nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) (08/13/90)
Imagine this: a firm announces a revolutionary product, say a new coffee-maker. The announcement is followed by reams of free publicity in leading newspapers. The hottest thing since the invention of halvah, it's said. The usual contingent of techni- cal-novelty addicts, myself among them, rush to buy and test. Mild disappointment: it appears to be a sluggish drip pot, nothing more. This time they read the directions carefully and try again. Same thing: sluggish drip pot. They've been had. What do the buyers do? If the turnip in question is a coffee pot, they cry foul and call the cops. If it's a computer program sold by the world's largest and richest software firm, they tend to blame themselves for not having learned to use the software properly. But in fact, dear friends, Windows 3.0 is simply a very slow drip pot. Watch this: "Standard mode is the normal operating mode for running Windows. This mode provides access to expanded memory and also lets you switch among non-Windows applications" (User's Guide, p. 10). What are non-Windows applications? Why, nothing much: just Word Perfect, Lotus 123, Quattro, Procomm, etc. In short, if you happen to own some of the most popular (and expen- sive) software on the market, Microsoft will now enable you to *switch* from one to the other, something that Software Carousel has enabled one to do for at least 4 years. And, where Carousel is elegant and speedy, Windows--even with a mouse--is cumbersome and unbelievably slow. So slow,in fact, that Windows 3.0 is almost worth buying as a specimen of comically inept programming. Multi-tasking? Only if you own a 386 machine. Desqview enables even lowly 286 owners to run several programs at once (and swiftly at that)? So what? Desqview hasn't got quill-pen and card-file icons (or the darling hour-glass that asks you to wait for a routine which--were it one of many old public domain routines--would long ago have been up and running). Desqview doesn't require that you wait as much as ten seconds--along with hard-disk noises suggestive of a Mexican school bus climbing a mountain--in order to read the help screen? Again, so what? Windows will put a real working clock on your screen! Wow. Now if Microsoft had meant to play fair with its customers, it would have warned potential users that a 386 was virtually a necessity. It would not have given the name of "standard mode" to a manifestly sub-standard product. But that would severely have limited the demand. God forbid. Windows 3.0 may indeed be great on a 386. I note that a whole slew of manufacturers are now shipping it with their machines, which suggests that it may be a winner. What's unforgiveable is the arrogant misrepresenta- tion to the huge number of non-386 owners that Windows is for them. Do I seem bitter? I really meant to tell of my bafflement. For in fact, I have been alternately so enraged and yet so sure it's my fault that I've installed and erased Windows four times in 2 weeks. (That takes patience, by the way: Microsoft ships Windows on microthin cheapos that may or may not be recognized by one's disk drive. And the first batch of Windows contained a floppy which was not only empty, but hadn't even been formatted.) So, while I'm pretty certain by now that I've given Windows a fair test, I hope that some of you out there will either confirm that I'm right or point out some silly dumb-head thing I did wrong. Surely it isn't just the slowest drip pot ever made. Or is it? Thus doth hype make ditherers of us all. Norman Miller
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/14/90)
In article <545@mstr.hgc.edu> nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: >Imagine this: a firm announces a revolutionary product, say a new >coffee-maker. The announcement is followed by reams of free >publicity in leading newspapers. The hottest thing since the >invention of halvah, it's said. The usual contingent of techni- >cal-novelty addicts, myself among them, rush to buy and test. > >Mild disappointment: it appears to be a sluggish drip pot, >nothing more. This time they read the directions carefully and >try again. Same thing: sluggish drip pot. They've been had. > >What do the buyers do? If the turnip in question is a coffee >pot, they cry foul and call the cops. If it's a computer program >sold by the world's largest and richest software firm, they tend >to blame themselves for not having learned to use the software >properly. > > [Gripes about Win 3 deleted] > >Do I seem bitter? I really meant to tell of my bafflement. For >in fact, I have been alternately so enraged and yet so sure it's >my fault that I've installed and erased Windows four times in 2 >weeks. (That takes patience, by the way: Microsoft ships Windows >on microthin cheapos that may or may not be recognized by one's >disk drive. And the first batch of Windows contained a floppy >which was not only empty, but hadn't even been formatted.) So, >while I'm pretty certain by now that I've given Windows a fair >test, I hope that some of you out there will either confirm that >I'm right or point out some silly dumb-head thing I did wrong. >Surely it isn't just the slowest drip pot ever made. Or is it? > Although I have Win 3 running smoothly on my 386, I was playing around with my brother's 286 over the weekend. Win 3 as implemented on his system displays behavior such as you describe. I didn't have