy, whether on a Mac, PC or both.

Bill Hansen #40902 said:

So why not get to KNOW the computer that allows them to Pshop their
pictures so very nicely? They are ONLY machines after all... If
Apple Corps. engineers and technicians can understand it, why
cannot I understand it? Actually...even if I never "get the MAC"...
I really > OBJECT
Trying to learn the PC is NOT a bother as Stanton who started this
thread, IMHO, was implying... it got really TOUGH later, but he is
still trying! Good for you, Stanton!!

Click to expand...

I think you and I see things differently. I find PC's horribly unintuitive. Yes, I'm still plugging away, but I've had to ask for way more help than I ever needed on a Mac.

I did manage to accomplish one thing that I am very proud of. With the kind help of Ray Davis, I actually was able to transfer files between my Mac and PC! It was actually as easy as I thought it should be, but the configuration was not intuitive and actually (from my standpoint) "hidden".

I went to configure "Internet Information Services Manager"...and it wasn't there. I had to be told to run the wizard to get it off the disk. This perplexes me. The Win2k system, as installed was larger than a Gig (my Mac OS is only 400mb with all extensions and fonts installed). The few extra Win files were about 20mb. Why in the world wouldn't they have installed it in the first place?

So, Ray and I worked through getting hard TCP/IP numbers assigned to all the machines. I can transfer files to and from the PC...BUT ONLY FROM THE MAC SIDE!!! The Mac has client software that access my "virtual folders", but Win2k (professional?) won't go the other way. What's perplexing is that Win2k has Appletalk, but it seems as useful as a "free pass". Its not good for anything, but its free.

Getting the FTP thing working through TCP/IP wasn't hard, but it is nothing that someone could intuitively figure out on their own. I would have never thought of creating a virtual directory for sharing. Additionally, at first I couldn't access it because I was trying to type the file path in the directory, rather than just use the alias. I'd have never thought of that either. Was it actually difficult? No. But consider that I'd posted the question on several bulletin boards and only ONE guy was able to respond with an answer ought to indicate at least a level of expertise that is REQUIRED to set up something as easy as file sharing over TCP/IP.

Though Macs have not saved the world, the Mac has made computing readily available to people like me who, back in the late 80's early 90's could not deal with DOS codes and needed to spend more time doing work than doing computer. In closing I want to share an image I did in 1994 on my first Power Mac, a 7100/66 with only 40mb of ram. Please forgive the quality of the image. It was a scan from a copy print, but you'll get the idea anyway. I hope to find the original file one day.
http://stantondesign.com/digital/images/Josh1.jpg

Bill Hansen #40902 said:

el said:

The best way to OWN a computer is to Take OWNership. No
technicians. They will never tell you anything for an education
because they are in Pit Stop mode all day. Thats all they do.
In/Out. How many units can I do in a day? No wonder there are
mistakes.

Read Max. PC. Learn everything about the machine at least once. It
takes time. Eventually never take your PC to a technician again.
DIY.
Once you know the lay of the land the PC is one of the most
intuitive machine processes ever designed.

However, some people will never know much about computers just like
some will never know how to use an advanced camera in manual mode.
(el)

Stanton said:

This is a follow-up episode of an ongoing saga of long time Mac
user attempting to get indocrinated into the sacred world of the
PC. This has been a sadistic sort of fun as well as quite
educational.

After my last thread, I was thoroghly (and probably correctly)
chided by forum members for letting the computer company put cheap
parts into my box. My logic was to build a "value" box. It was an
experiment...that failed miserably. The value turned into absolute
hell the moment I tried to load new system software. FOUR DAYS
later, I still did not have system software on the f& %#$g PC! Ron
Reznick can attest to my lack of exaggeration. I tried every
freaking idea we could think of, including putting in both new hard
and CD-ROM drives. On Sunday night, the contest was "called on
account of darkness". Machine-1, Stanton-O.

Monday morning, a very determined photographer called up the
computer company. They acted as if they had never taken back bad
parts before. They gave me this 15% restocking BS, to which I
replied; they were taking those cheap s^#t parts back (actually,
the only cheap part was the Amptron all-in-one motherboard and cpu
cooling fan. and replacing them with quality products and no, I
wasn't paying any restocking fees! After all the time and
exasperation I was ready to accept the conclusions of the first
part of my experiment and spend some more money to go to upgraded
parts, as long as the opportunity presented itself.

