New DOS shell for Windows coming

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Called the Monad shell, or MSH. It's supposed to be similar to BASH on
Unix environments.

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050609_170105.html
60 answers Last reply
More about shell windows coming
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan wrote:

    > Called the Monad shell, or MSH. It's supposed to be similar to BASH on
    > Unix environments.

    I can't help but read Gonad shell. (The shell real men use.)
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    A Jones wrote:
    > Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few programming languages
    > in use that's actually worse than Bash. I'm sure MS will either maintain
    > backwards compatibility or keep the DOS interpreter around. MS gets
    > routinely assaulted for its supposed neglect of backwards compatibility,
    > but all I can say is it's pretty hard to do worse than the fragmentation
    > under Unix, with a half dozen or more shells, all incompatible, and
    > all equally bad.

    There hasn't been a Bourne Shell script that can't run in bash or ksh.
    That's mainly because bash and ksh are descendents or upgrades of
    bourne, of course. You can either write to the lowest common
    denominator standard which is bourne, or write to one of its upgrades,
    giving up on some portability for some extra features.

    Yes, csh won't run bourne stuff very well, but it wasn't meant to, it's
    a completely different language. Tcsh is csh's descendent.


    > The problem with Unix users is that they're almost all advocates, so
    > they're unable to view the technology critically. That's partly why
    > Unix systems have fallen so far behind in technology over the past 15
    > years or so, while competing systems continued to progress. I seem
    > to be one of the few Unix users who is willing to speak honestly about
    > the limitations and the great need for improvement.

    Whatever.

    Yousuf Khan
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    > Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few
    > programming languages in use that's actually worse than Bash.

    You don't seem to make any distinction between a
    programming language and a scripting language.

    > The problem with Unix users is that they're almost all advocates,
    > so they're unable to view the technology critically. That's

    That would apply to many MS-Windows and Apple users moreso.

    > partly why Unix systems have fallen so far behind in technology
    > over the past 15 years or so, while competing systems continued
    > to progress. I seem to be one of the few Unix users who is
    > willing to speak honestly about the limitations and the great
    > need for improvement.

    Progress is not a scalar, it is a vector. There are many
    different desireable attributes and different products weigh
    them differently. Even MS-Windows has a place.

    I can see many improvements possible for Unix. `bash` in
    particular seems to have overworked the scripting language and
    underworked interactive usability features. 4DOS.EXE has some
    nice features, as does `tcsh`.

    > There's a tiny minority of people who fall in love with
    > typical Unix technologies X Window, Emacs, and Bash, and
    > are unable or unwilling to see how much need they have for

    I love none of these, yet I like Unix and other Linux-like systems.

    > need to do is to compare it, with its brief, imprecise, and

    I have never heard anyone describe the bash manpage as "brief"!

    > for languages like Java, C#, OCaml, Haskell, Scheme, ...,

    `bash` also has the burden of backwards compatibility
    and is a _scripting_ language. I would hate to use any
    one of these programming languages interactively.

    > Also, you might want to visit the scsh web site. Scsh is

    I did. Sorry, but it uses too many parentheses for quick CLI work.

    -- Robert
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > Yeah, DIRectory makes a lot less sense that ls -l.

    Can't we all just get along? :-)

    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /bin/ls
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /usr/bin/dir
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > > FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful
    > > replacement for command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
    >
    > Good. I always liked 4DOS. Tell me, is the source also
    > available? I'd like to replace `bash`, although I'm sure
    > it will need mods to do the filename expansion that the unix
    > shells do, but MS-DOS passes to pgms.

    I always liked 4DOS too, but I got into a few bad habits with it, like
    using the file descriptions, which turned out not to be portable once I
    moved from the DOS environment to the Windows one.

    Yousuf Khan
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:35:09 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    >> Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few
    >> programming languages in use that's actually worse than Bash.
    >
    > You don't seem to make any distinction between a
    > programming language and a scripting language.

    A scripting language is a kind of programming language.
    Bash is reminiscent of BASIC. I think of it sort of as
    BASIC's crazy uncle. It's got a weird and limited set
    of data structures, weird and limited looping constructs,
    a weird and limited notion of function, etc. BASIC itself
    is pretty mediocre, but writing for its crazy uncle Bash
    is pretty unpleasant.

    The sad thing about Unix is that the technical incompetence
    of its developers not only makes for lousy technology,
    but also blinds its users to the need for improvement. They think
    weird things, like a scripting language isn't a real programming
    language, so you don't need to know anything about programming
    languages to create it. They think they can write things like
    that by the seat of their pants, knowing nothing about computer
    science, or even being that good at programming. And they end up
    congratulating themselves for the superb job they've done, because they
    don't know enough to realize that they should be working within the
    framework of 4 decades of programming language research. In that
    tradition, the crazy uncle of one of the lousiest languages to
    survive from the 1960's wouldn't count for much, but in the
    Unix world, it's treated with reverence, like it's some
    powerful and ingenious invention. So you've got these technically
    incompetent folks, who know nothing about computer science,
    who are even more clueless about usability and marketing,
    calling each other gurus and congratulating themselves for
    knowing more than the folks in Redmond.

    And what you end up with, is the Unix people let BASIC's crazy uncle
    out of the attic, and made him run a big part of the Unix
    show. And the other parts of the show are run by the other
    loony systems, like X Window and Emacs, which are designed
    with equal technical incompetence.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:18:08 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> put
    finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >> Yeah, DIRectory makes a lot less sense that ls -l.
    >
    >Can't we all just get along? :-)
    >
    >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /bin/ls
    >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /usr/bin/dir

    To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:

    doskey ls=dir

    Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
    I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
    it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
    minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs. I've also used
    Coherent, but it involved a *lot* of learning, more than I was
    prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
    struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language. I believe
    that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
    processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that used RPN,
    such as those made by HP, preferring calculators that supported
    standard algebraic notation.)

    Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made computing
    accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the old elitist us-and-them
    relationship should die, IMHO.

    FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful replacement for
    command.com and cmd.exe is already available.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    > To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:

    Or the `bash` builtin `alias`. Even my retro Slackware comes
    configured with `dir` as an alias to `ls`
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
    <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

    >On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:18:08 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> put
    >finger to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yeah, DIRectory makes a lot less sense that ls -l.
    >>
    >>Can't we all just get along? :-)
    >>
    >>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /bin/ls
    >>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /usr/bin/dir
    >
    >To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
    >
    > doskey ls=dir

    Wow.. talk about a blast from the past.. I haven't used Doskey in
    ages! Just tested it though, still works in WinXP SP2 though!

