[comp.windows.ms] Does everybody hate Windows?

sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) (08/28/90)

From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates
it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.

How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows Apps, what
kind of machine you use, etc..  I would love to hear some testimonials.

I would also like to hear from those that are forced to use it, and don't like
it.  Why are *you* using it and why don't you like it.

Thanks.

-- 
Bruce T. White
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.

INTERNET:     sota@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!sota

laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (08/28/90)

From article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM>, by sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White):
> From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
> problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates
> it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
> Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.

Here at the U of Notre Dame, we are using Windows..faculty, staff, and
students.  We have found that it solves a lot of problems we were
encountering on networks (memory/user interface/administration).  We are
also finding that, since UND is very entrenched w/Macs, it's making it a
lot easier for Mac gurus to go back and forth.  Faculty are embracing
its data-linking capabilities.  Admin units are taking to the
multi-tasking.  We haven't had any problems installing/maintaining.  We
are an IBM/Zenith campus with some odd compatibles and clones, but
haven't had any problems.  My biggest frustration has been getting
through to technical support.  Half hour holds are a bit long.  However,
we're finding the product very useful and helpful.  The applications
that run with Windows are making it a lot easier to teach our workshops
and explain concepts.  Powerpoint and Toolbook look very promising.
We've got Windows running and are very happy with it.

Tom Laughner
DOS Consultant/Analyst
University of Notre Dame
TLAUGHNE@IRISHMVA

jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (08/28/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM>, sota@tc.fluke.COM
(Bruce White) writes:
|>From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
|>problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates
|>it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
|>Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.
|>
The nature of these newsgroups is that people usually post when they have
a problem and are looking for help. Thus you see a lot of "I tried doing
foo but it didn't work. What's wrong?"  I think most people DO like Windows
3.0.  The volume on this group has increased drastically since its release.
Some days we have as many postings on here as I used to see in a whole week
6 months ago.                    

Jim
jmann@es.stratus.com

andrzej@bcars268.UUCP (Andrzej Bieszczad) (08/28/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM>, sota@tc.fluke.COM
(Bruce White) writes:
|>
|>How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
|>you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows
Apps, what
|>kind of machine you use, etc..  I would love to hear some testimonials.
|>
|>Bruce T. White

I think that Windows 3 is the best thing that happened to PC since its
introduction 10 years ago. I LOVE Windows (I have been cured from
a MAC-envy).

I use windows for anything I do on my PC (at work I use X, sometimes
MAC and CMS). I bought SmallTalk-80 (another thing which I LOVE) and Word 
for Windows. I also obtained an old version of XVT, which is simple
object-oriented drawing program (unfortunately it is not a Windows 3
application, it was developed for older versions, so it crashes on me
from time to time). I use non-Windows applications only if I have to.
All of this for academic purposes.

I am looking for a Windows 3 sticker on my car, so I can replace MAC's
apple.
                    
=======================================================================
Andrzej Bieszczad (Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.)
USENET:  uunet!bnrgate!bigsur!andrzej
BitNet:  andrzej@BNR.CA
Surface: Dept. 7G12, P.O. Box 3511, Station C,    Phone: (613) 763-2259
         Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7         Fax:   (613) 763-3283
=======================================================================

cdh1@eds1.UUCP (C. Daniel Hassell) (08/28/90)

sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) writes:
>How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
>you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows Apps, what
>I would also like to hear from those that are forced to use it, and don't like
>it.  Why are *you* using it and why don't you like it.

OK, here's my story.  I have just brought an office of 6 Lotus Symphony users
into the Windows age with Excel and W4W.  This happened concurrently with
upgrading our hardware to 386-20 clone boxes.  The users here are emphatically
opposed to needing to know technical details of computers.  They are
budget analysts who don't want the system to be in the way of their "real"
jobs.  We almost certainly would have continued using Symphony if the 
march of progress had not intervened --managers want more professional
looking output on shorter notice these days.  

The Windows products meet our needs quite well.  They are intuitively
easy to learn, and allow the use of graphics and fonts painlessly.  These
people don't know what multitasking is and probably wouldn't use it much
if they did, so the criticism of Win3.0 multitasking doesn't matter much.

