rb9a@watt.acc.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) (09/13/90)
After having used Win3 for a few months, I find that some things should be said, specially considering all the one-sided support that I noticed in Byte and PC Magazine. 1) Win3 is really nice if your work _normally_ involves switching between applications. 2) It si also _very_ nice if you need to "cut and paste" between applica- tions written for Windows (for non-Windows applications, this is a pain in the neck). 3) Win3 may not work in your hardware. I have tested it on several machines. On a SX386 I cannot make a fixed swap area work. 4) Windows will slow down noticeably many applications. If you need to do number crunching, you better do it outside. 5) The File Manager is light years away from the Norton Commander (NC). It is faster and better to invoke NC as a non-Windows application. 6) This, and most other so-called GUI or "Graphics User Interfaces" are unconfortable in the long run, due to the limited resolution of the display (as compared with, e.g. printed material). 7) Microsoft has not yet set up the resources to support a complex product. Who wants to wait 15 minutes or more to ask a question to just have someone read the (limited) manual that you have already read. 8) Having said all that, I must confess that similar arguments should keep anyone away from Unix or similar systems which are equally or more compli- cated. 9) Despite contrary-sensu claims in magazines, Windows will not necessarily improve productivity for most people (it may for a few). All of which should be taken with a grain of salt (or two), since it is only one of many possible opinions. Raul A. Baragiola \Internet: raul@virginia.edu Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics \Phone: (804)-982-2907 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (09/14/90)
rb9a@watt.acc.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes: >After having used Win3 for a few months, I find that some things should be >said, specially considering all the one-sided support that I noticed in >Byte and PC Magazine. I seem to remember some critism from the magazine industry. Win 3 is NOT perfect. It still has plenty of warts. Yet it sure does make my job a lot easier. >1) Win3 is really nice if your work _normally_ involves switching between >applications. Agreed. Mine does. As a PC coordinator, I'm constantly being interrupted and asked to do things that require me to switch applications. Win 3 makes this painless for me. >2) It si also _very_ nice if you need to "cut and paste" between applica- >tions written for Windows (for non-Windows applications, this is a pain in the >neck). Full agreement here. I'm trying to wean us from non-win apps. >3) Win3 may not work in your hardware. I have tested it on several machines. >On a SX386 I cannot make a fixed swap area work. Just how hard did you try? What are the symptoms? I had trouble too, but found that the use of SUBST was preventing me from installing one. I found the support folks to be very helpful on this issue (and others). >4) Windows will slow down noticeably many applications. If you need to do >number crunching, you better do it outside. True. Or get a better PC. >5) The File Manager is light years away from the Norton Commander (NC). It >is faster and better to invoke NC as a non-Windows application. Don't know about NC, but FM does need a lot of work. I usually find it easier to whip open a DOS window and use my old techniques. FM seems to suffer on huge file systems (hundreds of directories, thousands of files). >6) This, and most other so-called GUI or "Graphics User Interfaces" are >unconfortable in the long run, due to the limited resolution of the display >(as compared with, e.g. printed material). I think this is just a matter of money and/or time. >7) Microsoft has not yet set up the resources to support a complex product. >Who wants to wait 15 minutes or more to ask a question to just have someone >read the (limited) manual that you have already read. What do you expect when someone unexpectedly sell hundreds of thousands of copies of a very complicated piece of software? It's been quite a while since I've had to hold more than a couple of minutes. I've also had good luck getting help out of MS. Maybe it's my "We're all in this together" attitude, rather that a hostile me against them attitude. I don't start a conversation with "Your product really sucks!" Since I do user support for a living, I know what it's like to be on the other end of the phone. I've also found that knowing how to ask questions helps too. If you call them up and say "I can't create a permanent swap file," they'll probably read you the manual because you're not giving them much to go on. They'll just assume you're another idiot user who can't read the manual. If you tell them all about your setup and let them know you're an experienced user, they'll look a little deeper for you. It works for me anyway. >8) Having said all that, I must confess that