    >Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.

    Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>

    >I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
    >it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
    >minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs. I've also used
    >Coherent, but it involved a *lot* of learning, more than I was
    >prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
    >struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language. I believe
    >that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
    >processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that used RPN,
    >such as those made by HP, preferring calculators that supported
    >standard algebraic notation.)

    I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
    of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
    definitely not very intuitive.

    >Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made computing
    >accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the old elitist us-and-them
    >relationship should die, IMHO.
    >
    >FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful replacement for
    >command.com and cmd.exe is already available.

    Now that's even more of a blast from the past! I haven't used 4Dos in
    at least 10 years!

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:43:30 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    >> Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made
    >> computing accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the
    >> old elitist us-and-them relationship should die, IMHO.
    >
    > Entirely true. His bloatware has driven hardware ever
    > bigger and faster.

    If Gates did anything, he made software a business, and
    a profitable one at that. He did not focus first on making
    anything accessible. Remember, Microsoft didn't even have
    a decent GUI for any of its operating systems until late
    1995. It was the last of the non-Unix vendors to get decent
    GUI technology. Of course, Linux/Unix is still struggling
    to catch up to what MS had in 1995 and everyone else had
    even earlier.

    As far as producing bloatware that has driven hardware ever
    bigger and faster, I don't really see that. Where do you
    think hardware would be now if it weren't for Microsoft?
    Where should it be? Should we still be running 386's with
    1 MB or RAM?

    I think hardware and software have evolved together. As
    hardware has improved, software developers have been able
    to change their paradigms by writing less efficient but
    more powerful and more easily maintainable code. That's
    basically a good thing. Software written without high
    level abstractions is nasty stuff.

    I think Microsoft has been pretty on target in terms of writing
    software to the hardware that would be current at ship time.
    A lot of other companies have been much less successful. One
    of the reasons OS/2 faltered is that IBM was releasing versions
    that needed 16MB of RAM at a time when 2 or 4 MB was the norm.
    Windows 3.1 was pretty happy with 2 or 4 MB or RAM, and Windows
    95 could get by with 8MB. NeXT was even worse. And the OpenDoc
    component system was another case. It needed 32 MB or more
    at a time when 8 and 16 MB was the norm, and OLE (or whatever
    MS was calling it at the time) required far less. (Well, they
    never quite got OpenDoc working right either). Too bad. It's
    been 10 or 15 years now that Microsoft has been the only
    significant company with working desktop component technology.

    Some companies went the other direction, spending too much
    time writing low level code. That might have been part of
    the Amiga's problem.

    As far as the current situation goes, I think it's pretty
    clear that current Linux distributions are by far the most
    inefficient and resource hungry systems ever created. The system
    I'm on now (Linux Fedora Core 2) just doesn't run well with
    less than 512 MB of RAM, and it needs at least 768 if I
    want to avoid excessive swapping when I have a lot of Firefox
    tabs and other stuff going at once. That's a far cry from
    the 8 or 16 MB Win 95 used to need, and it's 3 or 4 times
    what my Win2000 and Win XP systems need.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    > A scripting language is a kind of programming language.

    Yes, but it has _very_ different design objectives from
    traditional [compiled] programming languages. Fundamentally
    designed for easy automation of command sequences by the typers
    (not traditional programmers). No large memory structures.
    It is meant for very short programs. A long script is as
    much a misuse as "Hello, World" is in `c`.

    > Bash is reminiscent of BASIC. I think of it sort of as BASIC's
    > crazy uncle. It's got a weird and limited set of data structures,

    Wierd to you. Not necessarily to everyone. I think of BASIC much
    the same as I think of MS-Windows. Seductively easy to learn,
    but very limited (or contortions required) and not really to be
    used beyond an introductory course or for very limited needs.

    You are not the only person to dislike the Bourne shell. Many
    people did, and starting very early on. `csh` was developed and
    is the "primary" shell of *BSD systems. Others went in direction
    of the Korn shell. Nothing stops you from working in the Scheme
    shell if your work is original and valuable enough.

    > The sad thing about Unix is that the technical incompetence
    > of its developers not only makes for lousy technology, but

    Flamebait. Please moderate your language if you wish me to respond.

    -- Robert
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    > He did not focus first on making anything accessible.

    Of course not. But he wanted ever-more sales, and the
    Invisible Hand forced him in the direction of accessibility.

    > Where do you think hardware would be now if it weren't
    > for Microsoft? Where should it be? Should we still be
    > running 386's with 1 MB or RAM?

    An interesting speculation. How many PCs would be sold at
    $5000 today. If attractiveness (eye candy) and mass marketting
    hadn't driven the price down to one-tenth? Perhaps only one
    tenth. That would then have justified far less development.

    > One of the reasons OS/2 faltered is that IBM was releasing versions
    > that needed 16MB of RAM at a time when 2 or 4 MB was the norm.

    News to me. I thought the main reason OS/2 faltered was
    Billy got in a huff and left with the UI with him. He
    split the project, and took the market.

    > Windows 3.1 was pretty happy with 2 or 4 MB or RAM,

    Maybe 4 without many apps open. Not 2.

    > and Windows 95 could get by with 8MB.

    Very badly. It was designed for 16, and ran much better in 32+.

    > As far as the current situation goes, I think it's pretty
    > clear that current Linux distributions are by far the
    > most inefficient and resource hungry systems ever created.
    > The system I'm on now (Linux Fedora Core 2) just doesn't run
    > well with less than 512 MB of RAM, and it needs at least 768
    > if I want to avoid excessive swapping when I have a lot of
    > Firefox tabs and other stuff going at once. That's a far
    > cry from the 8 or 16 MB Win 95 used to need, and it's 3 or
    > 4 times what my Win2000 and Win XP systems need.

    I don't know what your problem is. I run Slackware fine on
    an old 486sx laptop with 8 MB (no GUI). My main machine
    has an excessive 512 MB, I run it swapless and I still get:

    $ free
    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 515376 480772 34604 0 28904 199236
    -/+ buffers/cache: 252632 262744
    Swap: 0 0 0

    with Mozilla, Citrix & bash running under KDE. It ran fine
    swapless with 256 MB, and I'd expect it to run OK at 128 or
    maybe 64 MB with swap.

    -- Robert
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:20 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    >> One of the reasons OS/2 faltered is that IBM was releasing versions
    >> that needed 16MB of RAM at a time when 2 or 4 MB was the norm.
    >
    > News to me. I thought the main reason OS/2 faltered was
    > Billy got in a huff and left with the UI with him. He
    > split the project, and took the market.