The prose above may sound derogatory of my coworkers, but it isn't meant
to be.  They have a different set of priorities than computer enthusiasts
like me and other Usenetters.  I'm the computer specialist for the office
among other things so I do the worrying about technical issues.  But over
all, we have had remarkably few problems getting up to speed, and people
are rapidly learning to use and love their new systems.

My own uses of Windows are a little more involved.  I need a VT-100 comm
program, and Terminal while not fancy is OK for my needs.  I have 
previously posted my disappointments with Unicom.  I also run Turbo C
under Windows with no difficulties, in exclusive mode for speed.  

The last missing piece is a Uniscope emulator package.  I have recently
discovered that it is going to require an upgrade of our emulator boards
to allow us to access the (Unisys) mainframe under Windows, but the
boss didn't flinch when I asked for the money to do that.  I believe
that reaction is an indicator that he has seen the advantages of 
Windows and is willing to shell out to make it work right.

CD Hassell
cdh1@eds1.eds.com
psuvax1!eds1!cdh1

bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (08/29/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM> sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) writes:
>How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
>you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows Apps, what
>kind of machine you use, etc..  I would love to hear some testimonials.

BEGIN Testimonial;

1.  I was first sold on windows when I used v1.04 to write a graduate paper
using MS write and Twin spreadsheet(DOS). Windows allowed me to integrate the
graphics from twin into write, it came out real well.  Only used windows
when I needed this integration (anytime I wrote, which was often).

2. Upgraded to win2.0 and used it in the same manner until the shareware
package Command Post showed up.  Command Post made windows useable
more often.  Only had to leave windows for large programs (integrated
compilers, word processing, large spreadsheets, games, etc) which was over
half the time.  Bought Excel to replace Twin and got Q+E (windows database)
as my first real windows applications.  Bought Actor (academic price)
with hopes to learn windows/OOP but also be able to write short utilites
that run under windows (memory hogs - <sigh>). (Using an 8Mhz 2 Mb AT clone)

3. Windows 3.0.  Only leave windows when I unfragment my disk. Bought Word
for Windows (upgraded everthing else) and Cross Talk for Windows.  Just
returned from three years in Europe (little access to shareware via BBS)
and took the plunge into Compu$erve.  Found enough windows utilities to
stay in windows during disk house keeping chores.  Love being able to
drag complete directories around the disk (I use a Mac II SE at work). 
Real nice not to worry about memory limitations for the programs I run -
and they all reasonably exchange data.  Actor still hasn't become the
Turbo Pascal of Windows, and windows is slow compared to DOS based programs.
(Using 16mhz 386 w/8Mb 20+30mb disks).

4.  Hoping my windows applications will one day be able to run under OS/2
without buying complete new versions.  Still real interested in X windows
as an across platform standard for graphic display control.

END Testimonial;

* Bruce Benson                   + Internet  - bwb@sei.cmu.edu +       +
* Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407      +    >--|>
* Carnegie Mellon University     + Voice     - 412 268 8469    +       +
* Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890       +                             +  US Air Force

muyanja@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (bill muyanja) (08/29/90)

> How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
> you use it for,...
 
Solitaire, mon!

(a lot less stressful than Tetris!)

Bill
-- 

steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (08/29/90)

You may read my "Organization:" line and disregard this message if you
choose.

I like Win3 a lot.

I was able to set it up and get it running successfully without ever
reading the manual.  (I'll admit that I did read the README file.) I was
very impressed the first time I saw Windows auto-detect my equipment
configuration!  All I had to do was hit the Enter key when it showed the
list of my equipment, because it was all correct.

I use Win3 to multitask DOS programs on my 386; at all times I have three
or four DOS shells open, one or two terminal emulators open, and my
personal information manager (_Info Select_ by Micro Logic; it is great).
I can hot-key directly to any of these with a single keystroke.

On my Windows Desktop I have Word for Windows, and I have yet to open the
manual to it.  I have been using it for months!  I know there are *major*
features I am not using -- such as the "WordBasic" language -- but I have
used the product to do a lot of stuff, even doing things like including
images I drew in Microsoft Windows Paint into my documents.  This
experience has converted me to a GUI believer.

I really like the hypertext-style help system available inside Windows
programs.  I used this to figure out all the Accessories that came with
Windows.

