Re: Re, Re : set prompt

From: Alan E. Feldman (spamsink2001_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/21/04 

Date: 20 Aug 2004 22:41:54 -0700

David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message news:<41262D8F.2040602@tsoft-inc.com>...
> Alan E. Feldman wrote:
>
>
[...]
> > using telnet. At my current job I rarely use VT terminals. I currently
> > open multiple SmarTerm sessions in multiple SmarTerm windows. I can
> > switch among sessions with Ctrl-Tab (or Alt-W then select a session
> > from a list, all of which can be done without the stupid mouse) and
> > among windows with Alt-Tab or Windows-Tab. (I have 35 MicroVAX systems
> > on line to tend to.)
> >
> > But I don't like the SmarTerm FTP. In fact I think it stinks. In fact,
> > for FTP I open a DOS window and use its FTP!
>
> Interesting comment on SmarTerm's FTP. I've used it, and normally like the drag
> and drop interface. I've had problems transfering large files where it appears
> to complete transfering, but doesn't complete the transaction, and the
> destination file isn't usable. What don't you like about it?

Hmmm. It's been a while since I tried SmarTerm's FTP. So give me a few
minutes to re-familiarize myself with. Hold on . . .

[WARNING! Rant alert!]

OK. Starts in stupid directory.

Only 3 lines of command output. Way too little. A definite PITA.

Not that excited about drag and drop. Hate the mouse.

When I open the Properties menu, I choose Text or Binary. I always
worry that maybe it didn't take and I have to drop the menu again just
to be sure the check is on the right mode. Then I still worry. There's
an auto mode? Yes, I know. But I was told it doesn't work that well.
I'd rather just do it right the first time. If I'm in a command
window, I just type ASCII or BIN and I'm done with it. Alert! I just
noticed a text/binary/auto indicator buttons. OK, mode confirmation is
not too hard, though I prefer words to visual indicators like these.
And I still worry.

I have to keep moving the focus around the screen via Tab. A pain in
the ***. No, I don't like using the stupid mouse.

SmarTerm FTP Command mode:

No command recall.

Dull gray background in command output window provides poor contrast.
And it has yucky typography. Not enough vertical whitespace and the
times look more like separate columns of numbers than actual times.
Too difficult to read. Yuck.

And what's the point of the separate input window? Just how does that
make it better than a regular command window? And without command
recall!

I find it easier to use DOS FTP. I just type simple commands and hit
Return. No skipping among fields every time I want to do something. No
spasmodic Windows menus to deal with. And the GUI for looking for
files? I usually prepare on each system if necessary before running
FTP. Yeah, it's a bit of typing for long paths/directories/whatevers
at the ftp> prompt, but it's mostly typing letters, which is the
easiest type of typing. So I still find it much easier than the
SmarTerm FTP GUI. If needed, I do use Windows Explorer to prepare
things on the PC side. Or I'll use DOS commands to get to the desired
directory before starting FTP. Or I'll move the file after the
transfer outside of FTP. The Windows Explorer "file system browser" is
much better than the SmarTerm FTP version. If I liked using the mouse,
maybe it would be okay except for the tiny three-line command output
window. Sometimes with DOS FTP I need to use its help, which is easy
to use.

OK, if I happen to be in a drag and drop mood, I might use it. But DOS
FTP is not that big a deal to use. And SmarTerm FTP's three-line
command output window is way too small. I find it a ROYAL PITA to
scroll it to see the output. And it's claustrophobic. Why not just do
it all in a regular command window? No *** footing around. No lame
file system browsers. Just do it! Simple, clean, efficient.

In fact, this tiny-window syndrome is one of my all-time biggest pet
peeves about the Windows user interface. Lots of times in Windows we
have windows that are too small. They should at least make these
stupid Open, Save As, and any similar "file system browser windows"
maximizable. Why am I not allowed to see more of the file system
without having to scroll endlessly? And click endlessly. Just put it
all up and let me read it like a human being. Sheeeeeesh! If you
bought a book, but you couldn't read it without looking through a mask
that has a 1"x3" decoder window, would you not be rather upset? Well,
the Windows people say, "You can scroll!" "You can move the mask as
you read!" Yeah, I can swim across the East River, too. But I'd rather
take the subway.

And an extra comment about MS Access (97). The one time I used it
regularly I was making reports. And it always showed me only about 95%
of each page. The last column would either be off the edge or mostly
off the edge of the window. And if you tried scrolling to see that
last missing bit, you would not be able to see most of the page. WHY
FOR GOD'S SAKE? Is this a big technical challenge? Making a page fit
in a window?

My theory is that the Windows programmers, marketers, or whoever, are
trying to not confuse the user with huge amount of stuff on the screen
(but this doesn't explain Access type stupidities). Fine, but they
could at least give us a maximize button. We've got the big monitors
-- which have lots of screen. Use it!

… … …