    The story of OS/2 is a long one. IBM and MS were working on it
    together, but MS was responsible for "advanced kernel development,"
    so they were doing all the kernel stuff. IBM was doing the GUI.

    What happened is that MS continued working on the DOS/Windows line
    more or less behind IBM's back. Then, when Windows 3.1 hit the scene,
    it was an unexpected smashing commercial success. The technology
    was terrible, much worse than OS/2. The success was because it could run
    in, let's say, 4 MB RAM, and it could run a lot of DOS software without
    too much fuss. Bill didn't get in a huff, he just realized he was
    holding all the cards. He decided to take the Windows 3.1 market, which
    was in his hands, and shepherd it to Windows 95 and Windows NT, and dump
    IBM.

    OS/2 had a very nice GUI. It was a little drab in appearance, but
    functionally it was powerful and slick. I would say the OS/2
    GUI was more advanced 10 or 12 years ago than Gnome is today,
    and OS/2 could run happily in 16 MB RAM rather than 512 or whatever
    you think Gnome needs.

    >> Windows 3.1 was pretty happy with 2 or 4 MB or RAM,
    >
    > Maybe 4 without many apps open. Not 2.
    >
    >> and Windows 95 could get by with 8MB.
    >
    > Very badly. It was designed for 16, and ran much better in 32+.
    >
    >> As far as the current situation goes, I think it's pretty
    >> clear that current Linux distributions are by far the
    >> most inefficient and resource hungry systems ever created.
    >> The system I'm on now (Linux Fedora Core 2) just doesn't run
    >> well with less than 512 MB of RAM, and it needs at least 768
    >> if I want to avoid excessive swapping when I have a lot of
    >> Firefox tabs and other stuff going at once. That's a far
    >> cry from the 8 or 16 MB Win 95 used to need, and it's 3 or
    >> 4 times what my Win2000 and Win XP systems need.
    >
    > I don't know what your problem is. I run Slackware fine on
    > an old 486sx laptop with 8 MB (no GUI). My main machine
    > has an excessive 512 MB, I run it swapless and I still get:
    >
    > $ free
    > total used free shared buffers cached
    > Mem: 515376 480772 34604 0 28904 199236
    > -/+ buffers/cache: 252632 262744
    > Swap: 0 0 0
    >
    > with Mozilla, Citrix & bash running under KDE. It ran fine
    > swapless with 256 MB, and I'd expect it to run OK at 128 or
    > maybe 64 MB with swap.

    I generally have Gnome, Firefox, Thunderbird (or Evolution), XEmacs,
    some terminals, and maybe a newsreader open. With 512MB, I could squeak
    by most of the time, but too many Firefox tabs, or opening a pdf viewer,
    or something, and bang, I was swapping like crazy. In my
    experience, Windows 2000 and XP take a lot less memory for a similar
    setup. In fact, I can get by with Windows 2000 running on 128 MB of
    RAM. There's no way on earth I could ever get a RH system with Gnome
    to run decently in that, or even 168 MB RAM -- not even close. Nor
    will I ever waste the hours and hours of my life fiddling around trying
    to get it to. If you've had better success, good. Enjoy.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    > As far as the current situation goes, I think it's pretty
    > clear that current Linux distributions are by far the most
    > inefficient and resource hungry systems ever created. The system
    > I'm on now (Linux Fedora Core 2) just doesn't run well with
    > less than 512 MB of RAM, and it needs at least 768 if I
    > want to avoid excessive swapping when I have a lot of Firefox
    > tabs and other stuff going at once.

    You could try a more efficient distribution - or, if you use KDE on Fedora,
    even try switching to Gnome... or a lightweight Window manager, for that
    matter.

    KDE on Gentoo seems to run OK on 384 and well on 512 (w/ a P4-1.7ghz machine).
    Gnome on Gentoo seems to run OK on 256 and well on 384 (ditto).
    blackbox on Gentoo seems to run OK on 128 and well on 256 (ditto).

    blackbox on Gentoo (using kdrive as a X server rather than XOrg) with a 2.4
    kernel runs OK (on a 96mb Pentium MMX 233 system, no less!)

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

    "This is not a humorous signature."
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:43:30 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    >> To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
    >
    >Or the `bash` builtin `alias`. Even my retro Slackware comes
    >configured with `dir` as an alias to `ls`
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:43:30 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

    >> ... computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
    >> processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that
    >> used RPN, such as those made by HP, preferring calculators
    >> that supported standard algebraic notation.)
    >
    >Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
    >_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
    >a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
    >I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
    >together, often because of units.

    IIRC TI calculators used a 9-level stack, albeit a hidden one. In fact
    one could access the stack on a TI-59 using undocumented instructions.
    So it's clear that TI machines *evaluated* the expressions in the same
    way as HP calculators, it's just that TI calculators *accepted*
    expressions as they were written. No mental gymnastics were required.
    Furthermore, the often touted claim that HP calculators were much more
    economical with keystrokes was a myth which I disproved many a time.

    In any case, whether or not RPN is better than algebraic is
    irrelevant. My contention is that a person should not have to adapt to
    technology, but that technology should adapt to him. For example, I
    should be able to pick up any unfamiliar calculator and key in "1+2=",
    not the counterintuitive "1 Enter 2 +". The inner workings should be
    transparent to the user interface.

    >> Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made
    >> computing accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the
    >> old elitist us-and-them relationship should die, IMHO.
    >
    >Entirely true. His bloatware has driven hardware ever
    >bigger and faster.
    >
    >> FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful
    >> replacement for command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
    >
    >Good. I always liked 4DOS. Tell me, is the source also
    >available?

    Not AFAIK, although this page suggests that it may go open source
    someday:
    http://www.4dos.info/v4dos.htm

    The actual v7.50 binaries are here:
    http://www.4dos.info/4dvers/4dos750b130.exe

    .... or here:
    ftp://jpsoft.com/4dos/files/

    >I'd like to replace `bash`, although I'm sure
    >it will need mods to do the filename expansion that the unix
    >shells do, but MS-DOS passes to pgms.
    >
    >-- Robert


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 02:42:41 -0400, Tony Hill
    <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
    ><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

    >>Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
    >
    >Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>

    Give me a break. It took me ages to move on from Win95B. :-)

    >>I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
    >>it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
    >>minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs.
    >
    >I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
    >of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
    >definitely not very intuitive.