time to check out his implementation to see if I could fix it, but as you say, Win 3 was hyped as the solution for computerphobes who really didn't care how his computer worked, and only wants a nice GUI so he can point and shoot, so to speak. On his 286, Win 3 would start, display the wallpaper, and then exit to a DOS prompt with no error messages. Re-entering the win command would restart Win 3, which would then initialize all the way up to the Program Manager. He had troubles getting Win 3 to come up in Standard Mode at first, and had to re-install the software before he could get this to work. I'm sure that if I played around with his system for a couple of hours, I could probably resolve most of his problems, but the point is that you aren't supposed to need an MS in Computer Science, and 20 years in the DP industry to get Windows to run smoothly. The average home office, or corporate user should be able to install Windows on his 286, and get it to work properly without raising a sweat. Obviously, this isn't the case. -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)
mikep@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Mike Prather) (08/14/90)
In article <545@mstr.hgc.edu> nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: > > blah blah blah deleted > >Watch this: "Standard mode is the normal operating mode for >running Windows. This mode provides access to expanded memory ^^^^^^^^ I think that the big deal about standard mode is that it provides direct access to EXTENDED rather than expanded memory. >and also lets you switch among non-Windows applications" (User's >Guide, p. 10). What are non-Windows applications? Why, nothing >much: just Word Perfect, Lotus 123, Quattro, Procomm, etc. Windows on a 286 is not great for running DOS applications. You get to swap between each, but I believe it has to put you into real mode in order to run a DOS application. That means it pretty much has to halt Windows completely, go into real mode, and fork a process to run the DOS program. >In >short, if you happen to own some of the most popular (and expen- >sive) software on the market, Microsoft will now enable you to >*switch* from one to the other, something that Software Carousel >has enabled one to do for at least 4 years. I imagine Windows will allow you to swap CHEAP programs as well as expensive ones. At least that's my experience. But, on a 286, swapping to DOS is not a great thing to do. It takes forever. Is Software Carousel limited by the 640k barrier? Windows 3 is not. As long as you're using Windows applications, you can fill up your extended memory with multitasking Windows applications. >And, where Carousel >is elegant and speedy, Windows--even with a mouse--is cumbersome >and unbelievably slow. So slow,in fact, that Windows 3.0 is >almost worth buying as a specimen of comically inept programming. If you're swapping DOS applications all the time, then yes, it is slow. I found it tolerably fast on a 286-12-0ws as long as I was running Windows applications only. >Multi-tasking? Only if you own a 386 machine. Multitasking of Windows applications on a 286 works quite well. To multitask DOS applications, you really need a 386. >Desqview >doesn't require that you wait as much as ten seconds--along with >hard-disk noises suggestive of a Mexican school bus climbing a >mountain--in order to read the help screen? How much memory do you have? I plan to get a total of 3 megs into my system before long. I imagine I'll set up a pretty big cache. That should take care of most of the drive thrashing. >Now if Microsoft had meant to play fair with its customers, it >would have warned potential users that a 386 was virtually a >necessity. Microsoft is in the business of selling products. If you wanted to be warned, you should have read some of the zillions of articles. Windows 3.0 was on the cover of just about every PC magazine out. >It would not have given the name of "standard mode" >to a manifestly sub-standard product. Standard mode is meant to say that the 286 is now (finally) running in the mode that it was designed for. I think it's great that SOMEBODY finally wrote a piece of software that takes advantage of the 286. The only other product I've seen that uses the 286 in protected (or standard) mode is the XENIX operating system. Try running DOS programs under THAT. >more blah blah blah deleted > >So, >while I'm pretty certain by now that I've given Windows a fair >test, I hope that some of you out there will either confirm that >I'm right or point out some silly dumb-head thing I did wrong. The dump-head thing you did was not research the product before you bought it. I think Microsoft did a pretty good job. I'm glad to know that my 286 is finally getting a real workout, and NOT in REAL mode. I am glad to see that Windows is taking off. Hopefully we'll see a large selection of software for it. If so, my 286 might not be dead just yet. > >Norman Miller Mike -- ***************************************************************************** mikep@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu Standard Disclaimer *****************************************************************************
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/14/90)