We replaced the processor and motherboard with a 1.1gig AMD
Thunderbird processor (upgraded from the 900), an ASUS A7V133
motherboard. In addition I added a Fujitsu 20 gig ATA100 drive,
Sony 52xCD-ROM and an (older SCSI) HP CD-R (W?), a Soundblaster
Live Value card and 512mb of RAM. No one can accuse me of having a
"crippled" machine now .

So, I leave the computer store thinking my problems are over.
Right? WRONG!!! I get home and attempt to to load system software
again. NO HARD DRIVE RECOGNIZED!!! I won't waste the bandwidth
going over the gory AND LONG details. It was not fun. At 10:30 that
night, my friend Bob was kind enough to let me come over to figure
out the problem. Somehow, together we (he) figured out how to get
the system up and running.

If you're wondering what was wrong, the PROFESSIONAL technician
plugged the drive into the ATA/100 Promise/Raid controller without
setting the jumper properly or setting the bios properly. Imagine
this newbie (I don't even rank amateur status on PC's yet) trying
to figure out what was wrong. So, the computer went into a search
loop, not finding anything. When I reached ASUS tech support this
morning the explained the problem and answer. This so-called
PROFESSIONAL technican's small mistake caused another several hours
of grief and misery. You'd have thought he'd be more careful
checking his setup before sending a computer home with a customer.
I finally left my friend's house at 3am- but the computer was
actually working and actually had system software on it.

For the most part, the application software installation went well,
with the exception of my extreme fatigue caused me to leave some
update disks at home that I had downloaded. For the most part,
installing general software was very similar to Mac installations,
with the exception of drive naming conventions.

Now I can see that the PC has made some significant strides in
trying to provide a plug-and-play environment. But it wasn't so
plug-and-play when I tried to set up my HP LaserJet6mp printer
which is on our ethernet hub. Though ideally, I would like my PC to
interact with out Mac network, right now I'll settle for just
getting the printer to print over ethernet. I expected the Mac/PC
interaction to be a bit more complicated, requiring additional
software, but I didn't expect setting up the printer to be such a
chore. At this moment, I cannot print with it. My only savior is
that I would be able to print from my Epson 1280 via USB if needed.

Partial Conclusion: I admit that the first scenario with the old
parts made my frustration level a bit raw, but I can be rational
about it in my personal evaluation. I can see the "flexibility" in
the PC that some of you speak of, but it comes at the expense of
ease of use, or at the very least, ease of setup. The PC is very
complicated and not terribly intuitive. Errors are communicated in
"Technese", which I found sometimes difficult to understand.
Though I am not intimidated by it, looking at the bios settings
made my head hurt. You HAVE to know what you're doing if you're
messing with the bios. This is all stuff that is foreign to a Mac
user. As I said, one could make a case for the flexibility of the
PC, but IMHO, much of that flexibility for the average user is
overkill.

One last observation- It felt very odd to be working with an OS
that felt like a separate entity from the hardware. I never worked
with an OS before that actually felt like IT was a a money making
entity. Macs just come with the software. No license keys, and/or
updates that won't work with some "limited" license of operating
software. Working with Macs seems so much more integrated and
cohesive in feel and operation. I admit that years of working with
Macs may have biased me slightly. I truly AM keeping an open mind
about this and will call it as I see it.But honestly, if I were
this same new user on a Mac, I wouldn't have had to fight so hard
to get up and running as have this week with my first PC.

Hopefully, my hellish stories are over and I can quitely join the
ranks of happy PC users. I hope to get my printer on line soon and
even learn to operate a mixed Mac/PC network. Stay tuned....

Again, I want to thank my friend Ron Reznick who helped save my
sanity, and for the great amount of time he unselfishly donated. I
owe him lunch (and a whole bunch more). I wish I knew half of
what he knows. Thanks Ron.

Sincerely,
Stanton

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A quick correction here:

It's not that Win2k won't go the "other" way, it's because
by default you don't have an ftp "server" on your Mac. The
PC, once you installed the IIS had both client and server, and
is quite capable of going in both directions.

