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!sotalaughner@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)