Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Irby, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. No, because I know that I can when I need to.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Mar 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. I don't use a command line for everything, but if I need to delete all
    files of a specific type (say .BAK) in a directory, opening up a command
    line in that directory and typing "del *.bak" is pretty quick.
    Pat O'Connell, Mar 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    While laser typesetters and laser printers were around before the Mac,
    PostScript wasn't to speak of--the LaserWriter and the PostScript RIP
    for the Linotronics were more or less contemporary. A matter of lucking
    into a market rather than any kind of brilliant planning--the first
    laser imagesetters that could do halftones hit the market around the
    same time that the Mac did and by using the same RIP on the printer and
    the imagesetter the printer could be used as a cheap proofing tool for
    the Linotronic.

    The first PostScript output from TeX came a year or so later and I'm not
    sure how long it was after that before dvips was ready for production

    But getting back to business, if Linotype hadn't decided to support the
    Mac with the Linotronic, then nobody in the graphics business would have
    given it a second glance. It's the Linotronic that was designed for
    graphics, with the Mac being a kind of crappy peripheral.
    J. Clarke, Mar 17, 2007
  4. Has anyone actually insisted on using a command line for everything? Or
    have we just expressed a preference for doing *some* things on a command

    J. F. Cornwall, Mar 17, 2007
  5. Irby

    Ron Hunter Guest

    So can I. I just have to remember where I put the command line thing.
    I so rarely need such a thing, I always have to look for it.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 17, 2007
  6. Irby

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sort by extension, select .bak files, press delete. Can probably do it
    faster than you can open the command line, and do the typing. CERTAINLY
    faster than *I* can do the typing, and I don't have to worry about
    killing files unintentionally because of a typo.
    Yes, there are command line functions that are easier for some
    functions, but they have other drawbacks, and there are usually programs
    which will do the job better, and safer.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 17, 2007
  7. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    Not faster than I can do it since if my file browser has selected
    a folder for viewing, if I type <SHIFT><F6> it will open a DOS
    window in that directory/folder. But let's make it a bit more
    difficult. Instead of just deleting *.bak files, you have a folder
    full of many types of files such that sorting just by the filename
    or by the filename extension won't allow the browser to align them
    contiguously, since if you sort by filename, you'll have .txt files
    interleaved with the .bak files. If I had many appropriately named
    Insurance files and many similarly named Vacation files, in a DOS
    window I'd be able to type "dir insuran*.bak" and if the displayed
    files looked good (no pesky typos), I'd then type "del" and hit <F3>
    to complete the command line, getting 'del insuran*.bak". I'd then
    repeat with "dir vacati*.bak". So I don't have to worry about
    killing files unintentionally because of a typo, but if I had to use
    a file browser to select such files for deletion, there would be a
    greater chance of inadvertently selecting (and not noticing) some
    file(s) that shouldn't be deleted. Mistakes happen while using
    file browsers. That's why they have "Undo" menu options. But
    they're more useful for correcting gross, obvious mistakes.
    Accidentally deleting a small number of files will probably not be
    noticed until long after the Undo operation is no longer operable.

    But if you're happy doing things as you are, without worrying,
    continue to do so. I'm envisioning this picture of you in front of
    the computer monitor, smiling, thinking "What, me worry?" <g>
    ASAAR, Mar 17, 2007
  8. Irby

    lex Guest

    Well PC's just suck.
    lex, Mar 17, 2007
  9. Irby

    Sudee Guest

    Are you using Windows? Typing <SHIFT><F6> does nothing on my XP machine. Anyway,
    sorting by extension will clump ALL *.bak files together, with a SECONDARY sort
    by name. Select the clump of *.bak files or just a section of them , hit <del>.
    You're done.

    So I don't have to worry about
    If you're concerned about accidents, don't empty your trash for a while. And/or
    sort through your trash before empying it.
    DOS window still has it's uses, but I'm not convinced this particular use has
    any advantage either in terms of time or reliability. If it's what you're used
    to, in your comfort zone, go for it.
    <g> Or maybe it has mystique value to impress others or yourself with how
    computer savvy you are. I can dig that.</g>


    Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might as well
    Sudee, Mar 17, 2007
  10. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, Windows XP. I could also open DOS windows when I used Win95.
    I said that the DOS window was opened from within my file browser.
    I rarely use Windows Explorer, which doesn't have this ability,
    preferring to use Powerdesk Pro instead. The versions that I used
    previously had a slightly different names and the product was
    eventually acquired by VCOM.