With the Mac, using Fetch, you only had a client side. I'm sure
that there are available ftp servers for Mac. I don't personally
know of them, but I'm sure that they exist.

So, to be able to ftp from your PC to your Mac, you need to
run an ftp server, and then simply either run "ftp" from a command
window (like we did, when we tested back to your PC!), or
download WS_FTP (shareware ftp program for windows)
and run it. It is very similar to Fetch on the mac.

Note: for those reading this post, Stanton can send files in both
directions. However, the connection must be initiated from the
Mac, because of the server issue mentioned above.

Lastly, I believe that the AppleTalk, from reading onlne at MS,
will allow you to print from the PC over on a printer which
is locally connected to your Mac. That might be of some
value, when you have a printer which is not network based,
and you still want to use it both on PC's and Macs.

I hope this helps.
Ray

Ray

Stanton said:

So, Ray and I worked through getting hard TCP/IP numbers assigned
to all the machines. I can transfer files to and from the PC...BUT
ONLY FROM THE MAC SIDE!!! The Mac has client software that access
my "virtual folders", but Win2k (professional?) won't go the other
way. What's perplexing is that Win2k has Appletalk, but it seems as
useful as a "free pass". Its not good for anything, but its free.

Click to expand...

Stanton said:

I can see that the Mac doesn't have the depth of
adjustability that my PC does...

Click to expand...

Ironically, Windows has tried to go the same way since 1995 in many ways, with a lot of unsuspected versatility hidden from the user. As well as "adjustability", there remain many powerful but relatively inaccessible operations that can still be done under Windows using command line entries and batch files -- e.g. renaming files in bulk. Probably the most sensible, objective summary I've read in articles on the Mac vs PC debate was "For all the power and speed Apple put in users' hands through the Mac GUI, they took just as much away."

That was a few years ago when DOS had a stronger mainstream following, but Windows these days has just the same limitations -- users who may well have the ability to comprehend and utilise a lot of Windows' power and flexibility are often stymied by the sheer difficulty of finding pertinent information, as you've been discovering.

For example, Windows Explorer has the infernal habit of always launching with the My Documents folder (as far as I remember) selected. Fat lot of use to business users who'll be using their own filing hierarchy elsewhere. But here's a trick you might find useful. My shortcut to Win Explorer has this modified command in its target field:
%SystemRoot%\explorer.exe n, e, select,f:\client files

which instructs it, at launch, to open with the folder tree expanded for the f: partition with the client files folder highlighted.

You got me curious, and I've just spent the last hour browsing online help for information on those command line switches and select syntax (thanks for the diversion -- I really needed that!! ;-)) -- with no success at all. My source for that nice little timesaver was an Australian magazine's website that I've come to regard as the Mrs Beaton's Cookbook of living with a PC. You could do a lot worse than bookmark it -- these people have a huge database of information and solutions to do with everyday issues:
http://www.pcuser.com.au/pcuser/help.nsf/HelpMain !OpenForm

stanton said:

.........., but the configuration was not intuitive and actually
(from my standpoint) "hidden".

Click to expand...

Yes, that's usually the gimmick!

stanton said:

I went to configure "Internet Information Services Manager"...and
it wasn't there. I had to be told to run the wizard to get it off
the disk. This perplexes me. The Win2k system, as installed was
larger than a Gig (my Mac OS is only 400mb with all extensions and
fonts installed). The few extra Win files were about 20mb. Why in
the world wouldn't they have installed it in the first place?

Click to expand...

Don't ask them embarrassing questions. They're not easily embarrassed...

stanton said:

So, Ray and I worked through getting hard TCP/IP numbers assigned
to all the machines. I can transfer files to and from the PC...BUT
ONLY FROM THE MAC SIDE!!! The Mac has client software that access
my "virtual folders", but Win2k (professional?) won't go the other
way. What's perplexing is that Win2k has Appletalk, but it seems as
useful as a "free pass". Its not good for anything, but its free.

Click to expand...

