I started with DOS (87-88. maybe 86) and i'm still with DOS (99).
So, its CLI all the way.
GUI was nice, for a few things, but no GUI was close enough for
the flexibility and "total interface attachment" I wanted from
my computer. I found out that with CLI, My use of the computer was
faster, more flexible, and at a times I was so immersed in typing
that for a moment it felt almost like operating another arm
(with much more functions then 10 fingers.) ;)
As far as GUI went, it was nice for menus. I really like it
as far as file-managment goes.. CLI is awsome for most tasks,
but when it comes to file-managment, then an interface where you
can run a high-light using the arrow keys and issue commands
using short-cuts and CLI combined is much more usefull and
productive. Last thing, full GUI (not NC or Xtree GUI), without
short cuts and/or CLI at all should only be used where really
neccesary, like in graphics programs where usually the user do
not take his hand off the mouse.
For conclusion, all systems, that is: CLI, "menu/list driven",
and GUI all have their own advantages. But also has several bad
spots. To have a really efficent interface, one must use these
interfaces where they fit, instead of trying to put only one
of them as dominative. I dont like Windows because its trying to
push everything to GUI. With DOS I can use CLI for most of
my stuff, and when ever I want I can call up Norton Commander
to get a combined interface.. and I can also shut it off later.
Thats how I think this entire interface thing should be.
Or Botton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
//@--------------------------
http://members.xoom.com/dsdp/
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
