mkh6317@summa.tamu.edu (HOWARD, MATTHEW KENDALL) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar14.230656.10768@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, xxmartn@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov writes... >A MAC running WINDOWS??????? > >Yech...booo.......hssss...... > >What'll they think of next?? A SUN which can run A/UX ??????? Actually, I've run Windows 3.0 with SoftPC/AT/EGA already on my IIci. Even on this platform, it is a VERY slow puppy. Supprisingly the IBM people who run Windows on a 286 platform get *approximately* the same response. It would seem that Windows really needs a 386-25mhz platform before a Mac person would find it useable (if ever ;->). Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently using it because it is a slow memory pig? Matt Howard * Nose pointed well above the horizon, tell your IBM pests, "The Mac simply isn't for everybody." *
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (03/15/91)
> >Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently using > it because it is a slow memory pig? > It would be interesting to see statistics on this. I suspect a lot of those copies MicroSoft has sold are still sitting on the user's self. They put it on and fired up Solitare, then put it away. I got back from a Novell training meeting on Windows today, a meeting in which the corprate types were fairly well represented. Hardly any had actually rolled the thing out for the users to touch yet. (And those that were planning on it seemed to want it for IBM terminal emulation and PRoFs access, uhg patooie. c'mon guys, show some vision) There's a huge amount of inertia in the DOS world. Everybody's running DOS apps and they're not going to switch over to Windows apps very quickly. There aren't even all that many Windows apps out there yet. Until there are, Windows is just a program launcher, and not a very good one at that from a cognitive science standpoint--the user has to make a paradigm shift from graphical-to-character-and-back when running DOS programs. Apple still has a year or two long window of opportunity (so to speak) before Windows has matured enough to really challenge them. Don McGregor | "I too seek the light, so long as it tastes mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| great and is not too filling."
oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) (03/15/91)
In article <13353@helios.TAMU.EDU> mkh6317@summa.tamu.edu writes: >Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently using > it because it is a slow memory pig? I can't say for most people, but on the 16 386SX's we have at the computer lab I work in (brand new, came bundled with Windows and misc software installed, including Word and Excel), we've got the machine booting with WordPerfect Shell. The thing is, the machines don't even have have WP on them! :-) This does make it a bit of a pain when I want to play "Rocks" (love those sound effects!), but that's the way the higher-ups want it, and they seem to be from the "Anything that isn't an IBM is a toy" family. I think anybody with less than a 386 has shelved it. If not, they're wasting an awful lot of time. --------- Doc ********************** Signature Block : Version 2.3 ********************* * | * * "Was it love, or was it the idea | I don't speak for IBM. * * of being in love?" -- PF | Hell, I don't even work for IBM. * * (BTW, which one *is* Pink?) | * * | oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu * ****************** Copyright (c) 1991 by Doc O'Leary ********************
bkuo@girtab.usc.edu (Benjamin Kuo) (03/15/91)
I've been playing with Windows 3.0 for awhile, and I'd also tend to believe most users have NOT installed it, particularly if you look at the memory requirements. Running on a 386, it's not too bad (besides the lack of "real" Windows applications), but on anything without LOTS of extended, as well as expanded memory, it tends to be ineffective and inefficient. The amusing thing is reading through the Windows 3.0 manual, and check out the four different modes it can/will run in, the interesting twists on the Mac interface, and the features found. The manual, if read side-by-side with the Macintosh manuals, is almost section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph, identical. I.E. the manual covers the "Desktop" (well, Windows) metaphor, using the mouse to point and click, and moving/hiding/closing windows. It's exactly down the Mac interface line, except the programmers had to cope with a great deal of variety in MS/DOS systems (processors, particularly), so beyond the pretty simple front pages there's a nasty appendix describing how to configure it for the '86, '88, '286, '386 processors, and variations with memory (normal 640K, extended, expanded, protected mode with 386, etc.) Benjamin Kuo
sdaniels@math (Scott Danielson) (03/16/91)
>A MAC running WINDOWS??????? > >Yech...booo.......hssss...... > >What'll they think of next?? A SUN which can run A/UX ??????? This is a side question... I am planning to develop software in both the Mac world and Windows world.. My question is has anyone used the pc card that uses the nubus... and if so what kind of responce time was there?? Is it worth the extra money???.. I have a MacIIsi and love it.... -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Scott W. Danielson Math Dept Computer Operation Group (M-COG)| |Internet: sdaniels@nmsu.edu Bitnet: sdaniels@nmsu.bitnet | |UUCP: ucbvax!nmsu.edu!sdaniels US Mail: NMSU,BOX 3MB, Las Cruces NM 88003| |Phone: (505) 646-5318 FAX: (505) 646-5278 | |=========================================================================| | Remember to hook up your paper shredder to /dev/null so you really make | | sure the bits are really