Some time ago I read (in one of Microsoft's own blurbs) that Macs could readily hook up to a PC network as long as it included at least one PC running Windows NT Workstation. I never managed to do it and I can't experiment at the moment because my ageing Mac has a harware problem with its Ethernet port. It's pretty clear these days that Mac connectivity has only been properly addressed in the Server versions of Win 2k, and that Win 2k Professional simply won't handle it using normal LAN protocols. But even that statement is pretty much a deduction on my part, as MS's knowledge base is infuriatingly vague about it. The thought of having to shell out for Win 2k Server just for this purpose in a small office with one PC, of course, is prohibitive.

I suspect that AppleTalk on a PC running Win 2k Professional will still need the aid of a workgroup server on its net, running Win 2k Server, in order to, say, print via a Mac that is acting as a print server. Note that I said "suspect" -- as Ray's post on this indicates ("I believe..."), the MS Web site is far from clear on this. Your conclusion about the real-world usefulness of AppleTalk, on one lonely Win 2k Professional installation, exactly parallels mine. I've never followed it up as the convenience of getting it to work has been far outweighed by the anticipated effort.

I must admit I'd fogotten about the idea of using TCP/IP for file sharing with the Mac. I think I buried it because my cable ISP uses DHCP so I can't readily lock down my PC's IP address. (Thinks: I wonder if that can be varied according to different user profiles...)

To remind you that you're not alone with your frustrations re getting meaningful information out of MS, consider the tale of a certain helicopter pilot who, as the story goes, became enveloped in a sudden patch of thick fog only minutes from an airport, and almost out of fuel. Just managing to avoid a large office block that loomed out of the fog, he bellowed to a worker through an open window "Where am I?!!".

The office worker yelled back "You're in a helicopter!!" and with that, the pilot immediately peeled away and dropped the machine down at the airport within a minute, just as the engine spluttered and died.

His terrified but amazed passengers asked how he had managed to save the day. "Well", he replied, "nobody but Microsoft is capable of providing you with information that is, at the same time, so perfectly accurate but so practically useless. Knowing we were alongside the Microsoft building, and with a working compass, the rest was easy."
I hope that provided a bit of welcome relief.
Cheers,
Mike

Mike Fitzgerald said:

As well as "adjustability", there remain many powerful but
relatively inaccessible operations that can still be done under
Windows using command line entries and batch files -- e.g. renaming
files in bulk.

Click to expand...

Soapbox=on

I still use the DOS (actually 4DOS) command line, and for many things I find it easier and faster than slogging through Explorer and the mouse. I use 4DOS (www.jpsoft.com) as my command processor, which is much more powerful than Command.com. I have an alias that will change directories by using only a few letters; e.g., "GO DH" will go to my DHOLD folder, and if more than one "DH" folder exists, it gives me a popdown list to choose from.

I clone my C: drive once per week to D: via Norton Ghost and update it daily for important files (business DBF's, email, address book, etc.) using a batch file. Basically, the command line gets used every day around here, and I don't see stopping. The day M$ abandons DOS is the day I won't upgrade

What's more, my business software is a DOS program. Why? (1) I began programming in Foxpro years ago and know the language fairly well, being able to change the software at will. (2) I have the mouse disabled and work strictly with the keyboard, which is much faster and more efficient. I don't have to continually move my right hand from the mouse to the keyboard like I do in Windows. (3) It is blindingly fast. There is no waiting for anything, and benchmarks never show any routine lasting more than .01 sec. (4) It is a 32-bit app and uses the full system memory(via XMS), not just the first 640k. I have absolutely no interest in upgrading (?) to Virtual Foxpro. Drawbacks: (1) It is Y2K weak, but I've developed seamless and automatic workarounds. (2) It takes 5-10 sec. or more to load initially, slower than any Windows app except maybe PhotoShop. I guess it takes time for Windows to negotiate its memory needs.

Soapbox=off

Hey, that's really long-winded, but it's not often that I see a DOS user, or at least one that'll admit it. I just had to pour all my emotions out on the table for every one to see.

Mike Fitzgerald said:

For example, Windows Explorer has the infernal habit of always
launching with the My Documents folder (as far as I remember)
selected.

Click to expand...

I just noticed that. Thanks for the command-line suggestion. I'll try it.

In Explorer properties my target is C:\windows\explorer.scn. What on earth is an SCN file?

Mike Fitzgerald said:

To remind you that you're not alone with your frustrations re
getting meaningful information out of MS....