    Some that come to mind include DOS, CPM, PRIMOS, KRONOS, RSX-11M,
    CGOS. I found all of them relatively easy to learn. In fact Primos is
    so intuitive that I was able to connect a Prime mini (an unfamiliar
    machine) to a DG mini and perform file transfers merely by referring
    to Prime's online help. And I did this within a couple of hours, using
    only edit and copy commands, via an RS232 interface.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Well said, bro!

    "A Jones" <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.06.18.10.28.53.207894@nospam.me.noway...
    > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:35:09 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    >
    >> A Jones <ajones@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
    >>> Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few
    >>> programming languages in use that's actually worse than Bash.
    >>
    >> You don't seem to make any distinction between a
    >> programming language and a scripting language.
    >
    > A scripting language is a kind of programming language.
    > Bash is reminiscent of BASIC. I think of it sort of as
    > BASIC's crazy uncle. It's got a weird and limited set
    > of data structures, weird and limited looping constructs,
    > a weird and limited notion of function, etc. BASIC itself
    > is pretty mediocre, but writing for its crazy uncle Bash
    > is pretty unpleasant.
    >
    > The sad thing about Unix is that the technical incompetence
    > of its developers not only makes for lousy technology,
    > but also blinds its users to the need for improvement. They think
    > weird things, like a scripting language isn't a real programming
    > language, so you don't need to know anything about programming
    > languages to create it. They think they can write things like
    > that by the seat of their pants, knowing nothing about computer
    > science, or even being that good at programming. And they end up
    > congratulating themselves for the superb job they've done, because they
    > don't know enough to realize that they should be working within the
    > framework of 4 decades of programming language research. In that
    > tradition, the crazy uncle of one of the lousiest languages to
    > survive from the 1960's wouldn't count for much, but in the
    > Unix world, it's treated with reverence, like it's some
    > powerful and ingenious invention. So you've got these technically
    > incompetent folks, who know nothing about computer science,
    > who are even more clueless about usability and marketing,
    > calling each other gurus and congratulating themselves for
    > knowing more than the folks in Redmond.
    >
    > And what you end up with, is the Unix people let BASIC's crazy uncle
    > out of the attic, and made him run a big part of the Unix
    > show. And the other parts of the show are run by the other
    > loony systems, like X Window and Emacs, which are designed
    > with equal technical incompetence.
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    One of design objectives of Windows 95 Gold was running in 4 MB. Of course,
    it's not quire happy with it. But I've run it with 8 MB and it was not bad
    at all. 8 MB Compaq-branded DIMM then costed 300.
    When (around 1990?) I was told that I need 8 MB to run NT 3, I thought:
    that's a big system!

    I've seen Windows 2000 booting with 32 MB. Like watching paint dry.

    "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:w2Xse.2199$Nz2.1987@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
    >> Windows 3.1 was pretty happy with 2 or 4 MB or RAM,
    >
    > Maybe 4 without many apps open. Not 2.
    >
    >> and Windows 95 could get by with 8MB.
    >
    > Very badly. It was designed for 16, and ran much better in 32+.
    >
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:03:49 GMT, "Alexander Grigoriev"
    <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >One of design objectives of Windows 95 Gold was running in 4 MB. Of course,
    >it's not quire happy with it. But I've run it with 8 MB and it was not bad
    >at all. 8 MB Compaq-branded DIMM then costed 300.
    >When (around 1990?) I was told that I need 8 MB to run NT 3, I thought:
    >that's a big system!
    >
    >I've seen Windows 2000 booting with 32 MB. Like watching paint dry.

    Ugg, I couldn't imagine trying to use Win2K with only 32MB of memory.
    A while back at a summer job I had a computer that ran Win2K with 64MB
    of memory and that was painful enough! I got a fair bit of swapping
    by just booting the OS, let alone running any applications.

    Of course, I was still WAY happier with this solution vs. the other
    option of using Win98. I'd much rather due things slowly once than
    having to do them quicker but re-doing my work all the time due to
    Win98 crashes. I know some people claim that they can run Win98 for
    weeks on end without it crashing, but for me it would crash nearly
    every day (often multiple times in a day) on *EVERY* PC I've ever used
    it on.


    As for Linux, I've run it in a variety of configurations with a wide
    range of memory sizes. One of the real nice points of Linux is how
    flexible it is, on one system I could run a really trimmed down
    version and it'll work just fine on 16MB (might even be able to
    squeeze into 8MB). On my main system I've got 512MB so I load it up
    with all the features, full KDE GUI, etc.


    Honestly though,I don't think there's any point in talking about
    "bloatware" these days. 1GB of memory costs only $100 and that's
    plenty of memory for 99% of users out there today. Hardware has
    pushed ahead much faster than software. If you ask me, I'll take the
    bloat any day if it results in better features. New hardware is
    dirt-cheap, if the problem requires another 512MB of memory, I'll
    gladly spend the extra $50 to get that 512MB of memory when the
    alternative is less functionality from the software. Now obviously
    bloat without adding functionality isn't going to help anything, but
    so long as the software is improving, I'm all for it.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:09:55 -0400, Tony Hill
    <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:04:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
    ><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >>>I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
    >>>of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
    >>>definitely not very intuitive.
    >>
    >>Some that come to mind include DOS, CPM, PRIMOS, KRONOS, RSX-11M,
    >>CGOS. I found all of them relatively easy to learn. In fact Primos is
    >>so intuitive that I was able to connect a Prime mini (an unfamiliar
    >>machine) to a DG mini and perform file transfers merely by referring
    >>to Prime's online help. And I did this within a couple of hours, using
    >>only edit and copy commands, via an RS232 interface.
    >
    >The fact that it took you a couple of hours and required using the
    >on-line help means that this interface was definitely not intuitive.
    >Easy to learn, maybe, but definitely not intuitive.

    I'm including the time taken to familiarise myself with totally
    foreign hardware, and the time taken to make up a cable. The actual
    commands I used were PRINT on the source machine and EDIT on the
    target machine. I needed to consult the online help to find out how to
    place the target machine's text editor into insert mode. IIRC, the
    subcommand was "I" which *is* intuitive.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.

    Have you ever tried the *unoffical* Win98SE Service Pack?
    http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Alexander Grigoriev <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > When (around 1990?) I was told that I need 8 MB to run NT 3, I thought:
    > that's a big system!

    It came out in 1993, sometime around the end of the summer or the fall.

    NT 3.1 (which was the first released) raised the requirement shortly before
    the release date from 8mb to 16mb. I got 16mb of non-brand ram for about
    $500

    Then it turned out that it didn't support Plus hardcards, and I had to get a
    new hard drive and controller to run it.

