*nix on "classic" systems

[Chuck Guzis]

On 12 Apr 2007 at 9:25, jvdg at sparcpark.net wrote:

> What's meant here is that the Chris M has a point: you *do* cheat yourself of some
> functionality when using a non-windowed environment "these days". However, you
> also cheat yourself of functionality exactly by using a windows environment. There
> are things that are much more efficient if you don't have to wrestle the
> point-and-click interface. 

My point was that graphical capabilities are perhaps sufficient, but 
not necessary for a windowed environment.  Similarly, a windowed 
environment does not require graphics.  I have a copy of Mewel 
(including source code) here that illustrates that quite nicely.

If I look at the screen I'm working with now under MS Windows, one 
thing that strikes me is that, with the exception of a few icons, 
it's almost entirely text.  By and large, the graphics aspect is 
being wasted on me at this time.

On the other hand, when I'm working on musical scores, the complexity 
of the notation demands that I always keep the screen as a single 
window.   Windowing is pretty much wasted there, although graphics is 
not.  In fact, music programs that have modal command entry, using 
windowing to display sub-menus are incredibly annoying and slow to 
use.

Whether windowing serves games, I can't say.  I've not played one 
since the days of SIMCGA (when I got my fill).

To some, windowing implies only a message-passing event-based 
operating system interface, with keystrokes, mouse movements, etc. 
going to the window currently holding the focus.

When we carelessly say "windowing is the same as GUI", we're simply 
displaying fuzzy thinking and can easily fall into the trap of 
thinking that there's only one way to accomplish a task.  Judging 
from the number of repetitive stress injuries and eyestrain that 
industry endures, perhaps graphical message-passing windows aren't 
the best way.

Canon Cat owners are invited to comment.

Cheers,
Chuck