    There are many ways to accomplish this. Your method works (but I
    have to re-sort once more by extension or the files aren't
    contiguous), but I still think that my method is a bit quicker and
    allows more options, one of which could be taking only a second or
    two to create a text file showing all of the soon-to-be-deleted
    files, if that sort of information might be needed at a future date.
    ASAAR, Mar 17, 2007
  11. Navigate to the folder holding the files you want to work on. Hit
    [Windows]-F to bring up the search window. Type your file selection
    requirements in the various boxes ("*.bak" will work nicely as a search
    option) and hit [Start]. You get a preview of all the files that match
    the criteria, including selections within given time and dates
    created/modified etc., size range etc. that can't be selected easily
    from the command line. If it looks good, his CTRL-A to select them all,
    then [delete]. All gone.

    Much more flexible than a naked command-line, with safety options of
    previewing the list of files selected before deletion. If you want to
    delete some but not all of the files selected, either tag or untag them
    before committing to the delete operation. A command-line operation is
    all or nothing, an overlooked typo possibly fatal.
    Robert Sneddon, Mar 17, 2007
  12. Irby

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And I haven't needed to use Windows.

    Cool, eh?
    Ray Fischer, Mar 17, 2007
  13. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    That's simply another method, but one that doesn't allow the
    options I already mentioned that are possible from the command line.

    Wrong. Less flexible, as demonstrated before. Typo protection
    was mentioned, and when there are many files to delete, there are
    simple ways to duplicate the previewing and tagging. In such cases
    the command line probably wouldn't be as quick, so in those cases I
    simply don't use the command line. I use what works best, as
    opposed to those that refuse to use (or don't know how to use) the
    command line when it would get the job done quicker.

    Is that <Windows> key supposed to be Microsoft's way of keeping up
    with Apple's <Apple> key? :) When I want to bring up the search
    window I either right click on the folder and select [File Finder]
    or if the folder is already highlighted, simply hit the <F3> key.
    ASAAR, Mar 17, 2007
  14. It's not the machine, it's the operating system (DOS/Windows) that has
    always sucked. (From an old Amiga, now, Linux user, and 30 years a
    professional photographer whose never owned a Mac.)

    DOS through the various Windows incarnations has always been designed
    primarily for business use. Microsoft wrote DOS to run on the IBM,
    International BUSINESS Machines, PC. So, the OS (DOS) was optimized to
    handle text efficiently. Applications were those that businesses
    needed. Sophisticated graphics was NOT possible. When Apple came out
    with it's first machine, it came with a graphic OS, designed from the
    ground up, based on research done by the Xerox Corporation. (Actually
    Jobs and his cohorts stole the concept.) Since it was graphics based, it
    was efficient at handling graphics and as the business market was pretty much cornered by
    Microsoft by then, Apple marketed their machines at gamers and artists.
    Graphics was their strength, and they played on that, and developed the
    reputation as a "graphics" machine for the game player and the artist.
    All the while, promoting the connotation that PCs were "business
    machines," which they really were design to be.

    By the time, Microsoft jumped on the graphic interface bandwagon with
    Windows 1.0, which in reality wasn't an OS at all, but a graphic shell
    running on top of DOS, Apple and Macs had the reputation as THE machine
    for all things graphic and artistic. And the GUI and all the utilities
    were designed for the non-technical artist to make setting up and
    configuring things as non-technical as possible. The PC was for
    business people, not artists.