    > I've seen Windows 2000 booting with 32 MB. Like watching paint dry.

    It's not much better on 64. The real running footprint of just the OS is
    about 80MB, so 96MB is the practical minimum to do *anything*.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

    "This is not a humorous signature."
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    >>
    >>Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
    >>_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
    >>a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
    >>I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
    >>together, often because of units.
    >
    >IIRC TI calculators used a 9-level stack, albeit a hidden one. In fact
    >one could access the stack on a TI-59 using undocumented instructions.
    >So it's clear that TI machines *evaluated* the expressions in the same
    >way as HP calculators, it's just that TI calculators *accepted*
    >expressions as they were written.

    It's irrelvant how TI handled the calculator evaluated the
    expressions. It's the UI which is under discussion, here, and Robert
    (and many others, including myself), prefer the RPN UI.

    >No mental gymnastics were required.

    Are you implying the more "mental gymnastics" are required to use an
    RPN calculator? Because that would be false.

    >Furthermore, the often touted claim that HP calculators were much more
    >economical with keystrokes was a myth which I disproved many a time.

    "Much more economical" sounds to me like a straw-man argument. "At
    least as, and often more, economical" is the truth, not a "myth", in
    every case I've compared the two methods.

    >In any case, whether or not RPN is better than algebraic is
    >irrelevant. My contention is that a person should not have to adapt to
    >technology, but that technology should adapt to him. For example, I
    >should be able to pick up any unfamiliar calculator and key in "1+2=",
    >not the counterintuitive "1 Enter 2 +".

    A superior (or even only preferred) tool is quite often worth the
    investment in how to use it. It's ludicrous to discount RPN
    calculators because they may take a couple days getting used-to.

    >The inner workings should be
    >transparent to the user interface.

    True, but many of us feel the RPN UI is vastly superior, especially
    when used in conjunction with multi-line displays.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:24:27 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> put
    finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
    >
    >Have you ever tried the *unoffical* Win98SE Service Pack?
    >http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

    Looks interesting. I'm loathe to try it on my system, though, because
    I've already applied a lot of the security patches. In any case the SP
    doesn't provide a proper "undo" feature, so I'd only apply it to a
    newly built machine. I did apply several of the tweaks, though. One
    that had a dramatic effect was the addition of
    "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" to the system.ini file. That alone was
    worth the look.

    Thanks.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith wrote:

    > It took me about four hours to master RPN when I got my HP45,
    >and I never looked back. Since, I have had a difficlut time with
    >arethmetic calculators.

    I know. It's like "Now how do I work one of these things again? Oh
    yeah. 6737 minus 1498 equals. Yuck."
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:23:03 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > keith wrote:
    >
    >> It took me about four hours to master RPN when I got my HP45,
    >>and I never looked back. Since, I have had a difficlut time with
    >>arethmetic calculators.
    >
    > I know. It's like "Now how do I work one of these things again? Oh
    > yeah. 6737 minus 1498 equals. Yuck."

    ....and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to do
    other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
    calculators are for the feeble-minded.

    ....got a good RPN calculator for Linux?

    --
    Keith
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > ...got a good RPN calculator for Linux?

    Google? http://www.linuxfocus.org/English/January2004/article319.shtml

    -- Robert

    >
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:54:27 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> put
    finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >>Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
    >>>_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
    >>>a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
    >>>I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
    >>>together, often because of units.
    >>
    >>IIRC TI calculators used a 9-level stack, albeit a hidden one. In fact
    >>one could access the stack on a TI-59 using undocumented instructions.
    >>So it's clear that TI machines *evaluated* the expressions in the same
    >>way as HP calculators, it's just that TI calculators *accepted*
    >>expressions as they were written.
    >
    >It's irrelvant how TI handled the calculator evaluated the
    >expressions. It's the UI which is under discussion, here, and Robert
    >(and many others, including myself), prefer the RPN UI.

    One's *preference* for certain UIs is not at issue here. I'm merely
    claiming the obvious, namely that algebraic calculators have an
    intuitive UI, whereas RPN does not. Take a kid who has never heard of
    RPN, give him a HP calculator without a manual, and then see how long
    he takes to work out what to do.

    FWIW, I'm not averse to using non-intuitive interfaces, especially
    when they provide powerful features. An example is the teco character
    editor which I have used extensively in the past.

    As for my preference for certain UIs, these days I prefer the Windows
    GUI for many tasks, and the DOS CLI for others. My current calculator
    is a scientific, statistical, hex/bin/oct, algebraic one. It cost me
    $5 about 15 years ago.

    >>No mental gymnastics were required.
    >
    >Are you implying the more "mental gymnastics" are required to use an
    >RPN calculator? Because that would be false.

    Algebraic calculators allow me to enter an expression exactly as it is
    written. The machine decides the order of processing. OTOH, RPN
    calculators require that I pre-process the expression and submit it in
    a form which the machine can digest.

    >>Furthermore, the often touted claim that HP calculators were much more
    >>economical with keystrokes was a myth which I disproved many a time.
    >
    >"Much more economical" sounds to me like a straw-man argument. "At
    >least as, and often more, economical" is the truth, not a "myth", in
    >every case I've compared the two methods.

    In my day HP's marketing was making such claims. It seemed like their
    mantra. Personally I've never experienced a difference of more than
    about 10%. In any case, TI calculators had twice the memory, twice the
    features, and cost half as much, so the UI did not affect my
    purchasing decision.

    >>In any case, whether or not RPN is better than algebraic is
    >>irrelevant. My contention is that a person should not have to adapt to
    >>technology, but that technology should adapt to him. For example, I
    >>should be able to pick up any unfamiliar calculator and key in "1+2=",
    >>not the counterintuitive "1 Enter 2 +".
    >
    >A superior (or even only preferred) tool is quite often worth the
    >investment in how to use it. It's ludicrous to discount RPN
    >calculators because they may take a couple days getting used-to.

    I would never discount them for that reason.

    >>The inner workings should be
    >>transparent to the user interface.
    >
    >True, but many of us feel the RPN UI is vastly superior, especially
    >when used in conjunction with multi-line displays.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:08:42 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >Arethmetic calculators are for the feeble-minded.

    I just knew it wouldn't take long for an RPN snob to show his true
    colours.

    BTW, the correct spelling is "arithmetic", and the correct terminology
    is "algebraic" notation. *All* calculators are "arethmetic" (sic).


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.06.24.00.08.41.800268@att.bizzzz...
    >
    > ...and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to
    do
    > other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
    > calculators are for the feeble-minded.

