New DOS shell for Windows coming

[keith]

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]

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]

It took me less time to learn the Hangul alphabet. RPN was even
easier, but then I already understood a little Polish.
Idiot!


... and spelling and grammar.

I just showed the HPites my TI59's magnetic card reader, its ROM
modules (eg stats, engineering), its printer interface, and its vastly
superior program memory. The HP97 didn't come close, not even at twice
the price. HP calculators had the glam (for reasons that escape me),
but TI had the grunt.

Idiot. The HPs ran circles around the TIs without cheat-sheets. Only a
true idiot would defend the TIs of the '70s. Yes, I understand that you
fit the mold perfectly.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

 

[keith]

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

Hadn't been interested enough, yet. Though the calculator in the dirtro
sucks. I see there is a PalmOS calculator in there too. Cool. Thanks.

 

[keith]

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.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

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

 

[chrisv]

The HPs ran circles around the TIs without cheat-sheets. Only a
true idiot would defend the TIs of the '70s. Yes, I understand that you
fit the mold perfectly.

The TI's had crappy keyboards, as well. You could pretty much count
on them going bad on you after a year or so.

 

[willbill]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:04:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar



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.

As someone more famous than myself once said:

"The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all
learned."

keeping it on topic, i kinda like this:

<"Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we
call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all
about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie
potential forms of consciousness entirely different. William James
(1842-1910), U.S. psychologist, philosopher. The Varieties of
Religious Experience, Lectures 16-17, "Mysticism" (1902)">

best, bill

 

[willbill]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar



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

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'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

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

 

[keith]

The TI's had crappy keyboards, as well. You could pretty much count
on them going bad on you after a year or so.

I'd forgotten about that difference (TI's and their users weren't to be
taken seriously). The HPs had the "cricket" for tactile feedback, sorta
the Model-M of the day. ;-)

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

 

[Franc Zabkar]

The TI's had crappy keyboards, as well. You could pretty much count
on them going bad on you after a year or so.

Thirty years ago when I was earning $56pw pumping petrol, I paid $250
for a TI59. For an additional 4.5 weeks wages I could have bought a
HP97 with half the features and half the performance, but this
engineer-to-be decided that an additional month of drudgery was much
too high a price to pay for the dubious promises of superior tactile
feedback and superior UI. Even today, when I can afford to buy
anything I want, I still remain one of those unassuming people who
buys a watch that indicates the time rather than one's social status.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

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

 

[Jason Gurtz]

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

--

 

[chrisv]

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.

 

[chrisv]

Thirty years ago when I was earning $56pw pumping petrol, I paid $250
for a TI59. For an additional 4.5 weeks wages I could have bought a
HP97 with half the features and half the performance, but this
engineer-to-be decided that an additional month of drudgery was much
too high a price to pay for the dubious promises of superior tactile
feedback and superior UI. Even today, when I can afford to buy
anything I want, I still remain one of those unassuming people who
buys a watch that indicates the time rather than one's social status.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote again, about the TI keyboards
going bad. This is not the same thing as having inferior tactical
feedback or a lower prestige value.

 

[chrisv]

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.


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.

 

[willbill]

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