life after Windows....

aracari writes:

It is not a GUI op/system.

Neither was Windows NT in the beginning, and neither is UNIX.

Does the term 'commandline' mean anything to you?

With a space in it--command line--yes.

I know of no mainstream GUI op/sys that hasn't been developed
in this way. Any other way would not pass muster.

As I recall, Windows 3.x had an integrated GUI from the beginning, and
possibly also the old Mac OS. I don't know the internals of earlier examples
of GUI-equipped operating systems.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

It is not a GUI op/system.

Neither was Windows NT in the beginning, and neither is UNIX.

Does the term 'commandline' mean anything to you?

With a space in it--command line--yes.

I know of no mainstream GUI op/sys that hasn't been developed
in this way. Any other way would not pass muster.

As I recall, Windows 3.x had an integrated GUI from the beginning, and
possibly also the old Mac OS. I don't know the internals of earlier examples
of GUI-equipped operating systems.

the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
later.

Mxsmanic wrote:

As I recall, Windows 3.x had an integrated GUI from the beginning, and
possibly also the old Mac OS. I don't know the internals of earlier examples
of GUI-equipped operating systems.

Win3.x still ran on top of DOS.

In article , aracari
wrote:

I know of no mainstream GUI op/sys that hasn't been developed
in this way. Any other way would not pass muster.

As I recall, Windows 3.x had an integrated GUI from the beginning, and
possibly also the old Mac OS. I don't know the internals of earlier
examples
of GUI-equipped operating systems.

the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
later.

Probably nonsense.

it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.

aracari writes:

All GUIs become integrated, but I was referring to the development
of the op/sys's underlying functional components which are
developed first and before the GUI is grafted on to give users
access to them. I also mentioned that some commandline arguments
which functional components support are not always integrated into
the GUI. iexplore.exe is one good example in WinXP which supports
a number of parms only accessible via the commandline used to
start the program. Many apps follow this path too.

There are still many features of NT-derived versions of Windows, especially
file and security features, that are not exposed through any provided user
interface, command-line or GUI, although they are accessible through the API.

In article , aracari
wrote:

the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
later.

Probably nonsense.

it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.

Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
believe this.

because i've been writing software for macs for a long time and i know
the internals inside out.

perhaps you'd like to explain why you doubt it.

You might start by giving me an example of a program
which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.

double-click it.

In article , aracari
wrote:

the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
later.

Probably nonsense.

it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.

Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
believe this.

because i've been writing software for macs for a long time and i know
the internals inside out.

Am I supposed to be impressed?

you asked how i knew. that's how i know.

perhaps you'd like to explain why you doubt it.

Afaics what you have said so far is that a GUI was created to run
programs, but you have not explained how and when those programs
were written. My view is that they were written *before* the GUI,
because that is the normal sequence of things, otherwise you would
have no way of testing the GUI.

the gui and whatever the app does are created together. it might be a
minimal gui at first, but it's still a gui.

A GUI without programs to run is pretty useless.

any computer without programs is useless.

GUI = Graphical User Interface.

I do not discount that someone sketched out a GUI *before*
writing the programs that it will run to work out what features
they wanted in it and its general design etc, but that is not
what you have said.

there's just one app and both the interface and the functionality are
written together. the gui is not a wrapper.

You might start by giving me an example of a program
which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.

double-click it.

"double-click" what?

the icon. it's a graphical interface, remember?

aracari writes:

I have no doubt about that. And it furthers my pov, not yours!

I'm not trying to further a point of view, I'm simply providing information.

In article , aracari
wrote:

I am referring to the many programs which run under it; I gave
an example earlier. They are usually written before their GUI is,
but again the GUI coding may then be included in the code.

the only code that didn't have a gui was low level code such as
drivers, window definition procs, fkeys, etc. any application the user
ran was purely gui, calling directly into the operating system to do
whatever it did.

In article , aracari
wrote:

There are many programs in Windows which are GUI and cannot be run
from a commandline but I don't see where that takes your argument.

the point is that the original mac os did not have a command line.