    Feeble-minded? Did I hear my name called? Once upon a time I was
    enormously infatuated by the computer language Forth, because I could
    understand how it worked, because it could work "close to the metal",
    and because it ran very well on my then-favorite CPU.

    Alas, my feeble mind was never able to think in a Forth (RPN) fashion,
    despite extensive efforts to re-educate myself (' a couple days of
    re-education may be required'). And I was never able to make sense of
    HP calculators, even though I recognized their obvious value. To this
    day I don't use Forth (never have) and I use TI calculators (34s
    scattered around the house).

    Felger Carbon
    feeble-minded non-RPN person
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:42:56 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:08:42 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    > to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>Arethmetic calculators are for the feeble-minded.
    >
    > I just knew it wouldn't take long for an RPN snob to show his true
    > colours.

    Snob? No, just stating the obvious. You _are_ feeble minded, as has been
    shown here many times.

    > BTW, the correct spelling is "arithmetic", and the correct terminology
    > is "algebraic" notation. *All* calculators are "arethmetic" (sic).

    Wow! I'm impressed. <what a loon>

    --
    Keith
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:29:18 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

    > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2005.06.24.00.08.41.800268@att.bizzzz...
    >>
    >> ...and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to
    > do
    >> other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
    >> calculators are for the feeble-minded.
    >
    > Feeble-minded? Did I hear my name called?

    Sure. I've been known to summong the spirit of the grand Felger before. ;-)

    > once upon a time I was
    > enormously infatuated by the computer language Forth, because I could
    > understand how it worked, because it could work "close to the metal",
    > and because it ran very well on my then-favorite CPU.

    Apple II?

    > Alas, my feeble mind was never able to think in a Forth (RPN) fashion,
    > despite extensive efforts to re-educate myself (' a couple days of
    > re-education may be required'). And I was never able to make sense of
    > HP calculators, even though I recognized their obvious value. To this
    > day I don't use Forth (never have) and I use TI calculators (34s
    > scattered around the house).

    Case closed. ;-)

    --
    Keith
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
    >>>arethmetic calculators.
    >>
    >> ... and spelling and grammar.
    >
    >Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
    >grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.

    Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
    they cause difficulties for you?


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:08:32 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    > to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
    >>>>arethmetic calculators.
    >>>
    >>> ... and spelling and grammar.
    >>
    >>Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
    >>grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.
    >
    > Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
    > they cause difficulties for you?

    Because I have a brain and use it, though you've pin pointed
    exactly why you can't figure out RPN. You're too easy, kid.

    --
    Keith
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    > Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking"
    > Why is it that they cause difficulties for you?

    Because unlike you, I am not capable of not thinking!

    My problem with parentheses (and it applies just as much to long
    FORTRAN formulae) is that they can be hard to place-and-match.
    Particularly from traditionally written equations where there
    are implied groupings in radicals and hrizontal division bars.
    I look at such a formula, see the parts and their origins, then
    know how to group them even if the parentheses are wrong.

    RPN supports this understanding-based inside-out
    formula entry. Algebraic does not natively.

    -- Robert
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
    > <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

    >>To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
    >>
    >>doskey ls=dir
    >
    >
    > Wow.. talk about a blast from the past.. I haven't used Doskey in
    > ages! Just tested it though, still works in WinXP SP2 though!

    thank you (Franc&Tony) for that. :) i just moved to xp and
    2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
    (3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)

    JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
    NOT so simple with xp! :(

    i DID learn some new stuff about the registry
    for *all* of the windows versions (98&up). :)

    i'm not holding my breath on Longhorn

    >
    >>Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
    >
    >
    > Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>


    yes, 98se has and contines
    to be (!) a real option

    too many focus on the BSOD
    and not on the essence

    i'll grant that a real issue
    with current mobos is that they
    are flakey with their software
    support of an old OS like 98se
    (AMD especially, Intel less so;
    at least in my limited experience)

    i'm still using 98se as well as
    recently 2k and xp (triple boot
    on both pc's with 98DOS/98GUI/2k
    on one, and 98DOS/98GUI/xp on
    the other; via System Commander8.
    i'll grant that how much longer i'll
    use 98se in any serious way is a very
    open question


    >
    >>I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
    >>it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
    >>minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs. I've also used
    >>Coherent, but it involved a *lot* of learning, more than I was
    >>prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
    >>struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language. I believe
    >>that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
    >>processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that used RPN,
    >>such as those made by HP, preferring calculators that supported
    >>standard algebraic notation.)
    >
    >
    > I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
    > of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
    > definitely not very intuitive.


    fwiw, i like command line. :)

    i'm a mainframe guy (ibm '67) with
    nix (Sun/cmd line and later gui)
    experience since '89


    >>FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful replacement for
    >>command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
    >
    >
    > Now that's even more of a blast from the past! I haven't used 4Dos in
    > at least 10 years!

    interesting ref to 4DOS. :)

    bill
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 6/28/2005 17:59, willbill wrote:

    > JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
    > NOT so simple with xp! :(

    This is an interesting statement. What do you find so much more complex
    about the WinXP registry when compared to the Win98 registry?

    I find that they're nearly identical in their organization. In fact,
    significant swaths are exactly the same!

    ~Jason

    --
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Jason Gurtz wrote:

    > On 6/28/2005 17:59, willbill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
    >>NOT so simple with xp! :(
    >
    >
    > This is an interesting statement. What do you find so much more complex
    > about the WinXP registry when compared to the Win98 registry?
    >
    > I find that they're nearly identical in their organization. In fact,
    > significant swaths are exactly the same!


    you are right in that the registry itself
    doesn't seem to have changed that much

    my frustration is showing; i got carried away.
    sorry

    otoh, my 2nd failed try with XP (error 633 when
    atempting to use my extermanl modem with the
    dialer) was likely due to flakey s/w installation
    screwing up the XP registry. not sure if it was
    trying a newer modem driver (US Robotics v.92)
    or a failed installed of MSI video capture drivers
    (for a VIVO board). when i went to the MS
    knowledgebase, i was amazed at all of the screwy
    stuff that can mess up the registry (with 95 thru
    XP and 2003)

    then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
    each with their own set of problems!

    the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
    file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?
    i've easily been able to do that with 98SE by
    booting into DOS (98SE DOS), and restoring the
    registry from backups i do in the autoexec.bat
    (today, yesterday, this week, last week; using a DOS
    do once program). then too, 98 keeps reg backups
    for the last 5 days in the sysbckup directory