In article <545@mstr.hgc.edu> nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: >Multi-tasking? Only if you own a 386 machine. Desqview enables >even lowly 286 owners to run several programs at once (and >swiftly at that)? So what? Desqview hasn't got quill-pen and >card-file icons (or the darling hour-glass that asks you to wait >for a routine which--were it one of many old public domain >routines--would long ago have been up and running). Desqview >doesn't require that you wait as much as ten seconds--along with >hard-disk noises suggestive of a Mexican school bus climbing a >mountain--in order to read the help screen? Again, so what? >Windows will put a real working clock on your screen! Wow. Actually, I've worked with both DesqView and Windows over the years. Basically, I see it this way. Windows is a heck of a lot easier to use (especially for those that have used Macs), and it's got a lot more neat toys. I used to have DesqView on my computer at home a while ago and, well, I'm much more interested in GUI's than DOS Windowing products. They're easier to look at all day, and generally easier to use. If I run a DOS window full screen I see no real speed decrease. Most of the speed issues running a DOS program on a 386 as a Window involve manipulating the graphics necessary to display the Dos program as a graphic window. DesqView probably only makes bios calls to "draw" it's windows and these are a HECK of a lot quicker than making the graphics calls that Windows has to make to display it's stuff. I'm pretty happy with Windows now. Even on some of the 1 meg 286's I've run it on, I can deal with the speed since I get the convenience of a system that has lots of neat toys and is easier on the eyes for me. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (08/15/90)
Hi Norman,
Just exactly what is your system configuration like ? How much RAM,
what type hard disk, controller, speed etc.
Note that DesqView can only "multitask" in a 286 if it has true
hardware LIM 4.0 EMS. Otherwise, it can only multitask very small
programs -- which collectively occupy less than ~512K of RAM.
If your program gets too big, with LIM 3.2 hardware, DesqView will
"context switch" your programs and not "multitask". You can find
that out by watching the screen and see if it say "swapping" in the
top right hand corner when you switch from one program to another.
Personally, I don't know if Windows 3.0 does multitasking with
286 having true LIM 4.0 EMS hardware ? Any taker ?
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 !
ps: Of course I am not affliated with MS or QuarterDeck and I only
speak for myself.dve@zooid.UUCP (system operator) (08/17/90)
nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: > But in fact, dear friends, Windows 3.0 is simply a very slow drip > pot. Watch this: "Standard mode is the normal operating mode for > running Windows. This mode provides access to expanded memory > and also lets you switch among non-Windows applications" (User's If you want to simply switch between or multitask DOS applications, then you should use Software Carousel or Desqview. However, if you want to be able to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. You are treating Windows as a DOS shell, which it is not because it provides many features that DOS does not have. So I think that you have missed the entire point of Windows. If you really want to evaluate Windows, then go out and buy Windows equivelants of all your DOS programs instead of just using Windows to run DOS programs. You are crippling Windows. We use 286 machines with 2 megs of RAM and run all-Windows programs and have none of the problems you mentioned.
tgp@sei.cmu.edu (Tod Pike) (08/17/90)
In article <545@mstr.hgc.edu>, nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes:
<an article comparing MicroSoft windows 3.0 to a coffee pot>
<I won't include it because it's too long>
Well, let's say that I'm in the market for a new coffee pot. What I do in
general is read the trade journals, ask people who have used the product, and
if I can, try before I buy. If I do all of these things, I will have a good
idea about the capabilities and flaws of the product before I try it.
Your metaphor is flawed in the case of windows 3.0, because if windows is so
bad, why isn't there a great hue and cry about it? Why don't I see every (or
any, even) magazine articles telling me about it's critical flaws? Why don't
I see retailers, programmers, and users telling me not to buy it? What I have
seen others say, (and have seen for myself in using windows 3.0) is a pretty
good product that does what is claimed for it. It has flaws, but if your
expectations are correct you will not be disappointed. I feel that your problem
is not with windows, but with your expectations.
A couple of points: I have a 286 box. Not a burner, but it does the job for
me. Windows is not slow enough to be annoying to me, and I use a fast
workstation running Xwindows at work. I'm not sure what you consider unusable,
but windows is definitely usable. Also, windows DOES multi-task on a 286. A
case in point...I start up a download with Terminal, and then go off to a DOS
window to run a non-windows program (PC-FILE 3.0 - definitely not a windows
application!). When I get back, I see that the download has gone right
ahead without pause. It may not be pre-emptive multitasking, but it does the
same thing.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Suffice to say that I'm satisified with
windows. If you think that there is a better product, use it. If you don't
think that Microsoft did a good job, write a better environment. Let me know
when it's done.