Click to expand...

After the last iterations of talking to robotic techies at M$, which has been years ago, I wouldn't even consider calling them for tech support. I've never received even a modicum of useful information from them. After all, don't they charge $250/hour now? I can't imagine talking constructively with any of these people gratis, much less for money.

Mike Fitzgerald said:

..."Well", he replied, "nobody but Microsoft is capable
of providing you with information that is, at the same time, so
perfectly accurate but so practically useless. Knowing we were
alongside the Microsoft building, and with a working compass, the
rest was easy."

Click to expand...

Great story. I must remember it.

Bob Davis said:

Hey, that's really long-winded, but it's not often that I see a DOS
user, or at least one that'll admit it. I just had to pour all my
emotions out on the table for every one to see.

Click to expand...

Can't really claim a comprehensive knowledge deal of it -- I started with a Mac II in 1987 and didn't cross swords with a PC until about 5 years later. But I learned enough to become annoyed at the way MS has totally abandoned the average user as regards useful things DOS could do that have no simple counterpart in Windows; e.g. properly automated cleanup of .tmp files left behind after a crash. What makes it worse is that you'll often find suggestions about command line control, in even the latest Windows software, thrown in the face of an average business user with no clue given about the procedure or even the terminology. How many such users have the slightest idea what a "path" is, let alone the syntax for defining it, when they find a reference to it within the rather quaintly named Install Shield? And I wonder how many people have come unglued trying to expand and use PowerPoint 2000's Pack and Go runtime viewer on a host machine (naturally with the audience waiting) because they weren't to know that the reconstituted filename and the target folder are both still* subject to DOS naming constraints. (Yes, I did say "2000"!)

Oops! ... I feel that soapbox wobbling under my feet too ...

Member said:

In Explorer properties my target is C:\windows\explorer.scn. What
on earth is an SCN file?

Click to expand...

I couldn't find one on either my Win 2k or Win 98SE system -- they were both .scf in my case. They're just aliases that work the same as any other. But what they have in common with others I searched out (Show Desktop and View Channels) is that they are intended to be used in (but not limited to) the Quick Launch toolbar found at the left of the Taskbar in recent Windows editions (one of the more useful things added to Windows in recent times, and related to Internet Explorer rather than directly to the OS).

I would assume that the extension is used to earmark them for default placement in Quick Launch during a Windows installation.

Under Win 98 the Properties screen actually says "MS-DOS Name: EXPLORER.SCF", but under Win 2k that descriptive line is missing. See what I mean about M$ carefully concealing the DOSsy bits these days!?

Mike F

And the Magic DOS Fairy sprinkled Command Dust on your heads and bestowed you with magical powers...

I know that you guys didn't wake up one day knowing DOS. My first encounter with DOS was back in the 80's on our office's IBM AT. I can vividly recall it now...a:*copy* %& #$%!!!...can't remember the rest of the damned string!!! Never did get the hang of it. And we only had to do real basic things like type letters, print spread sheets. I spent more time looking up DOS commands than doing the work. Most of the time I would hand write my letters so the secretary could type them on the typewriter...

...Then I bought my first Mac...an SE. I could actually format my disks for DOS, type my letters in word and save them to be printed on the office laser printer. My boss actually called me into the office one day to find out why the amount of correspondence going through the secretary was so much less than my co-workers. I could see by the puzzled look in his eyes that he didn't understand why I would want to type my own letters (fwiw, I hate to write by hand).

It is my belief that you guys take your aptitude for learning strings of commands and storing PC factoids for granted. Your learning style provides you with a pathway to retain this type of knowledge. I would hypothesize that 50% of the population does not process information the way you guys do. That's why the Mac and Windows (attempting to copycat Mac) have gone to GUI. To Microsoft's credit, they have tried to straddle both sides of the fence, hiding as much DOS as they possibly could, but still allowing for DOS disciples to retain their old routines.