    KB 307545 (How to recover from a corrupted registry
    that prevents Windows XP from starting) may get
    me some insight into the NTFS problem (i've not
    read thru it yet)

    one other note is that my current compressed 98SE
    reg backups (rb00x.cab) are 1.5 MB. in XP Pro a
    backup of the "system files" gives a file (compressed?)
    that is 443 MB in size!

    that size difference suggests to me that XP
    has more complexity; meaning it isn't all bloat

    fwiw, in XP i now keep a written log of my installs,
    registry backups, and backups of my boot drive
    (to other hard drives (using 2003 DOS Ghost) that
    i only plug in when i do boot drive backups)

    i mean i hate it when a drive dies, or the system
    goes belly up

    what i do like about XP is that 3rd party
    s/w companies focus on making their s/w
    work with XP, whereas with 98SE that is
    no longer true. my MSI (NVidia) video
    board is a good example: in 98SE i get
    a lot less video performance than i do in XP
    (same machine; triple boot via System Commander8:
    98SE-DOS, 98SE-gui, XP)

    bill
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 6/29/2005 17:26, willbill wrote:

    > then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
    > each with their own set of problems!

    Not really. XP home is just a subset of XP Pro.

    > the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
    > file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?

    You should investigate "Bart PE boot CD" for working on failed systems
    with NTFS partitions. DOS based OS's(Win98) on boot disks have no hope of
    reading NTFS. Also see sysinternals.com and may want to check out the
    acronis utils.

    ~Jason

    --
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:36:58 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    >> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking"
    >> Why is it that they cause difficulties for you?
    >
    >Because unlike you, I am not capable of not thinking!

    >My problem with parentheses (and it applies just as much to long
    >FORTRAN formulae) is that they can be hard to place-and-match.

    I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN. They are
    *all* written down in algebraic notation, parentheses and all. The
    correct, or incorrect, placing and matching of parentheses in a
    formula has absolutely *no* bearing on the relative suitability of one
    calculator UI over another.

    >Particularly from traditionally written equations where there
    >are implied groupings in radicals and hrizontal division bars.
    >I look at such a formula, see the parts and their origins, then
    >know how to group them even if the parentheses are wrong.

    >RPN supports this understanding-based inside-out
    >formula entry.

    .... which of course confirms my original point that RPN is
    counter-intuitive.

    >Algebraic does not natively.

    OK, so I have to add two sets of parentheses, one for the numerator
    and one for the denominator. No big deal, I can handle a little bit of
    "thinking". In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
    intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to make until
    some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:08:24 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:08:32 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
    >> to keyboard and composed:
    >>
    >>>>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
    >>>>>arethmetic calculators.
    >>>>
    >>>> ... and spelling and grammar.
    >>>
    >>>Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
    >>>grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.
    >>
    >> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
    >> they cause difficulties for you?
    >
    >Because I have a brain and use it,

    How does your RPN-only "brain" cope with algebraic engineering
    formulae?

    >... though you've pin pointed
    >exactly why you can't figure out RPN. You're too easy, kid.

    RPN has never been a problem for me. If RPN calculators had been
    competitively priced, I would have used them. Unlike you, I'm no snob.

    My only contention all along, until you accused me of being
    feeble-minded, was that algebraic UIs were intuitive whereas RPN UIs
    were not. Clearly this is supported by your own excessively lengthy
    learning curve, and by another post which refers to "inside-out"
    thinking.

    Here is a dictionary definition:

    intuition n. immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning

    intuitive a. of, possessing, perceived by, intuition

    If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
    of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
    interface, all other things being equal. OTOH, if you prefer to handle
    simple jobs in a complicated way, then try something like this:

    http://www.rube-goldberg.com/html/pencil_sharpener.htm


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    > I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN.

    Nor have I seen any scientific formulae expressed in linear
    sequential algebraic notation when the idea was to competently
    express complex formulae to humans. To machines, sure.
    In poorly typeset papers, sure.

    But competent journals go to considerable trouble typesetting
    equations with various flavors of parentheses, long horizontal
    division lines and radical roofs. Why do they go to the trouble?
    It is much easier type the formula as linear algebraic FORTRAN-style
    (((((((1+X)/(((..... They go to the trouble because people do
    _not_ understand formulae linearly. They understand them by
    building up terms, mostly from the inside-out.

    > In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
    > intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to
    > make until some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.

    Left-to-right may be the way english is read (and right-to-left
    other languages), but I do not understand formulae in any such
    linear fashion. I _understand_ formulae and can usually rebuild
    them from first principles. This understanding is based on terms,
    and usually works from inside-out. Sometimes from outside-in
    when terms have been refined.

    I personally find RPN _far_ more intuitive for calculating formulae,
    especially long, complex ones. It works by calculating out terms.
    Algebraic calculators may be simpler for people who just want a
    cookbook recipe. Check the brackets are matched and pray when
    they hit = .

    -- Robert
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
    >of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
    >interface, all other things being equal.

    But Frank, we've already explained that we think the RPN interface is
    better. B e t t e r.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    >> I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN.
    >
    >Nor have I seen any scientific formulae expressed in linear
    >sequential algebraic notation when the idea was to competently
    >express complex formulae to humans. To machines, sure.
    >In poorly typeset papers, sure.
    >
    >But competent journals go to considerable trouble typesetting
    >equations with various flavors of parentheses, long horizontal
    >division lines and radical roofs. Why do they go to the trouble?
    >It is much easier type the formula as linear algebraic FORTRAN-style
    >(((((((1+X)/(((..... They go to the trouble because people do
    >_not_ understand formulae linearly. They understand them by
    >building up terms, mostly from the inside-out.
    >
    >> In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
    >> intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to
    >> make until some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.
    >
    >Left-to-right may be the way english is read (and right-to-left
    >other languages), but I do not understand formulae in any such
    >linear fashion. I _understand_ formulae and can usually rebuild
    >them from first principles. This understanding is based on terms,
    >and usually works from inside-out. Sometimes from outside-in
    >when terms have been refined.
    >
    >I personally find RPN _far_ more intuitive for calculating formulae,
    >especially long, complex ones. It works by calculating out terms.
    >Algebraic calculators may be simpler for people who just want a
    >cookbook recipe. Check the brackets are matched and pray when
    >they hit = .