Tod Pike
--
Internet: tgp@sei.cmu.edu
Mail: Carnegie Mellon University
Software Engineering Institute
Pittsburgh, PA. 15213-3980simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (08/18/90)
In article <94J1N6w162w@zooid.UUCP>, dve@zooid.UUCP (system operator) writes... >If you want to simply switch between or multitask DOS applications, then you >should use Software Carousel or Desqview. However, if you want to be able >to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated >and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. I am afraid I am also the one who is missing the point. What are "all of DOS' restrictions" that Windows break? If I have Word Perfect or Lotus, will it run better under Windows then under DesqView? Or is the "breaking" is relative only to specifically Windows written software? >You are treating >Windows as a DOS shell, which it is not because it provides many features >that DOS does not have. Which? >So I think that you have missed the entire point of >Windows. I think I do. I still have not been able to figure out what Windows has vs. what other specialized programs and DesqView 386 does not. Windows' accessory are next to useless comparing to PC TOOLS' DESKTOP; its File Manager is crippled (in comparison to PC-TOOLS or Norton Commander), it doesn't even have a file viewer let alone being slow; the Terminal emulator that can't handle ^H, etc. This is not degrading Windows or flaming, it is a real search for the answer. --------- Leo Simon simon@pwrvax.enet.dec.com Who is not liberal when young, does not have a heart. Who is not conservative when old, does not have a brain. -- W. Churchill
jmorriso@fs0.ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) (08/18/90)
The little applications that come with WIndows are SAMPLES. They are modestly useful little tools to show you a bit of what Windwos can do, but you should really get specific versions of programs that do what you want them to. For CDN$100 you get Windows and afew other tools. for CDN$700 you get OS/2 1.2 which has NO useful appplications! (You get some kind of database thing; big deal!) Not even a lousy GAME. Windows does have signifigantly more features than DesqView etc. Programs written for Windows can run in extended memory. In Windows standard and enhanced mode there is no distinction between DOS/extended memory. Windows provide DEVICE INDEPENDENCE. You should no longer find 20 different device drivers for your word-processors, spreadsheets etc all for the same LaserJet III, along with the wasted hard disk space of all your fonts. With device independence comes standard ways of doing things. Do you really think DOS TSRs are the "right" way of doing things? If they work, fine, but I have seen more headaches caused by myriads of device drivers and tsrs and shrinking DOS 640k memory. Really, TSRs fighting over interrupts and memory is not a very appealing way of doing things. But to you, the distinction might seem academic. Windows provides ways for programs to multitask, and communicate with each other Windows has a feature called Dynamic Data Interchange, which I have not really seen used, but provides enormous potential! I could picture a database program starting a DDE channel with a communications program, automatically logging in to a remote system, retrieving data, and then processing it. THIS kind of power is subtle but appealing to me, since it doesn't require that the data base actually know how to dial a modem, and start a download. All the program needs to know is DDE, then you can specify how it all works. Basically, you can ADD features to a program, without waiting for a lousy update to roll along! As if Excel or SupreBase would even consider adding such a specific feature anyway. Then there is the obvious appeal and ease of use of the interface, which is superb. John Paul Morrison
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (08/19/90)
simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >In article <94J1N6w162w@zooid.UUCP>, dve@zooid.UUCP (system operator) writes... >>If you want to simply switch between or multitask DOS applications, then you >>should use Software Carousel or Desqview. However, if you want to be able >>to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated >>and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. >I am afraid I am also the one who is missing the point. What are "all of >DOS' restrictions" that Windows break? If I have Word Perfect or Lotus, >will it run better under Windows then under DesqView? Or is the >"breaking" is relative only to specifically Windows written software? An - incomplete - list of DOS restrictions/problems which Window overcomes: The 640K limit. DOS runs in real mode. Windows 3 applications run in protected mode, which makes up to 16MB accessible without overlays or code swapping. The real memory limit. Windows on an I386 has virtual memory. The device dependency problem. It is a proverbial saying, that most usefull MSDOS programs are device dependent. Many big DOS programs come with disks full of mouse drivers, printer drivers, video drivers and so on. This is because DOS has no abstract device interface. Windows has. The user interface confusion. DesqView may have no problems to multiplex SuperCalc with Paradox and MS Word, to name some random examples. But even power users have problems to memorize more than a few user interfaces and to switch quickly