I also enjoy Windows games, and from time to time I run Excel or some other
Windows application.
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.uucp    ` \\==|

patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/29/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM> sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) writes:
>From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
>problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates
>it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
>Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.
>
>How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
>you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows Apps, what
>kind of machine you use, etc..  I would love to hear some testimonials.

Personally, I like it a lot.  I use Windows Word to type in my letters.  While
I'd prefer that WordPerfect were available for Windows, Windows Word is not
bad at all.  I like it better than using DOS Word, that's for sure.  I also
use Excel for my expense reports and it is a LOT better than Lotus ever was.
At this very moment I'm using DynaComm for my terminal and like that a lot.
It's great to be able to download a file and do some work while that is
happening (after downloading all those nethack files it's something I can
really appreciate).  I also have a few games that I use and I use the Paint
program or Designer to do some graphic work.  Oh yeah, let us not forget
Page Maker.  I've tried laying my hands on Ventura since I think it would
meet my needs more readily, but PageMaker is still GREAT to use.

However, I do run this on a 386 with 3Meg of memory and a 20MHz speed, so
my performance isn't too shabby.  Oh, and having Paula Abdul or Paulina
in my background as a bitmap doesn't hurt either.  @:)

Basically I like Windows a lot since, if I want a windowing system I can
have one, but if I don't I can either open a DOS Window or just quit out
of Windows.  The one reason I've never gotten a MAC is that I don't know
if I could stand being forced to use the Windowing.
-- 
"Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for
 trivial pursuit."  -Harlan Ellison

Patrick Deupree ->	patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us

a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) (08/29/90)

> kearns@cs.columbia.edu writes:
> Is it just because of my Macintosh background, or does everybody
> think the program manager is unintuitive, confusing, and flaky?
> Is the program manager "just another windows program" so that soon
> we might see better "shells"?


     I find the program manager excellent, and just what I need for a home
computer with a packed hard drive and four family members who are users.  Each
child has an Icon with their name, and the child window brought up by clicking
on the Icon gives the programs that they commonly use.  They can get a program
just by clicking on the icon, and the program manager (set up by me) takes care
of the problems such as which drive and directory is the program actually on,
and what the executable file is for a specific program.
     It is the file manager which I find incredibly frustrating and
unintuitive.  I am used to Norton Commander, where it is easy to log onto two
drives with half of the screen displaying each drive.  Drive to drive transfers
or copy commands require far too much manipulation in the File Manager, and the
mouse commands for copying and moving files are not easy to remember.  Let me
see: clicking and dragging an icon copies the file (or is it moves the file)
unless you press Control (or is it Shift or Alt) unless you are going between
different drives at which point the rules don't apply the same way.  Who can
remember this?  Norton Commander at least makes things clear.  If you want to
move a file, click on the Rename.Move box, and if you want to copy click on the
copy box.  I hope Norton gets his act together and makes a Windows 3 version of
Norton Commander so I can dump the silly file manager.  As it is, I am still
using Commander as a DOS program for my more complex drive re-organizations as
they are too difficult to perform with the File Manager.
--
Bruce Dunn   Vancouver, Canada    a752@mindlink.UUCP

dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) (08/29/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM> sota@tc.fluke.COM
(Bruce White) writes:

   From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so
   many problems associated with installing and running Windows, that
   everybody hates it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling
   godzillions of copies.  Since so many people are buying it, some of
   them must like it.

What we're seeing is a flash back to 1984-85 when there were dozens of
computers making their own copies of the IBM PC.  All of the vendors
claimed "IBM PC COMPATIBILITY", but only Compaq met the claim (that's
why Eagle, Colombia, Corona, etc., are no longer in business).  When
the Chips & Technologies ROMS came out, "compatibility" wasn't a major
issue anymore.  So everyone believed that they had compatible
machines.

Now, along comes Windows 3.0.  The people at MS made the environment
"compatible" with the IBM/Compaq "standards".  If you look at the task
that MS took on, viz creating an environment that works across all
hardware and software implementations that follow the "standard", it
is amazing (and a credit to their design and code abilities) that they
have as few problems that we see everyday on the net news.  It has to
be a nightmare to work their customer support line.

The majority of problems that I've seen people complain about (and
that have actually been traced down the cause of the problem) are
affiliated with video boards.  Guess what folks?  Those nasty video
card makers aren't truly following the "standards".  Each vendor has
his own custom chip, proprietary alogorithms, etc.  We hear that some
are switching register functions around and other rude things.  It's
1984 all over again.

