HerLoss has been talking about how good CLI is. But I believe the GUI to be superior, it is after all the mode.

Yet it is also slower, less efficient with system resources and hardware drivers, takes longer to input a "command", and is not used as a server OS nearly as much.

In some cases, using the keyboard for commands is faster than using the cursor. But the speed of the cursor is generally faster than that of the keyboard. The GUI is also more intuitive than the CLI.

intuitive? What could be more intuitive than CD for change directory, and DIR for directory contents?? Windows will NEVER move through folders like a CLI.

We were forced to use DOS at school, why, because they want us to know how it was like before Windows came out. It was funny when no one except me and a few friends knew how to use it.

What I liked about a CLI, was that it was straight to the point, and used no extra system resources to manage, but I wouldn't Internet-browse with it, since it didn't have a threading system, so you couldn't open multiple programs, unless they added it of course. Maybe something along the lines of SRP, Show Running Processes.

The GUI is just simpler to use for the non-techies though. It takes less effort to navigate folders, click click, sometimes not even that, although, normally I type the address manually anyway.

they disable the command line at our school, because "It's a security risk"

1. The run menu is disabled. So, I type in C:\Windows\System32\

It says: "Access denied".

So...I navigate manually to System32, no denies yet.

I open up cmd.exe, and it says in text, "the command line has been disabled by your administrator"

Well, that's okay right? There's always Command.com...

So i navigate to command.com.

I open it up. A popup error box says "Access denied".

Weird, cmd had a in-prompt error, while this is a dialog box.

I decide to copy the file to "my documents". Accidently, i say "create shortcut here". Trying the shortcut, i find that Command.com works, and I can access the command line.

Short lesson on windows security

LOL, hilarious. Our district doesn't focus on tech training for the teachers, mostly money issues, and so most of our teachers are computer illiterate, so you could be downloading warez and such, with the banner saying WAREZ in big bold letters, and just say it's for a project, and they don't question you.

The GUI is more intuitive because it is easier to use. Why do you think GUI is the standard for computers?!

Its not the standard in server computers. Its not the standard for anyone who really wants to get the most out of their hardware. Its not standard for anyone who had to learn how to use a mouse after years on a command line.

If the person did indeed have to learn, he/she would learn quickly. GUI is not that difficult to master.

-EDIT-

Standard as in the arithmetic mode.

And neither is a CLI. It still doesnt change that a CLI is better suited for servers and for getting the most out of your hardware, which is at least 50% of computer usage in itself.

Now, you can stop talking about servers, cuz we are talking about all kinds of computers here. And even if it is the mode for servers, it is still not the mode for computers in general.

The only reason you would want a GUI is if you were a n00b and find it difficult to understand and use a CLI.

No, most computer users use the GUI because it is more intuitive. And with the GUI, you get to use your imagination to create all sorts of mice, cursors, touchpads, et cetera.

Yes, all of which cost money, and add to the cost that the consumer has to pay.

Keyboards cost money too.

Both CLIs and GUIs need a keyboard, so that was a rather pointless argument.

Argueing with Myscrnnm is pointless... he is static in his opinion, and honestly, I really don't like that kind of people.

I hate (yes, I haven't used this word in a while... too strong, normally, but I'll use it now) how the GUI sucks up all of your resources. If you were a gamer, you'd choose CLI just because it lets you game to the max. If you were a hardcore programmer, you'd choose CLI because it sticks with the basics. If you were a fast typer and have the IQ of 100 (average person) you'd go with CLI because it's not hard to just type "cd zsnes" and be there.

You're thinking in GUI terms, where everything is hecticly organised so you can't find anything. Back in the CLI days, everything was neat and tidy, and you could find things without having to go through complicated procedures.

Back in the CLI days, you could use 100% of the system resources on one program, and no one would care.
Back in the CLI days, it was at least almost possible to use 100% resources in one program.
Back in the CLI days, things were much simpler, kind of like the idea of the one button controller people make light and jokes of.
Back in the CLI days, Windows 3.1 ran, using more resources than necissary.
Back in the CLI days, games were 8-bit to 16-bit, but no one cared.

Now after the CLI days, people still use it.
Now after the CLI days, servers take advantage of what little resources it uses, and puts it all into running it.
Now after the CLI days, Halo barely runs on this computer, but if XP didn't take up so much already...
Now after the CLI days, my computer farts out because XP is too demanding on resources.
Now after the CLI days, Microsoft has moved away from it.
Now after the CLI days, people still go back and use it.
Now after the CLI days, your desktop is "cluttored" while my old one will never.
Now after the CLI days, DOS takes a second to load, while Windows take a few minutes.
Now after the CLI days, I'm bored.