As a Mac user (previously exclusively Mac) I thought the transition from Win98 to SE to ME to 2000 was similar to the Mac OS 8.6/9/9.1. The Mac OS provided new features, but all the standard stuff was in the same place and operated virtually the same way. I've come to realize that each PC OS has its strengths and weaknesses, so one has to choose. Until I was actually working with my PC, I hadn't realized that there was such a major difference between Win98 and Win2K. So a PC guru has to really KNOW each Windows system. To know any of them, I believe, requires a LOT of knowledge. For the average user, any bump in the road is going to provoke a call to the local PC guru.

I can see that the Windows OS (and even DOS) has a lot of power and can do marvelous things for people who know how to harness that power. However, I also believe that the complexity of such power is crippling for people who do not have such aptitude. After a 30 day trial run, it is still my opinion that the Mac OS is still easier to set up and maintain for the average user (that leaves ALL you guys out). It is more difficult to break and way easier to fix without calling in the pros. Does it have its limitations? On a global plane, certainly. On a practical level I there is little, if any disadvantage for the Mac user. I can tell you from my personal experience that the Windows OS is intimidating as hell. Screwing up on a PC can (as it did for me) put you back to ground zero in the click of a mouse.

Yes, its been fun. I've learned a ton. I don't consider myself competent with the Windows OS yet. Eventually I'll get there. In closing, all I can say is that it ain't as easy as you guys make it out to be.

What's the DOS command for "soapbox=off"?

Stanton

Mike Fitzgerald said:

Bob Davis said:

Hey, that's really long-winded, but it's not often that I see a DOS
user, or at least one that'll admit it. I just had to pour all my
emotions out on the table for every one to see.

Click to expand...

Can't really claim a comprehensive knowledge deal of it -- I
started with a Mac II in 1987 and didn't cross swords with a PC
until about 5 years later. But I learned enough to become annoyed
at the way MS has totally abandoned the average user as regards
useful things DOS could do that have no simple counterpart in
Windows; e.g. properly automated cleanup of .tmp files left behind
after a crash. What makes it worse is that you'll often find
suggestions about command line control, in even the latest Windows
software, thrown in the face of an average business user with no
clue given about the procedure or even the terminology. How many
such users have the slightest idea what a "path" is, let alone the
syntax for defining it, when they find a reference to it within the
rather quaintly named Install Shield? And I wonder how many people
have come unglued trying to expand and use PowerPoint 2000's Pack
and Go runtime viewer on a host machine (naturally with the
audience waiting) because they weren't to know that the
reconstituted filename and the target folder are both still*
subject to DOS naming constraints. (Yes, I did say "2000"!)

Oops! ... I feel that soapbox wobbling under my feet too ...

Mike Fitzgerald said:

In Explorer properties my target is C:\windows\explorer.scn. What
on earth is an SCN file?

Click to expand...

I couldn't find one on either my Win 2k or Win 98SE system -- they
were both .scf in my case. They're just aliases that work the same
as any other. But what they have in common with others I searched
out (Show Desktop and View Channels) is that they are intended to
be used in (but not limited to) the Quick Launch toolbar found at
the left of the Taskbar in recent Windows editions (one of the more
useful things added to Windows in recent times, and related to
Internet Explorer rather than directly to the OS).
I would assume that the extension is used to earmark them for
default placement in Quick Launch during a Windows installation.

Under Win 98 the Properties screen actually says "MS-DOS Name:
EXPLORER.SCF", but under Win 2k that descriptive line is missing.
See what I mean about M$ carefully concealing the DOSsy bits these
days!?

Mike F

Click to expand...

Stanton said:

And the Magic DOS Fairy sprinkled Command Dust on your heads and
bestowed you with magical powers...

Click to expand...

Kneel and I shall be merciful.

stanton said:

I know that you guys didn't wake up one day knowing DOS. My first
encounter with DOS was back in the 80's on our office's IBM AT. I
can vividly recall it now...a:*copy* %& #$%!!!...can't remember
the rest of the damned string!!!

Click to expand...

Copy C:\folder\yourfile.com D:\folder (one example of syntax)

It is still a powerful tool in certain circumstances, and 4DOS (a third party command processor that replaces command.com) provides much more flexibility and many more shortcuts at the stroke of a few keys. I like this because I find using the keyboard much easier than a mouse, especially when you must use the keyboard anyway in some apps. As I said, my business app (Foxpro DOS, my programming) is 100% keyboard operable. The mouse is switched off by design. When you're primarily entering data anyway, why move your hand off the keyboard to maneuver through menus, charts, and spreadsheets?

