Jerry J. Haumberger wrote:
> Windows are windows and GUIs are GUIs, no matter who makes them! If
> someone wants a "graphical" interface for DOS, what's wrong with the
> simple mainstream Dosshell included with PC-DOS and MS-DOS?!
I think that you missed the point here.
Give a newbie, that dont want to learn how to use DOS a shell like
Norton Commander or DOSShell. They hate it! I had a few discussions
from a few Newbies, all of them in the end went to Win3.11 because
"ok. its slow. it crash. but it look better and easier to use.".
btw, guess what happened when Windows 95 came. Same thing happened,
same reason. I dont really like GUIs, but I use them myself every
once and a while. There is nothing wrong about having a "non-serious"
GUI around when I dont feel like being creative. And having a GUI
around wouldnt render me "non-creative", too.
> Do the other versions of DOS have similar shell programs? I bet they do.
Never did find any. There was a "DOSShell" in development for DR-DOS
by someone, and ViewMAX before the Caldera version, but thats all.
> I suggest that seriously committed DOS users should cease from "doodling"
> with icons and graphics and get down to serious command prompt creativity!
>
> Don't put the cart before the horse!
Having X-Windows in Linux didnt caused me to stop using the CLI
mode. So I dont really think you need to worry about that.
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.