You, the consumer, innocently purchase these cards, install them in
your machines, get a mighty fine looking DOS screen, and then try
running Windows 3.0 that requires real compatibility, and it bombs.
"Foul," you cry.  "This piece of crap software doesn't work."  But,
your anger is directed at the wrong source.

I'm not trying to say that everything MS does is absolutely great.  I
happen to believe, for example, that their site license policy for
network compatible software was the product of brain dead minds.  But,
that's another issue.  What I am saying is that Windows does work
properly if you have a "compatible" machine and cards.  If you get a
chance, look at the SDK manuals from MS Press and see how Windows
really works (1st couple of chapters in the Programming Guide).  It is
a pretty slick windowing system.  So there.

--

                    V
                     '
                      '
                       '
                        '
                         ' 
                          *
                          I           Damn Pigeons!




David Sampson                                         Harris Corporation
dsampson@x102a.ess.harris.com                   Gov't Aerospace Systems Divison
uunet!x102a!dsampson                                  Melbourne, Florida

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

andrzej@bcars268.UUCP (Andrzej Bieszczad) (08/29/90)

In article <15720003@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>, muyanja@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
(bill muyanja) writes:
|>> How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows. 
Tell us what
|>> you use it for,...
|> 
|>Solitaire, mon!
|>
|>(a lot less stressful than Tetris!)
|>
|>Bill
|>-- 

Try Taipei !!!

Andrzej

kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) (08/29/90)

Is it just because of my Macintosh background, or does everybody
think the program manager is unintuitive, confusing, and flaky?
Is the program manager "just another windows program" so that soon
we might see better "shells"?

-steve

rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (08/30/90)

In article <1990Aug29.132336.24996@cs.columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) writes:
>Is it just because of my Macintosh background, or does everybody
>think the program manager is unintuitive, confusing, and flaky?
	Oh, I don't know.  I have found the Mac to be unintuitive, confusing,
	and flaky at times. Nothings perfect.

>Is the program manager "just another windows program" so that soon
>we might see better "shells"?
	Yes, the program manager is just a Windows application.  It can be
	replaced at start up by changing the "shell=" line in the win.ini
	file (I think).  In fact, there already are at least 6 replacements
	for the program manager.  They run from MSDOS Executive-like to 
	Mac clones with looks of icons and tash-cans and other such stuff.
	In Windows, like DOS, you can use what ever shell you want.

	-----Dale
		Rogerson-----

gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (08/30/90)

Well, about this shell thing...

I am currently working the bugs out of wsh version 1.0  If you are familiar
with the Unix ksh, you will know where I got my model.  Granted wsh is a far
cry from ksh; but it is a step in the correct direction.

Currently it supports the following internal commands:
	cd
	mkdir
	rmdir
	ls
	(drive change)

as well as the ability to launch commands.  I am designing an interface such
that applications can be launched from wsh and receive a handle to the edit
control that the cli uses to provide "console" output.  But that is destined
for version 2.0  For version 1.0, I will be happy to get rid of the Abnormal
Termination errors.  If you are despirate for a cli, I can make version 1.0
available for beta test.  But I would strongly discourage using it as your
SHELL= program, it will work most of the time; but I occasionally get start
up errors.

enough of my drivel...
email me if you would like a beta version of wsh...

jeff

-- 
Jeff Watkins                       gt3070b@prism.gatech.edu
Convergent Media Systems           (404) 315-0105 voice  (404) 315-0231 data
"I speak for no-one. AND NO-ONE SPEAKS FOR ME... oh, yes, _dear_...I gotta go..."

ce1zzes@prism.gatech.EDU (Eric Sheppard) (08/30/90)

In article <1990Aug29.132336.24996@cs.columbia.edu>, kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) writes:
> Is it just because of my Macintosh background, or does everybody
> think the program manager is unintuitive, confusing, and flaky?
> Is the program manager "just another windows program" so that soon
> we might see better "shells"?
> 
> -steve

One thing I didn't know it could do was to start up an application with a
data file already loaded.  I later found how to do this in, of all places,
Computer Shopper's review of Windows 3.  All you have to do, it says, is to
drag the data file's icon onto the program icon.  Simple, eh?  Pardon me,
Microsoft, but I would like to have my application make the data file visible
*automatically*.  To make it visible, you must manually create a new program
object, then enter the filename in the dialog box, then create a link to the
filename's extension for the application.  Intuitive, hah!

