OpenEuphoria

1. [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> May 06, 2001
• 600 views

I have been looking at several dozen Pascal programs I wrote ~20 years ago for 
a friend, who still uses them daily in his business. The idea, of course, was
to convert these to Windows programs, both to be "modern" and to be sure they 
would run on the next version(s) of Windows, in case Bill. G. actually drops DOS
support. 

My problem: I can't for the life of me see any way they can be improved by 
using Windows. They run faster on a 286 with 640k than similar Windows 
programs do on a 350Mhz 128meg. system. The "user interface" is quicker 
and easier that it would be on Windows.  And DOS seldom crashes.

I'm not really asking for advice (it's welcome nevertheless) 
Mainly I'm just wondering if we've really gained anything, other than
headaches from trying to deal with  the Windows API, and smaller bank accounts
from continually fortifying our pc's to deal with the ever-increasing demands?

Regards,
Irv

3. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> May 06, 2001
• 561 views

On Sun, 06 May 2001, jjnick at cvn.com wrote:

> I agree, we have gained nothing except headaches, in my opinion, except
> maybe preemptive multitasking . . .  But, Linux has this though . . .?  

Yes, and Unix had it before DOS was ever thought of.

> I'd love to see a true self-diagnostic/object oriented/social interface
> w/artificial intelligence/3D Hyperbolic browsing/secure OS . . .  Anybody
> ready?

Heh... I'd settle for any ONE of the above.....

Regards,
Irv

5. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Gerardo <gebrandariz at YAHOO.COM> May 06, 2001
• 584 views

Irv,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Irv Mullins" <irvm at ellijay.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: [OT] How far have we come?


> I have been looking at several dozen Pascal programs I wrote ~20 years ago
for
> a friend, who still uses them daily in his business. The idea, of course,
was
> to convert these to Windows programs, both to be "modern" and to be sure
they
> would run on the next version(s) of Windows, in case Bill. G. actually
drops DOS
> support.
>
> My problem: I can't for the life of me see any way they can be improved by
> using Windows. They run faster on a 286 with 640k than similar Windows
> programs do on a 350Mhz 128meg. system. The "user interface" is quicker
> and easier that it would be on Windows.  And DOS seldom crashes.
>
> I'm not really asking for advice (it's welcome nevertheless)
> Mainly I'm just wondering if we've really gained anything, other than
> headaches from trying to deal with  the Windows API, and smaller bank
accounts
> from continually fortifying our pc's to deal with the ever-increasing
demands?
>
> Regards,
> Irv

Excuse me, but do I detect a little shade of guilt? Your analysis is quite
correct: almost any more or less well written old DOS program did not and
does not need much improving. It might benefit by faster clock rates and
more RAM, or it might not. We've all seen wonderful programming that used
very little resources. And not just command line, but graphics too. Do you
know of the (mostly European) 4K contests? The idea was to pack as much
visual and audio data as you could in 4K or less. One of the nicest I've
seen was a pattern generator that would fill your screen with all sort of
curves, shades and figures, called Shadebob. Written in asm, all of 320
bytes heavy.

Now, Windows came up to fill an empty niche, not just Mr Gates's pockets.
There are people out there who just won't take the trouble to learn a few
simple commands, and who actually believe (not just because Microsoft tells
them so) that big and complicated and heavy is better and nicer. This has
nothing to do with computers. It's also true about cars, refrigerators and
clothes.

DOS (and any serious OS) can do anything Windows does, because Windows is a
DOS program. Micrsoft thought up the Windows graphical interface as a
wrapper for individual programs, only after their spectacular failure with
dosshell.exe (remember DOS 4.0?). Yet dosshell came with both a text-based
and a graphics mode. The first was no real advantage over the DOS command
line, and those were the times of the Norton Commander and Xtree. The second
was slow and uncomfortable. Yet even the first Windows took up so much
memory and processor that the race was on. Remember the first memory
extension? It was not Extended memory but Expanded, the LIM-EMS standard.
LIM? Lotus-Intel-Microsoft.

Now, windows are fine. I liked them a lot even before Windows existed. I
used windowing in the Brief editor and in WordStar. The Norton Commander
could turn one of its panels into a view or list window. And multitasking is
fine too, but if Windows can multitask so can any other DOS program, it's
just (just!) a matter of writing the code. DOS can do anything that Windows
can, because Windows is DOS with a lot of specific libraries to call upon.

