Exactly my point. ;) Some things, like the amount of control a shell affords you were stated as fact.Quote:
Actually, very little of my post was based on hard facts.
Saying something offers you more control is a quantifiable statement and in this case simply a false one. The shell grants no additional control, just a different interface to the same functionality (if not less).Quote:
Well true. but as you noted, my opinion of which is better or offers more control still stands.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314058 Is a good place to start.Quote:
Hmmm. could you please point me to a good tutorial on how to do what you mentioned above? Something that goes a little in depth but is still easy (relatively speaking) to understand?
The microsoft website has a wealth of information, it is unfortunate that new operating systems come with so little hard copy information, but on the bright side it saves trees.Quote:
Nope, you're right. I'm not properly informed. When I bought the XP package, it had very little That I could find on how to do some of the things that you are mentioning. But... then again, maybe I didn't look in the right places.
If you don't like to type... why use a GUI based system? Why not use a system made for people who prefer to type as you put it. Otherwise we end up with all systems trying to do all things and what do we get? A bunch of watered down crap.Quote:
Can't really argue against that point except to say that some of us like to type
And that doesn't look like anti-progress to you? "Oh no, each new version is so big and scary I don't understand it... back in the good old days computers were great!" ;) Sorry to poke fun, but many of us like the functionality and usability of the new systems. :-PQuote:
Again, we are not anti-progress, just anti-"screw things up until on-one understands them anymore," which seems to be what MS enjoys doing everytime they come out with a new version of their OS.
Yes... like attackers. Wouldn't it be great to add a single application that can exert complete control (security policy permitting) over a system remotely and more easily than a GUI. One of the great things about cmd.exe is that it is so bad, attackers are frequently forced to load their own connectivity tools which allows easier detection. :-PQuote:
I'm not stating either... I'm simply stating that some of us would welcome an alternative to the total GUI control and access.
I'll admit, this last point is terrible, but on the surface it makes sense in a silly kinda way.
cheers,
catch