Eric, tinkerer-at-large
-- 
Eric Sheppard      Georgia Tech    |   "Of course the US Constitution isn't
Atlanta, GA                        | perfect; but it's a lot better than what
ARPA: ce1zzes@prism.gatech.edu     |             we have now." -Unknown
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ce1zzes

ABishop@massey.ac.nz (A.G. Bishop) (08/30/90)

---------------------------- Article Seperator ----------------------------
Path: massey.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!munnari.oz.au!samsung!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!PEDEV!rogerson
From: rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Does everybody hate Windows?
Keywords: Windows, success, hate, Microsoft=devil, Microsoft=god
Message-ID: <3260@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Date: 29 Aug 90 17:28:31 GMT
References: <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM> <8385@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <1990Aug29.132336.24996@cs.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson)
Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC
Lines: 17

In article <3260@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> Dale Rogerson writes:

>	file (I think).  In fact, there already are at least 6 replacements
>	for the program manager.  They run from MSDOS Executive-like to 
>	Mac clones with looks of icons and tash-cans and other such stuff.
>	In Windows, like DOS, you can use what ever shell you want.

6 replacements!  Windows documents tell me that I can use ProgMan or
FileMan.  Would you please post a list of the other 5?

Tony


-- 
Tony Bishop				Computer Centre
Email: A.G.Bishop@massey.ac.nz		Massey University
Standard disdainer applies		Palmerston North, N.Z.

tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Anthony M. Brich) (08/30/90)

In article <1990Aug27.204452.9786@tc.fluke.COM>, sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) writes:
> From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
> problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates
> it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
> Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.
> 
> How about some postings from people who use, and like, Windows.  Tell us what
> you use it for, why you like it, whether you use it with non-Windows Apps, what

Okay.  I admit to liking Windows, even, given to hyperbole (as I  am),
of  loving  Windows.  Perhpas  not  a  fashionable  stance,  but ...

I run Windows quite successfully (i.e., with  few  crashes,  at  least
lately,   and  infrequent  unrecoverable  application  errors)  on  an
Olivetti M300 --- a 16Mhz 386sx with 4mbs RAM, an 80 mb HDU, superVGA,
5  1/4"  and  3  1/2" floppies, Ethernet card, and dedicated QMS PS810
Postscript printer.  Flawless configuration,  in  my  opinion  (oh,  I
could  use  more  RAM, but one can ALWAYS use more RAM, right?  And my
hard disk could be bigger,  but  they  can  ALWAYS  be  bigger,  can't
they?).  Nice tight little footprint, pretty gray box, solid blacks in
the monitor, punchy keyboard, enough speed for my purposes, and
reliable so far.

I had tried Win386 --- hated it.  The  Dick  Tracy  colors,  the  flat
screen, the pathetic MS-DOS executive --- good enough for a prototype,
maybe, but not good enough to use.  Ugh.  I tried to use Win386 as  it
was  advertised, bascially the same way I use Windows now, as a multi-
tasking shell, but Win386 couldn't cut it, I gave up, and three months
later,  along  came  my  first  beta  version  of Win 3.0.  There's no
turning back.  The minute I saw Windows 3.0, in BETA release  here  at
Olivetti,  it  was  love  at first sight: the dazzling tasteful colors
(well-suited  to  the  tasteful  palette  of  Olivetti's   by-Italians
offices),  the  clever  little 3D buttons, the convincing multi-tasking
affect, all conspired to seduce me into the Windows world.

Why do I find Windows so irresistible?  Arguably, the most important
feature is the convicning multi-tasking.  I can keep several busy
applications running all day long, which I do, and while I'm pasting a
big clump of text into vi on UNIX, I can be working on a Winword
document and running a Terminal session with another UNIX session,
keeping my place in my todo list and won't be bothered if someone
shows up with a last-minute request for a vendor's phone number.  