Have we gained anything? Yes and no. Yes, because anything that gives you
more power actually gives you the option to use it as you see fit; you don't
have to build 500KB exes just because Visual Basic would like you to: they
can be quite simply trimmed to half- or a quarter-size just by unchecking a
few default options. An no, since there are no new powerful libraries being
written for DOS, so if you need to move on you have to accept Windows or
perish. Perhaps that's one of the main reasons for the Linux success story:
you have beatiful GUIs, but you don't need them unless you really need them.

I still keep an 8MB 486 at 100 MHz, Win95. Use it mainly to run old progs,
backup & security, and for tests. Most new software won't even try to
install (MSIE 4+ flatly refuses setup in less than 12MB RAM). But it's
hooked to the home LAN, including a small, efficient Internet proxy client,
and Netscape Navigator 4.75 handles it beautifully. Mail and text web pages,
fine as always. Images do slow it down, but that's to be expected.

So, turn your spyglass around. It's not that Windows should improve
anything. Windows is just a tool, a medium. There are very good, fast and
simple programs written for Windows, and there are heavy, cumbersome ones
too. But that was true of DOS too. Look at the Windows programs you prefer,
you admire most. They will probably give you as much performance as they
can, using the least resources. Or, alternatively, if they use lots of
resources they will give you a lot of goodies in exchange.

If I get a vote, I'd say: keep'em both, the way Linux does. To each his own,
and to each problem the proper tool.

Gerardo

7. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Gerardo <gebrandariz at YAHOO.COM> May 07, 2001
• 568 views

Irv,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Irv Mullins" <irvm at ellijay.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] How far have we come?


>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001, Gerardo wrote:
>
> Correct. And most working programmers had their own text-mode windowing
> routines, complete with  listboxes, pop-up messages, menus, etc., the
majority
> of which worked and looked better than Microsoft's efforts.

Most good packages came with wonderful and efficient libraries, that would
let you do almost anything you needed with little or no sweat. Has everyone
forgotten Clipper? Ralf Brown's interrupt lists?

> All of which made Microsoft look amateurish, and worse than that,
irrelevant.
> Once you had a copy of DOS and a programming language, you could
> create useful, saleable programs.  Microsoft was effectively out of the
> cash flow loop. They couldn't stand that.

> I've had several clients ask for Windows programs that could be operated
> entirely from the keyboard, just like the old dos programs they were used
> to using. Why? Because they found using the mouse, keyboard, and juggling
> paperwork required more hands than they were born with, and slowed down
their
> work.

Two things I've never understood:

1) Why didn't Microsoft keep the traditional and tested control methods,
i.e. use mouse if you want, but your favorite keystrokes will still work.
They'd have half of us grumps on their side. And

2) If they insisted on replacing our venerable keys, why didn't they push
farther still? One mouse with two or three keys is a lousy semi-replacement
for 100+ keys with literally thousands of possible combinations. Why not two
mice, or a mouse and a joystick? Most things I manipulate, I use both hands.
Perhaps it sounds outlandish, but possibly it would have been more
human-like. Or are Windows users supposed to use the other hand for some
strange purpose that escapes my imagination?

> If you could get Bill Gates to pay back $1 for every hour lost to Windows
> inefficiencies and crashes, he wouldn't be the richest man in the world.
If he
> paid back another $1 for every hour spent playing games on those office
> computers, he'd be broke ;)

Well, let's not blame the man for everything. He's just a succesful
predator. Sooner or later he'll eat more than he can chew. And then we'll
come up with a slightly aged diskette containing Sidekick, saying "Outlook
requires what, you say? here I have this combination directory, calculator
and phone dialer, a 50K TSR, ..."