Another small DOS app I use constantly is called POPDBF, which accesses my Foxpro databases and puts them up on the screen in the form of a customizable DOS box. I use this to pop my phone-number database up on the screen to get the numbers quick in the form of a browse screen. I can't imagine a native Windows or Mac program that could do it better, if at all.

stanton said:

It is my belief that you guys take your aptitude for learning
strings of commands and storing PC factoids for granted. Your
learning style provides you with a pathway to retain this type of
knowledge.

Click to expand...

The pathway to retain the knowledge involves continuing to use it. If I were to abandon it for a year or two I might forget some of it, though since I've used the commands for about 19 years it is probably irreversibly etched in my mind by now, unlike most things. I still drop to DOS several times per week to do file chores, etc. in the interest of speed and efficiency. For example, if I want to delete all TMP files in a given folder hierarchy, I can simply type DEL .TMP S. In .01 seconds they are gone. Try doing it that fast on your Mac or in Windows. With 4DOS you have a dizzying array of commands, switches, customizable aliases, and procedures to do most anything on the command line. With aliases you can make routine commands easy. For example, if you routinely delete your TMP files every day, you might setup an alias that does it by typing DELTMP, DT, or whatever. It really is slick and quick.

And using batch files can be handy, too. As I mentioned before, I update my cloned drive every day with a batch file that copies important files from C: to D:. I just tell M$ Task Scheduler to run COPYALL.BAT every night at a certain time, and it is done. The batch file is nothing more than a group of simple DOS commands run in sequence. Batch language can be used to do more complex things, but I rarely use it.

stanton said:

I would hypothesize that 50% of the population does not
process information the way you guys do.

Click to expand...

I think probably much more than this when it is only game in town. I recall that 15 years ago everyone was using pre-GUI WordPerfect (DOS) with all those arcane commands that were required to select fonts, italics, etc. It seemed that everybody was into WP back then, especially secretaries and others in writing-intensive jobs, but it was by necessity. Nowadays everyone is so spoiled by GUI interfaces, with all their virtues and few vices, that few really want to go back to the old way. If they did, M$ and the aftermarket would respond, I'm sure.

stanton said:

Microsoft's credit, they have tried to straddle both sides of the
fence, hiding as much DOS as they possibly could, but still
allowing for DOS disciples to retain their old routines.

Click to expand...

Thank heaven for that, and that's one area I can commend M$ for. The day they abandon DOS is the day I will either live with the status quo or buy a second machine, using one for my DOS apps and the other for everything else. I will never abandon my Foxpro (DOS) routines that I use in my business, as it is much too practical and efficient an arrangement to abandon. It has a number- and data-crunching function, and a GUI has no place there, IMO. Yes, I can cut and paste from, but not to, Windows apps.

stanton said:

After a 30 day
trial run, it is still my opinion that the Mac OS is still easier
to set up and maintain for the average user (that leaves ALL you
guys out).

Click to expand...

This may be true, but perhaps not as much as meets the eye for turnkey systems. I'll wager that a Dell computer, with future upgrades purchased only from Dell for that machine, would be on par with a Mac in ease of setup. It's when you start shopping the aftermarket for bargains, other features, or whatever that gets novices (and sometimes gurus) in trouble. There is so much out there, some imperfectly engineered to coexist with other hardware, that sooner rather than later a PC builder will run into a glitch. I'll admit that for me the challenge of conquering that obstacle is an entertainment venture in itself.

stanton said:

It is more difficult to break and way easier to fix
without calling in the pros.

Click to expand...

Looking from the outside inward, I don't see this as being the case. My clients who use Macs are constantly having trouble, and they never seem to know how to fix them. When something goes wrong, they're on the phone to their repairman. One, in fact, doesn't even know what model and OS she is using, but is skilled in using the computer. This skill is limited to using it, not understanding, upgrading, or repairing it. When something doesn't work as she is accustomed, the repairman gets a call. Never would she, or I'll wager would most Mac owners, even attempt to fix anything. That is why I ruffled some feathers a few weeks ago when I declared that most Mac users know little about computers. This is true as well for PC users, but a greater percentage of them are savy about the workings of the machine than the Mac-using population.

stanton said:

I can tell you from my personal
experience that the Windows OS is intimidating as hell.