between them. Windows, on the other hand, delivers the technical base of a similar user interface for different applications, to be run and used concurrently. I consider this to be essential to take actual advantage of the - technical - ability to multiplex applications on a single screen. Internationalization support. Windows support is not complete, and even Microsoft seems to have problems to actually *use* it right, but at least the core is there. For the people in Europe it matters whether they may expect national language versions of the applications they want to use. Of course, all this requires programs which are written specifically to the Windows interface. But I thinkh the message you are answering to made this quite clear. >>You are treating >>Windows as a DOS shell, which it is not because it provides many features >>that DOS does not have. >Which? See above. The only area where Windows is simply ugly DOS is its use of the file system of DOS. >>So I think that you have missed the entire point of >>Windows. >I think I do. I still have not been able to figure out what Windows has >vs. what other specialized programs and DesqView 386 does not. Windows' >accessory are next to useless comparing to PC TOOLS' DESKTOP; its File >Manager is crippled (in comparison to PC-TOOLS or Norton Commander), it >doesn't even have a file viewer let alone being slow; the Terminal >emulator that can't handle ^H, etc. You make some valid points here. But have you noticed that the PC TOOLS user interface for example looks more and more like Windows with each new version? Windows is a user interface framework comparable - not similar! - to the Macintosh user interface. The applications which come with it are somewhat limited and sometimes broken (for example Terminal, which is unusable outside the US), but if you need more, there *is* more available from other vendors selling Windows applications. Just to show that your comparison is a bit biased: How good is the DesqView or the PC-TOOLS text editor compared to Windows Write? Does it support PostScript printers or the HP DeskJet, for example, including access to proportional fonts of varying sizes? >This is not degrading Windows or flaming, it is a real search for the >answer. I think there is no single right answer here. There is still need for old character based applications and OS extensions, and as long as Windows does not have some kind of resource management integrated into the file system, I don't consider it to be a complete environment, but that may be fixed in the future. My own answer is to use a mixture of Windows and character based applications, prefering those "text mode" applications which adhere to a text mode adaption of the Windows style guide. IBM calls this the Common User Access (CUA) part of SAA (System Application Architecture). Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> (Nonstandard disclaimer: English is not my native language)
gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo) (08/21/90)
The debate between DV+DOSApps and Windows will never completely go away. There are definitely things Windows allows, when used in conjunction with WinApps, that DOS and DV will not. There are advantages in terms of cutting and pasting, and advantages many would think of as cosmetic. On a 386, as others have pointed out, the multiple dos boxes are as fast if not faster than DV (the point about graphics being given). Windows/386 also allows more memory than is in the box (for Winapps) by using disk. But most importantly are the advantages if you have qualified WinApps.H Specifically, DDE: For instance, I have a DDE connection between WinWord and Current that allows me to create a letter, run a macro that prompts for a name (or part of a name) and loads Current if it isn't loaded, searches my database for matches, give me a list box if more than one match is found, and then properly formats the address of the selected address, leaving out blank lines for fields that are empty. The conversation could easily go the other way. I type in an address in a letter and run a macro that parses the address and shoves it into Current. This is only a single example of a very powerful capablility which cannot be matched with DOS Apps. It may be approximated -- with keystroke recorders and TSRs, but it isn't at all the same. This is a true inter connection of applications *from different venders*.
ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (08/22/90)
From article <14679@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...): > > In article <94J1N6w162w@zooid.UUCP>, dve@zooid.UUCP (system operator) writes... > >>If you want to simply switch between or multitask DOS applications, then you >>should use Software Carousel or Desqview. However, if you want to be able >>to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated >>and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. > > I am afraid I am also the one who is missing the point. What are "all of > DOS' restrictions" that Windows break? If I have Word Perfect or Lotus, > will it run better under Windows then under DesqView? Or is the > "breaking" is relative only to specifically Windows written software? I believe (source: ComputerWorld of 20Aug 1990) the newest 1-2-3, version 3.1 will break the 640K barrier and also basic data sharing with the clipboard. Note that this release is not due to be released for two weeks.