As you might gather, I use several applications routinely during my day, and
several of the Windows accessories, and a few DOS programs, most
importantly, my FTP Software's PC/TCP software to connect to UNIX for
EMail, news, etc.  My Program  Manager  has  an  Agenda  group,  which
contains a Write icon for my ToDo List, a Cardfile icon for my Rolodex
file (66 cards and counting), a DOS icon for my Ethernet connection to
UNIX,  a calendar icon for my calendar.  My System group contains most
of what used to be in Main, my Tools group most of what used to be  in
Accessories,  an  IS  Tools group contains the icons I culled from the
previous two groups, and my Applications group contains all my 
applications  (Winword,  Project,  Powerpoint,  Excel).  Everything is
within easy reach of the mouse, on a  pleasant  background  of  forest
green.

I  can  keep  everything  I need up and running,  switching  between
applications  as demanded by my rather frenetic life here at Olivetti:
in the middle of creating an EMail message, a colleague will  drop  by
with  a  request for a change in a manual, someone elese will chime in
with a request for a vendor phone number, a client will call for  help
with  an  Excel  macro.  I  can keep my EMail alive in the background,
task list over to the  Program  Manager  to  launch  Winword  and  the
technical  manual  file,  open my Cardfile Rolodex, and update my todo
list, almost all at the same time!  As fast as I can, I fulfill the
requests, and send the requestors off with what they need, to return
to my EMail --- quickly.  If I could multi-task  as  well  as  Windows
fakes  it,  I'd  be incredible.  The only thing limiting my ability to
address all those requests is my own human single-tasking limitations.

And though I hated the idea of Winword (for that matter, I hated the
too-cute MacWord, always favoring the leaner, meaner Word for the PC),
I have learned to like it very much, especially for putting together a
quick table for a report on class schedules, or a summary of system
configurations in a client department.  Simple tables, to be sure, and
with Winword, simple to produce.  Fast.  I also use Write as a
pared-down version of Winword, for fast text entry, final formatting
to be completed in Winword, cutting and pasting between applications,
or using Winword's filters.  In fact, a colleague was here today, we
discussed a new lab policy, and I turned to my computer, opened a new
Winword file, and in five minutes, we had publishable text,
attractively formatted.  I relied heavily on the ribbon and the ruler,
the pull-down menus, to produce a document which will have immediate
impact on our users.  And it was fast!

As short of attention span as I am, Windows lets me run circles around
my desktop, attending to portions of many tasks when so inspired,
finishing all up by the end of a day.  It's the way I work.
Especially since everything I do is related:  I do Windows training,
user support, technical writing --- all user service kinds of things.
And idea for a lab policy document could have impact on a lab
schedule, which in turn will have impact on users which must be
notified ... you get the picture.  Windows lets me accomplish all of
the above without the tedious exiting and launching of applications,
except when I want to shut 'em down to concentrate on a single task
for a while.

Hmm. I wonder if this makes sense.  In a way, Windows is bad for a
disciplined mind:  you can jump around on whim, instead of being
forced to attend to a single application.  Doesn't make for good
linear thinking, you know?  And probably that's why I like Windows.

The other advantages of Windows, most importantly memory management,
are pretty transparent for me, and not such a huge issue because I
don't work with large files too often.  

Finally, from an aesthetic viewpoint, I am pleased with Microsoft's
achievement.  A few dialog boxes and message boxes could probably be
placed a little better and organized more effectively, but on the
whole, I think Windows is a piece of good work.

It's probably not for everyone --- (just the enlightened ;!> )  If you're
willing to invest some time learning a radically different approach to
PC interfaces, you'll probable at least be intrigued by Windows.  It
has its flaws, most all well documented in this newsgroup and, to
lesser extent, in the press.  But on the whole, I am quite happy with
the accomplishment and look forward to new releases.  For the first
time in my life, I'm even thinking about programming:  it would be
gratifying indeed to build an application with a face as pretty as
Windows can make it.


Okay, enough.  You get the idea.  If I gush a little over Windows,
forgive me.  It's just that it makes life pretty easy around here
these days.  

Tony Brich

kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) (08/30/90)

In article <2980@mindlink.UUCP> a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> kearns@cs.columbia.edu writes:
>> Is it just because of my Macintosh background, or does everybody
>> think the program manager is unintuitive, confusing, and flaky?
>
>     I find the program manager excellent, and just what I need for a home
> .....
>     It is the file manager which I find incredibly frustrating and
>unintuitive.  I am used to Norton Commander, where it is easy to log onto two
> ....
>Bruce Dunn   Vancouver, Canada    a752@mindlink.UUCP

Woops, this is actually what I meant to say: the program manager is
great, but the file manager is what I have trouble with.  I got
confused because on the macintosh they are one and the same.