> > So, turn your spyglass around. It's not that Windows should improve
> > anything. Windows is just a tool, a medium. ...
>
> Yes, but suppose you were a landscaper, and everyone who wanted you
> to plant a petunia insisted that you bring a bulldozer to do the job.
>
> Bulldozer costs a lot more than a shovel.
> Bulldozer is a lot more difficult to operate.
> Bulldozer uses a lot of fuel and is subject to expensive breakdowns.
> Bulldozer makes a mess of the yard, which you're responsible for cleaning
up.
>
> So, the price of planting that petunia just went up to $5,000
>
> Is it not true that the only winner in this deal is the maker of the bull-
> erm... dozer.?   ;)
>
> Regards,
> Irv

Ha. The bulldozer feeds the bulldozer maker, his employees, the driver, the
vehicle registration employee, your friendly neighborhood mechanic... need I
go on? Try to put them out of a job. Besides, if you were a real landscaper,
you would charge $50 for the petunia, and $7,500 for additional landscaping
required by the less-than-careful operation of a massive bulldozer in a
small garden. Perhaps you could accidentally crash into a wall, too, or
something. And it wouldn't be a petunia. It would be an Enhanced Natural
Solanacea, One Billion Years Evolving Just For You, Satisfaction Guaranteed
Or Your Money Back (the $50).

By the way, I have a pen here that can write in several languages. Anyone
interested?

Gerardo

9. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> May 08, 2001
• 554 views

11. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> May 08, 2001
• 597 views

13. Re: [OT] How far have we come?

• Posted by Gerardo <gebrandariz at YAHOO.COM> May 09, 2001
• 587 views

Irv, you started this...
David et al,

From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>


> Time and motion studies have found that, for most people, it's actually
> faster to use the mouse than it is to use the keyboard. To people like you
> and I who claim the keyboard is actually faster, these they reply (I'm not
> making this up!) that there's some sort of 'lost time' amnesia effect
where
> we literally don't remember the time it takes us to perform these actions,
> making them only *appear* to be faster.
>
> (...insert twilight zone theme here...)
>
> -- David Cuny

Time and motion studies have found that it's faster, more comfortable and
safer to walk every morning some 25 blocks to work after I take my youngest
to school, than to ride a variety of buses, subways or even taxis. Yet every
time I mention this I get glazed looks. People will do what they want (or,
most likely, what they've been told they want), regardless. That is, until
an uncaring Universe hits them below the belly. Then you're a world-saver.
For about five minutes.


Then Irv Mullins wrote:

> Faster to use the mouse for what? - that should be the question.

As we all know, the questions should be, What are my needs? How can I best
fulfill them? Good for making money, good for getting laid, good for a
computer interface. Using the mouse for everything is like driving your car
to the bathroom, just because you have one. (A car. I hope you all have a
bathroom).

Good software designers know this. Since they have to make a living, they
give you the mouse, but they also give you choices. One of the reasons I
find IrfanView extremely practical is because it can be closed with the Esc
key. Sounds familiar?

The Ray Smith:

> There are obviously a small percentage of people who don't use MS software
and for those people ... well done!

The sad side is that MS has elevated itself into a category of its own. Yet
some of its products are good, some are very good, and some aren't worth the
trouble. Just like everyone else's. Personally, I find the Internet Explorer
far faster and reliable than Netscape, but then StarOffice (even the Windows
version) is every bit as good as MSIE. So is Opera. Yet most users, buyers,
vendors and magazine editors seem convinced that there's Microsoft, and
there's a bunch of wannabes. The result: individuals and companies are
shelling out hundreds and even thousands of dollars a year as if it were
unavoidable, when most of the time they don't really need it, and -even when
they do- there's such a lot of good freeware around.

And rforno...

> Anyway, it's strange that nobody mentioned the DOS batch facility, which
luckily still can be used under Windows... if one understands DOS.

A few days ago I mentioned 4DOS and Take Command. You can't get more batchy.
They can do DOS (including file i/o), they can launch Windows apps,
everything you could possibly need. 4DOS has a batch-to-memory facility that
lifts the whole prog into RAM and executes it, unlike MS-DOS batch that goes
back and reads the file every time an instruction has been executed.

And perhaps therein lies the problem. In some areas MS went too far astray,
required too much hardware, doesn't let you streamline their apps at your
convenience, and so on. And, on the other side, it didn't go far enough, so
it didn't really replace text mode and command line, just dressed them some,
but at what expense!

Suggestion for release 25.8: I want a computer I can talk to. I could even
stand it if it talked back...


Gerardo