johnl@walt.cc.utexas.edu (John Lange) (09/27/90)
Is it just me, or is there anyone else that does not like the Program Manager in Windows 3.0 because it does not allow groups within groups? I've spent the last several years organizing things on my computer into things called subdirectories. It does not make sense to me not to allow these new entities called groups to mimic subdirectories. As a poor substitute, Microsoft repackaged the shell from Windows 2.X with Windows 3.0. It is called MSDOS.EXE and can be made the default shell from system.ini. I was really hoping for a more Mac-like interface, so until it arrives, I will use MSDOS.EXE as my shell for Windows 3.0. Does anyone know of any 3rd party software (shareware or other) that allows a more graphical representation of things than PROGMAN.EXE? WINFILE.EXE (the File Manager) is not professional enough for me.
jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (09/28/90)
In article <37683@ut-emx.uucp> johnl@walt.cc.utexas.edu (John Lange) writes: >Does anyone know of any 3rd party software (shareware or other) that >allows a more graphical representation of things than PROGMAN.EXE? Try Windows Express from hDC. Typical field pricing runs $60 +- 10. From your comments I think that it answers your wish list... Joe Morris
jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Extremely Gonzoid) (10/07/90)
In article <37683@ut-emx.uucp> johnl@walt.cc.utexas.edu (John Lange) writes: >Is it just me, or is there anyone else that does not like the Program >Manager in Windows 3.0 because it does not allow groups within >groups? I've spent the last several years organizing things on >my computer into things called subdirectories. It does not make >sense to me not to allow these new entities called groups to mimic >subdirectories. > >As a poor substitute, Microsoft repackaged the shell from Windows 2.X >with Windows 3.0. It is called MSDOS.EXE and can be made the >default shell from system.ini. I was really hoping for a more >Mac-like interface, so until it arrives, I will use MSDOS.EXE as >my shell for Windows 3.0. > >Does anyone know of any 3rd party software (shareware or other) that >allows a more graphical representation of things than PROGMAN.EXE? >WINFILE.EXE (the File Manager) is not professional enough for me. But MSdos.exe IS?? I just looked at (didn't even know it was there), and my first thought (and remark..I said it out loud) was "Oh my god...". msdos.exe is just BAD. I'd prefer a single-level progman.exe over msdos.exe ANYTIME. I can always use the filemanager if I want dos-level stuff...(msdos.exe ....sheesh..) Jan Vilhuber | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4] (The jammin' Bass) | Bitnet : jvilhube@DUCAIR -------------------------------------------------- "Drunken Milkman...driving drunk...Family of four, family no more...milk and blood...blood and milk." Scatterbrain
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (10/09/90)
> > But MSdos.exe IS?? I just looked at (didn't even know it was there), > and my first thought (and remark..I said it out loud) was "Oh my god...". > msdos.exe is just BAD. I'd prefer a single-level progman.exe over > msdos.exe ANYTIME. I can always use the filemanager if I want dos-level > stuff...(msdos.exe ....sheesh..) > Actually, I find myself using MSDOS.EXE instead of FILEMAN.EXE ! Serious ! MSDOS.EXE might look ugly and simple, it fires up at least an order of magnitude faster than FILEMAN.EXE and doesn't hog system resource ! And when I want to look at two different directory at the same time, I simply run two copies of MSDOS.EXE. Look ! I simply works ! Of course I won't use it as the primary shell. I still use PROGMAN.EXE. Regards, ## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ ... also at: pnl@hpfipnl.HP.COM Singapore 0410. SPLAT ! #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp> ps: Actually, I think the drive icons in MSDOS.EXE in Windows 3.0 are simply too big and ugly compaired to their Windows 2.x version.