-steve

jjm@wicat.UUCP (John J. Mendenhall) (08/30/90)

sota@tc.fluke.COM (Bruce White) writes:

>From reading this newsgroup, one could conclude that there are so many
>problems associated with installing and running Windows, that everybody hates

yes, I HATE Windows 3!

>it.  Yet the popular press shows Microsoft selling godzillions of copies.
>Since so many people are buying it, some of them must like it.

Checkout _Government Computer News_ , June or July issue. They had 50+ color
pages of rave reviews. Bo knows football, US Govnt does NOT know computers!

>I would also like to hear from those that are forced to use it, and don't like
>it.  Why are *you* using it and why don't you like it.

Due to customer demand, my company decided to link one of its products 
with _the power_ of windows. My group provides technical support for that
product, and now must provide technical support to our customers for 
Windows. When we say technical support we mean technical support, ie. we 
have been working a lot with windows lately.  Our conclusions: Windows is 
buggy, over-hyped, and a blight on the earth.  Support from MicroS*** is 
even worse! You call their wonderful FREE phone number and you get a 
machine with some programmed responses. If you wait 30+ minutes (all the 
while paying toll fees) you might get a real person.  All this person is 
capable of doing is reading the manual back to you. In the endless hours 
we have spent tyring to get intelligent help from MS, we have actually 
given them more help/information than they have given us.  Mr. Bill is 
making billions from fools who own, but know nothing of computers.

>Thanks.

John Mendenhall
jjm@wicat

kensy@microsoft.UUCP (Ken SYKES) (09/03/90)

In article <13149@hydra.gatech.EDU> ce1zzes@prism.gatech.EDU (Eric Sheppard) writes:
>
>One thing I didn't know it could do was to start up an application with a
>data file already loaded.  I later found how to do this in, of all places,
>Computer Shopper's review of Windows 3.  All you have to do, it says, is to
>drag the data file's icon onto the program icon.  Simple, eh?  Pardon me,
>Microsoft, but I would like to have my application make the data file visible
>*automatically*.  To make it visible, you must manually create a new program
>object, then enter the filename in the dialog box, then create a link to the
>filename's extension for the application.  Intuitive, hah!
>
>Eric, tinkerer-at-large

This is not a difficult process if you use the "standard" extensions that
different applications use (.xls, .xlc for excel, .wri for write, etc.)

First go to the File Manager and bring up a directory that contains one
of your data files.  Select the file and Choose File.Associate.  Then
type in the program name associated with that file extension.  This only
has to be done once when you install the application.

Now if you want to put documents in your groups go ahead.  When you add a
data file to a group Windows looks in the association list for the .exe
that goes with it, extracts the icon, etc.  Clicking on the document will
run the program and load the document.

Does this still seem convoluted?  The mac has type and creator fields
IN THE FILE that allow it to avoid the File Manager step but it presents
problems of its own...

Hope this helps.  Sorry if you already knew this.

Ken Sykes
Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely my own.

dow@presto.ig.com (Christopher Dow) (09/04/90)

	This is interesting.  I have been reading all this 
hatred of Windows from people, and I just can't figure it out.
There are things about Windows that none of the other window
systems has:  DDE, MDI, and other things that come from and 
"operating environment" that can't be had with standard models 
of windowing systems.  I have used Macs, Sun Workstations run-
ning X and SunView, VaxStations running DecWindows and WGS, 
and PC with and without Windows.   In addition, I have written
programs for Windows, Mac, and X.  From all of this I have 
come the the following opinions:



	1.)  With 3.0 Windows is as good as any of the above-
mentioned windowing systems (note the absence of NeXTStep), 
and better than the Mac for often-used window manipulations
(Resizing, Iconofying, etc.).

	2.)  All one has to do is look at Motif, PM, Windows,
OpenLook, SunView to see that the "program manager" (generic)
paradigm is the standard, and the Finder paradigm is the 
_exception_.  (Icons are programs, not files, and you set up 
the icons in the manager with and install or by hand). 