similar arguments should keep >anyone away from Unix or similar systems which are equally or more compli- >cated. I'll take DOS/Windows over Unix any day of the week. DOS is useful for those who don't intend to make a career out of learning the in and outs of an operating system. It's for folks who want to get something done - not memorize zillions of cryptic commands with tons of options. Unix is very powerful, but far from intuitive. It requires specialists. DOS does not to that extent. Win 3 has lots of neat tricks that are not patently obvious and take a lot of time to learn. However, you CAN get work done without them. The tricks just make it easier. >9) Despite contrary-sensu claims in magazines, Windows will not necessarily >improve productivity for most people (it may for a few). It definitely has for me. I love it - despite the warts. My users are also favorably impressed. Of course, we'll waste a lot of time setting it up and learning to use it well. It does get us on the right track to future operating environments. The eventual switch to OS/2 PM will be easier for us when that OS is ready for the business world. >All of which should be taken with a grain of salt (or two), since it is only >one of many possible opinions. There's no shortage of opinions around here. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
price@chakra.unl.edu (Chad Price) (09/17/90)
In <1990Sep13.021413.28670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rb9a@watt.acc.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes: >After having used Win3 for a few months, I find that some things should be >said, specially considering all the one-sided support that I noticed in >Byte and PC Magazine. . . >8) Having said all that, I must confess that similar arguments should keep >anyone away from Unix or similar systems which are equally or more compli- >cated. Do you mean to tell me that you get good support on DOS (the operating system) ?? Having used CP/M, DOS 2.0-3.3, primos, unix (bsd, ultrix, Sys V), and bits and pieces of others like CTOS (COnvergent Tech), MVS, etc. I find that in general, when it comes to system software you are on your own. Groups like this are one of the best ways I know of to get information on how to do it. Chad Price price@fergvax.unl.edu PS This is not a flame - it is a comment/query.
peter@cbnewsc.att.com (peter.pavlovcik) (09/18/90)
In article <marshall.653250173@wind55>, marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) writes: > I'll take DOS/Windows over Unix any day of the week. DOS is useful for > those who don't intend to make a career out of learning the in and outs > of an operating system. It's for folks who want to get something done - > not memorize zillions of cryptic commands with tons of options. Unix is > very powerful, but far from intuitive. It requires specialists. DOS > does not to that extent. I have heard this argument many times before, but no matter how hard I try, I still can't understand it. I have to assume that you are really comparing command.com and other DOS utilities with one of the UNIX shells and UNIX utilities. The actual "operating system", whether DOS or UNIX is normally only visible to the programmer. Now it should not be difficult to write a "crippled" unix shell and a set of "crippled" utilities that would 100% emulate DOS environment under UNIX. Would that make UNIX "simpler"? And if not, why not -- what is it that would make UNIX "simpler?" I do not have an answer. In my opinion, the "cryptic UNIX commands" that the author refers to are not that much more cryptic than DOS. Can YOU use the "mode" command without looking it up? It takes 8 pages in my DOS manual!! And why does a "simple" command like "copy" require 6 pages? Yes, I agree, a casual user does not need to remember all of these options because he/she does not need to use them. But that is the same in UNIX (at least I think so). I certainly do not want to start a DOS vs. UNIX war, especially not on this newsgroup -- that belongs to alt.religion. Please forgive me, I won't do this again. And I will admit to have a strong pro-UNIX bias. My impression of DOS was always as a "very poor copy of UNIX put together by assembler language hackers". Also writing software for UNIX is so much easier. No EMS, XMS, DPMI, VCPI, far pointers, etc. The same goes for Sunview (for example) vs. MS-Windows. Sunview is trivial to program (and debug) compared to Windows. But I would not be so sure about X -- GUIs may be inherently complex. But I do find Windows quite "barouque". Function calls such as "BringWindowToTop()" are so quaint! There seem to be no overall scheme and design in the application program interface. There were 400+ functions in Windows 2.1. In 3.0 there are over 500. Where does it stop? My brain hurts! But at least it works (for most part, anyway). P.S. Although I am not aware of utilities that would make UNIX look like DOS, we all here love the MKS toolkit, which makes DOS "look" like UNIX. Peter Pavlovcik peter@cbnesc.att.com