    Stefan Patric, Mar 17, 2007
  15. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    If you're referring to the Macintosh, that wasn't Apple's first
    machine. There was the Lisa, the Apple II and even an Apple I which
    I saw assembled in pieces mounted on what appeared to be a piece of
    plywood. I don't think that those early Apples borrowed anything
    from Xerox Parc.
    ASAAR, Mar 18, 2007
  16. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    Actually DOS was cobbled up to be a temporary replacement for CP/M until
    the real thing became available and didn't handle text with any
    particular efficiency, with the result that many application developers
    ignored the operating system entirely and accessed the hardware
    directly, which led to all sorts of problems later.
    Of course they were. AutoCAD ran fine on the original PC. So did
    Cadkey, a full 3D system. And then there were games such as Jet and
    Flight Simulator. Digital Research came up with a graphical shell for
    MS-DOS that ran on the original PC and was sufficiently Mac-like to
    induce Apple to sue--this led to the early success of Xerox Ventura
    Publisher which was at the time more capable than PageMaker but not as
    good as FrameMaker which did not run on the Mac until later.
    Uh, Apple's first machine was the Apple I, built in the off-hours in
    HP's labs, and to those who say that it was thus "stolen" from HP, bear
    in mind that Woz offered it to them and they gave him a release--they
    didn't want it. The success of the company was the result of the Apple
    II, a number of ideas from which were incorporated into the IBM PC. It
    owed nothing to PARC. The Mac wasn't even Applie's first GUI
    machine--that was the Lisa. The Apple II had quite a few games, most of
    them non-graphic, and _its_ major success was in _business_ with
    Visicalc. Wasn't until Micrososoft wrote Excel that the Mac had
    anything comparable.
    Actually, it wasn't particularly. It had graphic primitives in the OS
    (more of a monitor actually--wasn't really much more sophisticated than
    DOS and CP/M--wasn't even multitasking, just a task-switcher that froze
    the background tasks). Was a long time before there was a decent CAD
    program for the Mac--since bypassing the OS and accessing the hardware
    directly was difficult that had to wait until the hardware got powerful
    enough that accessing it through the relatively inefficient OS routines
    didn't result in unacceptable performance penalties. The Mac had
    another problem then--the native resolution wasn't very high (less,
    actually, than an original PC with the ubiqitous Hercules video adapter)
    and there wasn't any way to improve it. Also had a tiny little screen
    and no way to improve that. Wasn't until the Mac II shipped that these
    issues could be addressed. A friend of mine was running a two megapixel
    display on his PC when the Mac was still stuck with its tiny built in
    monitor. His (adult PhD) daughter had a Mac and kept trying to sell him
    one but that tiny little low-res display was a deal-breaker.
    Funny, I don't remember there _ever_ being a game market for the Mac
    that was comparable to that for the PC.
    Actually they were designed to combine the best features of the Apple II
    and CP/M machines and up the ante with a 16-bit processor.
    Semantics. One could argue with equal validity that OS/X isn't an
    operating system at all but a graphic shell running on top of Unix.
    Yes, it did. A triumph of marketing over reality. An RT or a Sun or an
    Apollo kicked its ass the day that the Mac shipped. And then there was
    the Star, which was in a league of its own if you could get your hands
    on one.
    Mainly because the hardware was so limited that there wasn't anything to
    set up.
    J. Clarke, Mar 18, 2007
  17. Irby

    AZ Nomad Guest

    DOS wasn't designed primarily for anything. It was just a file system
    and program loader. And microsoft didn't write DOS; they bought
    AZ Nomad, Mar 18, 2007
  18. MS didn't buy DOS. DOS didn't exist, then. Actually, Bill Gates
    purchased the rights to CP/M for $200 IIRC, then that code was modified,
    added to, tweeked, etc. to meet the requirements (and the deadline) in
    their contract (or partnership) with IBM to produce an OS for the first
    PC, and that became DOS. This was from Uncle Bill's own mouth in an
    interview I saw a few years ago on the history of computers. It also jives
    with my memories and experiences, and what I was reading from those times.

    Stefan Patric, Mar 19, 2007
  19. Stop skirting the issues , How would you like to work for me :) -
    lets see how much of the world we can change for the better.
    Adsense-Support, Mar 19, 2007
  20. Yes, I was thinking of the Mac, specifically, when I wrote the above.
    Perhaps, I should have said, "'s first machine, that used a...."
    Anyways, the second part is true by Jobs own admission.

    Xerox was doing research on how to make computers more accessible and
    usable to the average office worker, and that research lead to the
    graphic based user interface before anyone else thought of it. Jobs said
    in the interview that he and his friends, who were developing the Apple,
    spent lots of time talking with the Xerox programmers, and they (Jobs,
    et al) knew of the new interface concept, and when they could, they
    shamelessly used that concept in their computer. I don't know if Xerox
    ever got a patent on the GUI.

    Stefan Patric, Mar 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.