when it would be more efficient to use a command line interface rather than a GUI?
917977
when you're munchin' through tonnes of data.  Write a script, let it go, make a coffee, read the paper.  Or if you do it with GUI: sit there clicking "OK" and "yes" all day.   Naw.  Blx to that.   Command line wins.
47414
Yes, but only with dos programs that use a gui.
141068
There are a few things that are better. For instance OWA is much better in 2003 then it is in 2000. Windows 2003 comes with remote server and desktop capabilities built in and is easier to set up then 2000 terminal server. I don't like that I have to explain why I am shutting down the system everytime I need to reboot.
292438
Taking input in commandline is not as simple as it is in C of c++. U need use Sytem.in and get the inputstream and then use it.\n\nI recommend u to use swing JOptionPane that shows a input dialog and and get the input from the user.\n\nHere is the sample using Swing\n\nimport javax.swing.JOptionPane;\n\npublic class UserInput\n{\npublic static void main(String[] args)\n{\n    String str = JOptionPane.showInputDialog( null , "Enter Something");\n    System.out.println(str);\n}\n}
499278
I have not noticed any Widgets that had much overhead. \n\nOther then a second or two delay when first loading on boot up you won't have any slow down.
474828
It depends on the level of your knowledge. Use what you know better. Surely, UNIX is much better because at least its flexibility.
649368
Everythiny you want to control with a computer needs an interface -you can build all the progtams you want, if they aren't actually controlling a switch/switch gear/ motors/sensors etc etc then the computer (program) is just a useles box of instructions \n\n- Interfaces COST money unless you are MacGyver ;)
651682
What you are asking for is a way to set up dumb terminals hanging off of an XP box.  Not saying it couldn't be done, but the cost would be higher than simply buying the right stuff to do it to begin with.  \n\nTerminal services on a windows server will do this, but you would still have to have a workstation for each user to connect to the server with.  If you are trying to avoid having to purchse the CPU, go buy an e machine.  You can get the whole thing for $400 or less.
971924
I couldn't look at your code... mediamax wouldn't let me see it.\nAs far as a gui... if you want a Windows app sort of UI, coding it by hand would take up many times more code than whatever you might have, and would require you to learn the Windows API, which is a huge undertaking.\n\nOtherwise, you can use the graphics capabilities of the compiler you are using to draw simple boxes and such. Drawing rectangles and squares is fairly easy. Moving the cursor to what you've defined as an input box isn't that hard either. Basically you would have a graphical interface in a console app. That's not too hard to do.
664543
In Windows XP, use the run line as previously mentioned, or, from the Programs Menu, go to Accessories, Command Prompt.
591352
Depends if you're Mac or PC.  I have to remember 2 ways as I use Mac at work (Cmd-p) and PC at home (Ctrl-p).\n\nQuick keys can be a pain sometimes - lol
32387
If you are confused about choosing which is better then don't get confused it depends totally on your needs...\n\nYour need for speed:\n\nOne of the big differences between the GUI is the relative workload they put on your system. The more a GUI has goodies, features and eye candies, the more it will need power to run properly and the slower it will be.\nKDE and Gnome are two of the most developed, and heavy, GUI available for Linux. Thus, if speed is of prime importance for you (for example, you want the maximum of power to run a task or you have a slow PC), you may be better to use a lightweight GUI, like IceWM, Fluxbox or Afterstep. In other word, the lighter your GUI is, the faster your overall system will be...\n\nWhich applications are you using?\n\nThe fact is that some applications just run better in one GUI than others.\nKDE and Gnome are based on a different set of programming libraries and tools (named GTK for Gnome and Qt for KDE). Thus, it's easy to understand that applications designed and based on the same GTK libraries than Gnome will work better under Gnome than under KDE. And the reverse will be true for applications based on  Qt.\nSo, it may be better to use the GUI that works best with your applications. If don't know the libraries used by your applications, just try them with different GUI and see if it makes any significant difference. For some applications it will, for others it won't. Thus, your favourite applications may help you determine which GUI you should use.\n\nConviviality and ease of use:\nThis point is more a personal choice, some peoples may find that KDE is convivial and easy to use, but others will be overwhelm with the hundreds of features and options... The choice is up to you, each GUI is, more or less, easy to use, you just have to make the best choice for you...\nHowever, if you're familiar with Windows, you may feel more at ease with Gnome or KDE, which are similar, than with a less classic GUI (like Enlightenment for example).\n\nThe default GUI of your distribution:\nAll distribution give preferential support and integration to one or several GUI. If you have Mandrake, both KDE and Gnome are equally supported. But Red Hat never hides their preference for Gnome, and SuSe for KDE...\nAll other things being equal, it may be a good idea to use your distribution's favourite GUI. It will be less hassle since it's the default installation and configuration. Integration and the "polish" will also be better, default settings being usually just fine. It's also easier to get support, since most peoples using this distribution will use the default GUI.\n\nYour need for eye candies:\nAll the GUI have a different look, some are gorgeous with lot of effects, font anti-aliasing, nice icons, and all kind of goodies, others look pale and simple in comparison. The choice between these two extremes is only a matter of personal preferences. Some will prefer a GUI with lot of eye candies, others just want a clean desktop on a simple background. None is better than the other, it's up to you to make your choice...\n\nFinal words:\n\nWith these points in mind, you should now be more able to choose a GUI. However, remember that choosing a GUI doesn't mean that you have to stick with it for the rest of your life! Nothing prevents you to install many GUI on your system. Then you choose the one you want when you log in. You may choose the GUI that's the most appropriate for the task...
292447
Perl would be my preference.  There are interpereters available for all major platforms (UNIX, Linux, Windows, OSX, etc.), so your scripts will be fairly portable depending on the system calls you use.\n\nThere are many libraries (Perl Modules) available that allow your scripts to do things like connect to databases, access web servers, access mail servers, and more.
166323
GUI.....Point and Click....Not too difficult.
112698
A myth, mostly.  The idea is that the programmers anticipate all the various things the user will want to do, and make it easy to do them.  A truly user-friendly interface would name the menus something the user would recognize as being the place to find what he is trying to do, would put them all out there where he would be expected to look for them, etc.  It would also guard against accidently screwing up, by having "are you sure?" protection on things.\n\nHA!  I have yet to run a program I couldn't screw up, or rather screw up my document or my data in no time flat.  And I have yet to find anything useful in a "Help" menu.  Mostly the way I get by is lots of trial and lots of error, and bugging the people who know to tell me.\n\nOh, for the days of user manuals and tutorials!!!
388344
I don't feel that any of the default layouts are best. It really depends on what you're doing. Personally, I prefer the tools, timeline, actions, properties, and library. But that's just me.
1157853
make the startup position of your window to maximized.\n\nto automatically align your command buttons at runtime, look for a code at\nhttp://www.planetsourcecode.com/