The Efficiency Of A CLI: Among new computer users, there is sometimes debate over whether to use a CLI (Command-Line Interface) or a GUI (Graphical User Interface). For most new or casual users, the answer is simple: A GUI is easier to understand and less intimidating-looking, making it a natural choice for non-technical people. Indeed, this has stopped being much of an issue, as the GUI is now standard in Microsoft Windows, and most people never have to touch the CLI. (Indeed, many people are not aware it exists.) But it does. For more than 10 years, the computing scene has been operating on a split between the two types of interfaces. The Amiga was a pioneer in this field, combining a highly functional CLI with the simple-yet-powerful Workbench GUI. Back in the days of Windows 3.x, many people still used DOS frequently for file management and other system functions. And Linux, the hot "new" open-source OS, is fundamentally a CLI, but with the ability to add several powerful GUIs on top of it (like XFree86). And make no mistake, as of this writing, Microsoft Windows is still a GUI built on top of an MS-DOS CLI (although Microsoft is slowly changing this, and that may stop being the case in future versions of Windows). The advantages of a GUI are obvious. But is there an advantage to a CLI? The answer is unquestionably "Yes". No GUI can ever approach the efficiency of a CLI. The time it takes to rap out a string like "copy letter.txt c:\docs" will always be shorter than the amount of time it takes to navigate through a window of files and drag-and-drop a file into a destination folder. This automatically makes using a CLI faster, both in terms of user interface and in the fact that a GUI places more demands on the hardware, meaning it will slow down the system. This is why, even though Explorer (which used to be called "File Manager") is a good-looking and easy way to manage your files, power users still use the DOS prompt. A CLI is also simpler to set up, making it ideal for troubleshooting scenarios where the computer is having trouble booting up. And, as mentioned before, a CLI is less demanding on the hardware, making it a better choice for older systems which might have trouble supporting the latest, greatest bells-and-whistles OS. Computer users naturally find themselves using a GUI when they first start using a computer, but many people who explore their systems may find themselves eventually beginning to move towards the CLI. That was the case with me, anyway: After years of preferring the convenience of Windows, I've become a DOS user. I didn't even notice the transition; I just gradually started using DOS for more things, because it was faster and easier once I knew how to use it. I believe that every computer should still provide the option of a CLI. Sure, have a GUI for everyday use, but a CLI is still a much-needed tool for certain circumstances. The CLI will always be a more efficient tool for getting work done.