[Coco] Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Hi,

Robert Emery wrote:
>> That was in what I replied to. I concur and add that the other OS-9 stuff
>> needs to be available. There must be a lot of attractive items in OS-9 to
>> make the effort by a DECB person even get started. You and others may
>> differ.
>
> The most attractive item would be ease-of-use. OS-9 in it's various forms
> is simply too much hassle for the average computer user to "enjoy". From
> my perspective the Return on Investment (in terms of fun or productivity
> per time spent getting to that point) is much lower in OS-9 than DECB. It
> looks to me like 50% of this lists traffic is related to OS-9 difficulty
> (especially hard drive related), 30% is meandering replies saying "it
> works fine for me", 10% is *useful* OS-9 advice and the rest is DECB
> related or OT.

We are willing to help various people that get the same error over and over.

We apparently are not willing to fix the problems for once and all.

We apparently are not willing to make OS-9 easier to use for ourselves
saying nothing about others.

All of the items you indicate I have been thinking about. I have been unable
to start a discussion as to a new shell for one and all that would be nicer.

We seem to be stuck in many ways at the point in time when OS-9 was created
for us. Time is way past the point where we should have started looking at
changes that improve OS-9, even drastic ones. The basic operation of OS-9
should be open for discussion. I look for small changes that provide large
benefits.

>>>> That idea would place the user in a protected environment that all OS-9
>>>> error messages are translated to DECB error numbers if possible.
>>>
>>> This would be an improvement?
>>
>> Yes. If a DECB person saw an ERROR 190 they would not understand.
>> Not even if " 190 INTERNAL INTEGRITY CHECK - System modules or data are
>> changed and no longer reliable" was shown. How long would it take for
>> them looking in the OS-9 Technical Reference to understand. I using my
>> knowledge of OS-9 understand right away. There are many more. Yes they
>> do not happen very often but when they do I understand and further know
>> what steps to take immediately to save my work in progress. How about a
>> 210 or a 217?
>>
>> We OS-9 folk have a content to place new things in to understand them
>> quickly. The DECB folk may not have that content, some will of course.
>
> Now it sounds like you're just talking down about DECB users. We had to
> read the manual to figure out DECB error codes too... they are just
> easier to remember since they are mnemonic rather than numeric. In time,
> and seeing enough of them (no problem in OS-9) anyone can eventually
> remember either system, but obviously "?FC ERROR" is easier to remember
> than "Error #247" or whatever. Sure, you have a tool to convert those
> cryptic numbers into text, but what if the error is something that
> prevents that from working? Time to start digging through that phone
> directory of a User's Guide. 2 more hours wasted, figuring out what the
> error is and then how to fix it.

Not talking down anyone, trying to paint a picture that would motivate us
into action.

>> Translating to DECB error codes allows them to understand using their
>> DECB context.
>
> Just put it in English... even we DECB folk can use that to some extent. I
> suspect there are a significant number of OS-9 errors that have no
> context or relationship whatsoever with any DECB codes.
>
>
>> Think about the "DIR" utility. It's output could be filtered by the shell
>> for DECB folks.
>
> Why? I don't think DIR output is a problem, even for us DECB users.

You suggest that OS-9 be improved, why reject improving DIR? The process of
improving OS-9 can involve a lot of simple changes. Again I look for small
changes that provide large benefits. That's why I made suggestions that
would improve many things at once. You cut out my important words and kept
one small part and reject a change in that would improve OS-9's ease of use.
???


> If you want to get DECB users into OS-9, I agree that a nice Basic shell
> that bears some resemblance to DECB would be nice, but only if you don't
> need 5 years of OS-9 experience to get it working. I look forward to the
> first OS-9 "One-Liners" contest.
>
> cheers,
> Bob


My points exactly. Except for the one liners.

Stephen H. Fischer