dve@zooid.UUCP (David Mason) (08/23/90)
simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: > >to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated > >and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. > > I am afraid I am also the one who is missing the point. What are "all of > DOS' restrictions" that Windows break? If I have Word Perfect or Lotus, > will it run better under Windows then under DesqView? Or is the > "breaking" is relative only to specifically Windows written software? Unfortunately Microsoft's advertising is not as effective as it should be. When you think of Windows, think of an entirely new operating system (which it isn't according to most people) that does not run DOS software but instead runs currently about 1000 powerful software programs that were designed to be easy to use, to communicate with one another, and use memory past the DOS 640k barrier and to effectively multitask. If you read any comparison of DOS vs. Windows programs you will see that the Windows programs compare very favourably. In addition companies like Lotus and Wordperfect are planning Windows releases of their programs shortly. Although Windows can run DOS programs (fairly effectively on a 386) this is not the main advantage of the product and it should not be reviewed based on it's ability to run DOS products, though I have had very few problems and in my opinion, with my experience, it is easier to use and works better than Desqview. Although since Desqview is just intended as a multitasker, and Windows is an entirely new operating kernal that operates in graphics mode, there is much more overhead involved in Windows so that for certain operations it is slower. > > I think I do. I still have not been able to figure out what Windows has > vs. what other specialized programs and DesqView 386 does not. Windows' > accessory are next to useless comparing to PC TOOLS' DESKTOP; its File > Manager is crippled (in comparison to PC-TOOLS or Norton Commander), it > doesn't even have a file viewer let alone being slow; the Terminal > emulator that can't handle ^H, etc. > > This is not degrading Windows or flaming, it is a real search for the > answer. > Again, Windows was not designed be a program that competed with other utility or shell products. If it was then it would be competing with Automenu, Desqview, Procomm, PCTools, and many other programs and DOS extenders. The terminal, file manager, paint program, and so on are just throw-ins to attract people and provide the basic necessities people will need in order to "switch" to Windows. The main advantages of Windows are, off the top of my head: Consistant interface (which makes each program easy to learn, especially after you learn the first one) Point and click operation (which means that operating a program is involves pointing at what you want to do and clicking) New, powerful software The 640k barrier is broken Support of computing in protected mode Reliable multitasking Graphics interface (what you see is what you get) Friendlier mode of operation (improved error messages, "cuteness",using pictures to represent actions, etc) DDE which means that programs can use each other and act in a very co-operative manner (IE Word can tell Excel to boot up, load a spreadsheet, perform a calculation, and paste the result into a Word document) And so on. Read the Windows box, or pick up a copy, like it or not you will be using it in a couple years, or at the very least you should be familiar with it. Many of the above points are debated hotly by some people, who claim that using a mouse in a graphics environment is a hinderance more than anything else. That is mainly a matter of personal preference, but Windows does supply keyboard equivalents of all commands.
rm3@stc06.ornl.gov (MCBROOM R C) (08/24/90)
Variations on a theme. The various problems in netland with Windows 3.0 make for entertaining reading. The same old problem seems to be hitting again. In order to get the performance a program needs the programmer has to get in real close to the hardware and whenever that happens compatibility vanishes. Microsoft is no more immune than the rest of the world. While my experiences haven't been of the kind leading to system destruction, the frustration index is over the top. The system of interest is a IBM PS/2 MODEL 50 Z 1M RAM 30M harddisk The problem is the desktop utilities won't function. WRITE, CRDFILE, CALENDAR, and PBRUSH all have problems creating their temporary files. There are 10M of free space on the harddisk and defragmentation does not help. There is no problem with the swap files for non-windows applications. WRITE dies back to the shell with the message Insufficient memory to run Write even with everything out of the machine and the program manager minimized. The permutations with himem.sys and smartdrv.sys do not change anything. The clpbrd, clock, notepad, program manager, terminal, and file manager will all run simultaneously. Wordperfect 5.0, and LOTUS 123 2.2 will swap in from multiple instances. And now the punchline! A copy of the installation files to a last years PS/2 MODEL 50 WORKS FINE! Further fulminations, following all the instructions to enable print to a file won't work unless a printer is actually connected to the PS/2 parallel port, then the print option darkens and away you go. So much for sneaker net. Terminal maps the VT100 PF keys to F1-F4 but the VT100 command key F1 is locked to WINHLP! On-line applications that use the keypad functions won't work. There must be some way to tell WINHLP to work only from the menu but-- ___________________ R. C. McBroom INTERNET rm3@ornl.gov