    Good answer.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
    >> <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >>>To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
    >>>
    >>>doskey ls=dir
    >>
    >>
    >> Wow.. talk about a blast from the past.. I haven't used Doskey in
    >> ages! Just tested it though, still works in WinXP SP2 though!
    >
    >thank you (Franc&Tony) for that. :) i just moved to xp and
    >2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
    >(3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)

    Hmm.. was that doing clean installs or upgrades? I've never really
    had any trouble doing clean-installs of WinXP (or any OS for that
    matter), but upgrades are VERY hit and miss.

    >JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
    >NOT so simple with xp! :(
    >
    >i DID learn some new stuff about the registry
    >for *all* of the windows versions (98&up). :)
    >
    >i'm not holding my breath on Longhorn

    Anyone holding their breath for Longhorn will suffocate LONG before it
    even hits store shelves, me thinks..

    >>>Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
    >>
    >>
    >> Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>
    >
    >
    >yes, 98se has and contines
    >to be (!) a real option
    >
    >too many focus on the BSOD
    >and not on the essence

    My experience with Win9x is that BSODs WERE the essence of it!
    Actually, to be fair, I very rarely blue-screened Win9x, maybe only
    once ever 10-20 crashes. Unfortunately the damn thing would become so
    horribly unstable, with applications crashing and locking up, that I
    would have to reboot on a VERY regular basis. I could rarely get a
    day's worth of work done without being forced to reboot when using
    Win9x, and it was not at all abnormal for me to have to reboot 4 or 5
    times in a day. And despite popular belief, this had NOTHING to do
    with hardware or drivers, it happened on EVERY PC I used.

    >i'll grant that a real issue
    >with current mobos is that they
    >are flakey with their software
    >support of an old OS like 98se
    >(AMD especially, Intel less so;
    > at least in my limited experience)

    I wouldn't know. I installed Win2K back in March of 2000 and have had
    absolutely no desire to look back. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but my
    experience with Win9x was abysmal to say the least. As soon as I
    tried stretching the legs of the system the least little bit (ie
    running three whole applications at the same time! :> ) the system
    would start causing all kinds of troubles. Applications would cease
    getting processor cycles, the various sections of memory would get
    filled up, explorer would crash, or any number of other possible
    problems. The only common denominator was that the OS was totally
    incapable of recovering from such situations.

    >> I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
    >> of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
    >> definitely not very intuitive.
    >
    >
    >fwiw, i like command line. :)
    >
    >i'm a mainframe guy (ibm '67) with
    >nix (Sun/cmd line and later gui)
    >experience since '89

    I like command lines for some things because, as mentioned above, they
    can be very useful to accomplish some tasks. GUIs can also be very
    useful for accomplishing other tasks. Different tools for different
    jobs.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Jason Gurtz wrote:

    > On 6/29/2005 17:26, willbill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
    >>each with their own set of problems!
    >
    >
    > Not really. XP home is just a subset of XP Pro.


    really?

    it may be a subset, but whatever MS
    did in pruning XP Home down added
    additional loopholes. i mean
    i saw at least one error writeup on
    the MS Knowledgebase that appeared to
    be specific to only XP Home and not Pro


    >>the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
    >>file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?
    >
    >
    > You should investigate "Bart PE boot CD" for working on failed systems
    > with NTFS partitions. DOS based OS's(Win98) on boot disks have no hope of
    > reading NTFS. Also see sysinternals.com and may want to check out the
    > acronis utils.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    are the Acronis utils part of Acronis True Image 8.0?
    or are they a separate package by some other name?


    bill
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

    >> Tony Hill wrote:

    >>... i just moved to xp and
    >>2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
    >>(3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)
    >
    >
    > Hmm.. was that doing clean installs or upgrades?


    correct. i loaded XP Pro, then ran the sp2 upgrade


    > I've never really
    > had any trouble doing clean-installs of WinXP (or any OS for that
    > matter), but upgrades are VERY hit and miss.


    i had/have 98SE on the machine but nothing
    from 98 was taken into the XP install.
    HD#1 (250GB) has c: d: and e: (all fat32);
    f: is the dvd/cd, g: is the last partition
    on HD#1 and is NTFS. mobo is Tyan 2875
    with an AMD Opty 142. HD#2 is a raid1 array


    >>>Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>
    >>
    >>
    >>yes, 98se has and contines
    >>to be (!) a real option
    >>
    >>too many focus on the BSOD
    >>and not on the essence
    >
    >
    > My experience with Win9x is that BSODs WERE the essence of it!


    <smiling>


    > Actually, to be fair, I very rarely blue-screened Win9x, maybe only
    > once ever 10-20 crashes. Unfortunately the damn thing would become so
    > horribly unstable, with applications crashing and locking up, that I
    > would have to reboot on a VERY regular basis. I could rarely get a
    > day's worth of work done without being forced to reboot when using
    > Win9x, and it was not at all abnormal for me to have to reboot 4 or 5
    > times in a day. And despite popular belief, this had NOTHING to do
    > with hardware or drivers, it happened on EVERY PC I used.


    geez tony, you're never gonna touch any of my PCs. :)

    fwiw, i likely caused my 1st xp install failure
    (it didn't fail during the install, only later
    when i was loading 3rd party s/w). i wasn't very far
    into it, so it was an easy decision to start from
    scratch again. (i booted from my system commander cd
    and ran their partition commander (a freebie included
    on the cd) to delete the NTFS g: partition), and the
    3 files on the c: root, and then installed xp again

    the 2nd xp failure was painful coz i'd put a lot of
    time into installing 3rd party software

    after the 3rd install, the key things i've done
    differently are: i only loaded the Intel Ethernet
    drivers (and not the software; from the Tyan cd),
    i didn't load any video board drivers (from
    the MSI cd), i didn't load any modem drivers
    (from the US Robotics cd)


    >>i'll grant that a real issue
    >>with current mobos is that they
    >>are flakey with their software
    >>support of an old OS like 98se
    >>(AMD especially, Intel less so;
    >> at least in my limited experience)
    >
    >
    > I wouldn't know. I installed Win2K back in March of 2000 and have had
    > absolutely no desire to look back.


    i 1st loaded 2000 in early '01 and was similarly impressed.
    now that it's got sp4 i'm even more impressed

    bill
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:03:58 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> put
    finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >>If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
    >>of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
    >>interface, all other things being equal.
    >
    >But Frank, we've already explained that we think the RPN interface is
    >better. B e t t e r.

    You and Robert are welcome to think what you like and how you like. I
    have used both UIs and find no significant benefit in RPN. In any
    case, I never intended to argue about the relative merits of one over
    the other, except to state the obvious, namely that one is intuitive
    whereas the other is not. I n t u i t i v e.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware DOS Unix Shell IBM