	3.)  The window manipulation gizmos are the same as 
Motif, which everyone who matters in the computer industry 
supports with the exception of NeXT, Sun, and AT&T (and I do 
mean that Apple supports it, too).  Also, when one clics in 
a similar place in a window, a similar thing happens.  This 
is an extremely powerful concept.  Users can change computers
and already know how to use the new system.  

	4.)  The Mac has lower-level toolkit than the other 
systems, and therefore requires more code to write programs 
than Windows or X.

	There are some bad things about Windows, like worth-
less Microsoft support, bad debugging(compared to X or the 
Mac), Expensive tools, etc.  The Mac, on the other hand, 
has no command line (unless you count MPWW), has a 
kludged file system that NOONE really understands, and the 
hardware is fascist (one vendor) and expensive.  So take 
your pic.

Overall, I think that 3.0 is a _definite_ improvement over the 
Mac from the user's viewpoint.

news@olivea.atc.olivetti.com (news) (09/13/90)

From: tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Anthony M. Brich)
Path: olivej!tonyb

A colleague is in the habit of unfragmenting hard disks from a DOS
window, using Norton Utilities' Speed Disk.  Seems to work okay,
though I must admit I was a little skepical.  Are we running any great
risks with this technique?

Tony Brich

DRJ100@psuvm.psu.edu (Daniel R. Jeuch) (09/14/90)

In article <49394@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, news@olivea.atc.olivetti.com (news)
says:
>
>From: tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Anthony M. Brich)
>Path: olivej!tonyb
>
>A colleague is in the habit of unfragmenting hard disks from a DOS
>window, using Norton Utilities' Speed Disk.  Seems to work okay,
>though I must admit I was a little skepical.  Are we running any great
>risks with this technique?
>
Yes, very much so... especially when used in conjunction with SmartDRV.SYS
(The cache buffer)  Norton's SpeedDisk program phisically moves the data
from one part of the hard drive to another.  Windows still expects to find
the data in the old place.  Both the Windows manual AND Norton's manual
warn against these practices.  A hard drive write procedure could
potentially destroy the integrity of the File Allocation Table (FAT), and
once that's gone, so is the rest of that drive!

Only programs that use DOS for drive access can be run... Another example
is Spinrite.  Don't run this application under Windows either...

>Tony Brich

-----
Daniel R. Jeuch                   Microsoft Corp. Student Rep.
10 Vario Blvd., Box 185           DRJ100@PSUVM, drj@psuvm.psu.edu
State College, PA  16803          drj@s121.psu.edu (my PC)
(814) 867-4622, (800) 232-5129

gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (09/14/90)

SD.EXE has not messed up my drives yet.  I have 2 toshiba 66MB RLL .5" drives
and am running DOS 4.0 with 2 66MB partitions.  I use SD once a week to
unfrag my disks and have not had 1 error.  I even have share going :-)

jeff

-- 
Jeff Watkins                       gt3070b@prism.gatech.edu
Convergent Media Systems           (404) 315-0105 voice  (404) 315-0231 data
"I speak for no-one. AND NO-ONE SPEAKS FOR ME... oh, yes, _dear_...I gotta go..."

scholes@boulder.Colorado.EDU (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) (09/14/90)

In article <90256.133657DRJ100@psuvm.psu.edu> DRJ100@psuvm.psu.edu (Daniel R. Jeuch) writes:
>>A colleague is in the habit of unfragmenting hard disks from a DOS
>>window, using Norton Utilities' Speed Disk.  Seems to work okay,
>
>Only programs that use DOS for drive access can be run... Another example

  My understanding is that Speed Disk uses DOS (and not the BIOS) to access
the drive.  The reason I feel confident of this is that my IDE absolutely
will NOT function correctly unless accessed thru DOS (i.e. DMDRVR.BIN).
In addition, I can tell that SD goes thru my cacher, which caches on the
DOS level.

  Which brings me to another question.  Windows will lock up at the banner
if I try to run it in enhanced mode.  Runs fine in standard mode.  I've
isolated the problem to DMDRVR.BIN in my config.sys.  Is there a patch
somewhere so that I can get around this problem?
  Also, I have a 256k Paradise VGA card, max 256 color res of 640x400.  Does
anyone know of any drivers I might be able to use to get Win3 into 256 colors?
I've tried the set on cica.cica.indiana.edu, but they are for 512k cards.
  Thanx in advance for any help.       Marty (scholes@snoopy.colorado.edu)