Click to expand...

That's because you haven't been using it enough. I was at a business competitor's studio the other day, a person who has a computer-literacy ranking of 0 on the 10-point scale, and she asked about retreiving some files from her CF-card reader. Damn if I couldn't figure it out! In Windows, I'd have clicked on Explorer and found their location quickly, but her Mac had no such capability that I could readily determine. I'm sure it can be done, it is just that I'm not familiar with it. Whatever has been said about the intuitiveness of a Mac, it definitely wasn't intuitive in getting this information on the screen.

stanton said:

Screwing up
on a PC can (as it did for me) put you back to ground zero in the
click of a mouse.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this is possible using some common sense, with no offense intended. If it asks you "Are you sure you want to format this drive?" and you click "OK," you should be sure you want to do it and be prepared for what the machine is getting ready to do. Yes, you apparently have more flexibility to manipulate the workings of a PC, but to me that is an asset. I would be miserable with a dumbed-out computer that wouldn't give me any ability to tweak.

stanton said:

Yes, its been fun. I've learned a ton. I don't consider myself
competent with the Windows OS yet. Eventually I'll get there.

Click to expand...

Practice, practice, practice. (I'm trying to recall who said that and in what movie.)

stanton said:

In closing, all I can say is that it ain't as easy as you guys make it
out to be.

Click to expand...

Practice, practice, practice.

With tongue now completely removed from cheek, I commend you for at least trying. Most Mac users are so doctrinally overzealous that they wouldn't be caught dead at the console of a PC, much less try to learn about it. When it is all said and done, both platforms have their place in the natural scheme of things. I still think you can do 99.9% of any function on a well-equipped PC that can be done on a Mac, but not the other way around. Try running my Foxpro routines on your Mac, for example.

stanton said:

What's the DOS command for "soapbox=off"?

Click to expand...

Soapbox off

Stanton said:

Member said:

Screwing up
on a PC can (as it did for me) put you back to ground zero in the
click of a mouse.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And Bob said:

I don't see how this is possible using some common sense, with no
offense intended.

Click to expand...

Oh, but it is, with no offence taken. Here's a real-world example that happened to me as a seasoned Mac user. And it happened with a single drag rather than a click, but that's close enough. When setting up my own filing system on my first PC (OEM Windows 95 installation), it struck me that a bit of housekeeping was in order to gather up all the loose files at the root level of C: and stick them in a folder. Naturally , this killed Windows stone dead at the next reboot, and I had to resurrect it from square one. Never mind, installing the CD-ROM driver from nothing was quite an educational Catch-22 experience (BTW how many dealers have you known to personalise the customer's Win 95 boot floppy with the necessaries, as MS instructs?).

Naturally??? Now I don't care how daft that might sound to an old PC hand, but to a Mac guy (even to one, as I was, with a working knowledge of Windows 3.1) the commonsense and assumed validity of my move was, is, and will forever remain both obvious and 100% reasonable. After all, was not Win 95, according to the hype of the day, supposed to be the complete answer to the Mac GUI??

That's my main beef about Windows. It remains a DOS hybrid in many ways despite repeated M$ assurances to the contrary. I'm in no way proposing that users should need to know any DOS at all. Just the opposite, in fact. Yet the problem remains that there are still situations when what should be a routine software installation suddenly proves that s/he does have that need, and M$ has not provided sufficient information either in general or specific to the occasion. And that has to be seen as quite a cop-out on M$'s part.

As far as file management is concerned, far and away the most useful utility I ever came across was XTreeGold. It was immensely powerful, very easy to use after a very short learning curve, and required virtually no knowledge of DOS. Neither Windows nor the Mac has ever provided the everyday-useful features it offered -- even basic necessities like file undelete tend to be left to third-party software to accomplish.

While I agree that command-line control needs to remain for certain specialised operations (and as a timesaving routine option at the user's choice), I contend that Windows will never fully mature until it provides useful GUI replacements for everything the average user needs. With the growing emphasis on Wizards and reduction of user control, I'm not too optimistic about that ever happening.

Mike