gone. (O. North) | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.023735.26278@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes: |>Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently using |> it because it is a slow memory pig? |> | It would be interesting to see statistics on this. I suspect a lot of | those copies MicroSoft has sold are still sitting on the user's self. This is such an *unbiased* group to be talking about such things. But I've never been scared of controversy... I've had Win3 since it came out, and WinWord since it came out, and Excel 3 since it came out (oh, when will you be able to run Excel 3 on the Mac, anyway?) and have used it quite a bit. Did some work that really pleased my boss. | There's a huge amount of inertia in the DOS world. Everybody's running | DOS apps and they're not going to switch over to Windows apps very | quickly. There aren't even all that many Windows apps out there yet. You wouldn't know that from what's happening in my company. Between WinWord, Excel, Powerpoint, ATM, Project, and Designer, we have enough Windows apps to meet almost all of our needs. By the way, those are all Win3 apps, though there are versions for the Mac, I'm referring to the Windows versions -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (03/19/91)
In article <13353@helios.TAMU.EDU> mkh6317@summa.tamu.edu writes: > >Actually, I've run Windows 3.0 with SoftPC/AT/EGA already on my IIci. Even >on this platform, it is a VERY slow puppy. Supprisingly the IBM people who >run Windows on a 286 platform get *approximately* the same response. It >would seem that Windows really needs a 386-25mhz platform before a Mac person >would find it useable (if ever ;->). > >Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently using > it because it is a slow memory pig? > Well, we actually use Windows 3.0 here at work. I'm running it on an NCR 486/33 MC with 16MB of memory, and it "feels" slower than running the Mac OS w/ Multifinder on my personal Mac IIcx with 5MB of memory. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks ago we upgraded the machine from a 486/25 to a 486/33, and now using Windows is tolerable, whereas before it seemed awfully slow. Of course I don't have any benchmark results to back up my "feeling" of the machine, but I think that how the machine "feels" is often as important as how it performs in the benchmarks. I have no doubt that the 486/33 is a "superior" machine if you only count raw computing power, but given a choice, I would still choose a Mac to use anytime. (Of course, if they were being given away, I would take the 486/33, sell it, and buy a Mac IIfx with a laser printer, and still have money left over for software! :-) Conclusion? Windows might be a real asset to PC users with POWERFUL PCs, but I can hardly see any Mac users being converted to using the PC because of it. Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar -- Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar
jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) (04/01/91)
dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM writes: In article <13353@helios.TAMU.EDU> mkh6317@summa.tamu.edu writes: > >Actually, I've run Windows 3.0 with SoftPC/AT/EGA already on my IIci. Even >on this platform, it is a VERY slow puppy. Supprisingly the IBM people who >run Windows on a 286 platform get *approximately* the same response. It >would seem that Windows really needs a 386-25mhz platform before a Mac >person would find it useable (if ever ;->). > >Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently > using it because it is a slow memory pig? > Well, we actually use Windows 3.0 here at work. I'm running it on an NCR 486/33 MC with 16MB of memory, and it "feels" slower than running the Mac OS w/ Multifinder on my personal Mac IIcx with 5MB of memory. This is my experiences as well. I run Windows 3.0 on my 16 MHz 386SX laptop, with 3 MB of RAM. Word for Windows runs OK, but there are may annoying pauses. It cannot keep up with my typing in some modes. My Mac Plus is clearly faster, though neither would win a foot race with a slug, IMO. I'm sorry to hear that faster 80x86s feel the same kind of sluggishness.
danielg@med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) (04/03/91)
> >Truth or fiction: Most people who bought Windows 3.0 are not currently > > using it because it is a slow memory pig? We've been using windows 3.0 for 6 months or so, mostly on a 286-16, but I've used it on a 386-16 as well. I grew up on IBM's, so this was a welcome change, gui at last! However, imo windows is klunky and slow. Unfortunately, we still have to go to non-windows apps for good performance. For instance, File Manager is a turkey, most ppl I know go out to pctools or something similar, even a simple dos shell! And for communications, I still go out to the reliable Procomm, Terminal (windows) is too awkward. Besides that, it's vt100 emulation doesn't work with the local news software, so using the editor (vi) is not possible |-(. I am deciding on what type of micro I will buy, I flip flop a lot between getting a 386-16 and an si. Windows is slow, and I don't want to wait any longer for a good interface for the ibm. However, even at University prices, the mac is prohibitively expensive ($2100 for an LC). For that price, I can get a 386-16 with a much better monitor (14 in VGA v. 12 inch whatever- the LC monitor appears to have lower resolution - does it?) Anyway, the weaknesses of windows keep me considering a mac, even with the price difference. dan -- <>< "Surrender the hunger to say you must know, | <>< Have the courage to say I believe, ==+== <>< For the power of paradox opens your eyes, | <>< And blinds those who say they can see." -- Michael Card |