Today, I think both CLI & GUI have their strenths and weaknessess. You can use both of them efficiently togeather. I mean, I would personally rather browse the web with a GUI browser rather then something like Lynx, as there is a lot more graphical stuff that is more appealing, and 99% of the web has graphical stuff on it. Also, computer games would be a run-down text game without the graphics in them. It is also easier to use for the beginner, as you don't have to memorize CLI commands.

But you do have the point about the CLI being faster. Whether you booted into command mode from Windows, or you're running straight up CLI in Linux without a desktop, either way you're saving a lot of RAM. It is also much more easier on the processor, so you can run programs with more of the resourses that were freed up from removing the GUI. Also, you're right about it being faster sometimes to do text commands rather than navigating windows.

I guess it really depends on what you're looking to do.

CLI games arent all text based. Doom, ultimate doom, doom II, and final doom were all released in DOS. Released in '01, doom collector's edition still requires DOS to run.

What I wish for is something like Windows 95, or 98, where the CLI system runs at the core, and the GUI runs on top, but with more cross-compatibility.

Isn't that what linux is? even BASH runs on top of the Linux kernel. Gnome and KDE run on top of the linux kernel.

Yeah, it is isn't it? Too bad WINE runs so slow, or I would use it.

yep, well the main things would be the lack of games for Linux, but then of course what is a console for?

But I still like RTS games like AOE.

But of course, Running a game ON TOP of KDE which is ON TOP of BASH which is ON TOP of the Kernel would be pretty slow.

Instead, you could speed it up by eliminating KDE. One less program, more speed.

If Windows used CLI, you would be hard-pressed to play games like Halo.

I'm assuming that you meant "CLI" instead of "GUI," although I know that you would not do the same.

It wouldn't be hard to play Halo with a CLI.

Yeah, thanks for the correction.

It'd be pretty hard to aim with CLI when compared to GUI.

No it wouldn't. You just move the mouse around, and it moves the camera.

Well, seeing as you wouldn't have a mouse, I don't see how you would move it around.

You would too have a mouse. I played games, using a mouse, on DOS when I was young. Command line versus graphical merely means the format of the information displayed and manipulated. It doesn't mean "no mouse allowed." CLI can still take mouse commands. All it means is that it has no icons, no windows, no buttons.

If it is taking mouse commands, then it is using GUI, because it would have a cursor, which is a trademark of GUI.

Just because it takes mouse commands doesn't mean that it needs a cursor. The mouse could be used for scrolling or as a shortcut for preset commands.

If you are using CLI, you wouldn't be using a mouse.

For the third time, just because it has a CLI doesn't mean it can't use a mouse!

When you have a CLI, you will be using the keyboard, and only the keyboard.

No it doesn't. What it means is that it will be using a command line. But I'm sure someone could set a CLI up to take commands from a mouse. Just not graphical commands. Also, most computers, GUI or not, have mouses. I've played a game, using a mouse, on a computer that had no GUI, only MS-DOS. Even if the CLI doesn't do any interpretation of the mouse events, it can pass the commands on to a running process.

I am not talking about what it means. I am talking about what you do.

And I have had experience with this, unlike you.

UNRESEARCHED STATEMENTS! (you hypocrite) (I got to use that against you again!)

A normal CLI is fully able to handle and interpret mouse events, whether or not its makers choose to make it do any interpretation.

Most CLIs use the keyboard as the sole input option.

This is so annoying. Didn't I tell you about how a CLI OS can still pass mouse events on to programs running within it? First person shooters can work from a CLI.

They might be able to somehow be written to work from a CLI, but a GUI would be so much easier and intuitive. Compare Pong to Halo.

Ergh! I already explained! A CLI OS can run a program with a GUI, like Halo! And it can pass on the necessary mouse events!

Yep, as long as you have a driver for the mouse, you can use the mouse. If you are a good programmer, you can even make it so the mouse would act as the arrow keys in the CLI.

You don't have to be a good programmer. It is a matter of making four quadrants and having the cursor move left right up down depending on where the mouse is moving in which quadrant.

Anyway, if you have a mouse anyway, why would you want a four-directional control?! It is like going back in time.

Using a CLI, and typing in the OS part of it, there's no function for anything but four directions. And a better idea would be to just interpret an up as an up, a down ad a down, etc., since a mouse only sends the information in four unsigned directions anyways.

With a mouse, you can go in virtually unlimited directions (in the 2D realm that is). But with CLI, you can only go in four directions.

Yes, you can move the mouse in any 2D direction, but when you move your mouse diagonally, it is sent to the computer as "1 up, 1 left."

Still, it's better than the conventional four directions of CLI.

You're associating CLI with arrow keys. Don't. The reason it only goes in four directions is because you only need four directions. That and the Home, End, Pg Up, and Pg Down keys makes it easily navigatible enough. I mean, how often do you need to use the mouse working in Notepad? I use it next to never. It's the same with a CLI.

If you try to play Halo with CLI, you'l be going click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click just to shoot a frikkin' grunt!!!!!! But with GUI, you can do it with the click of a button.