Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!dartvax!news
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: New MS Windows (?)
Message-ID: <22321@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 28 May 90 17:13:09 GMT
References: <34844@<1990May23> <71100007@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 45

In article <71100007@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> Would someone please summarize the differences between Windows 3.0 and
> the Mac Finder/Toolbox?  I'm especially curious if Windows does
> something *better* than the macintosh does.
> 

Here are the big differences I noticed in a 1 hour demo:

* Windows runs over DOS, so you have a lot of the DOS limitations: eight
character filenames, files don't have types, no system-wide "current
printer", etc.

* There is no "Finder", just a program launcher.  So file manipulation is
still performed with path names, etc.

* The window-manipulation interface is klunky.  The "close box" is a command
in a menu that must be pulled down.  Windows can be resized from any border
but you have to click on a target that's about 2 pixels high (or wide). 
Applications seem to have one super-window that holds the menu bar, and that
makes things confusing when you want a subordinate window to fill the screen.
In general, the windowing interface has more features but is less useable.

* Windows 3.0 isn't as ugly as version 2.11, but it's still ugly.  The 
fonts for window titles, menus, etc. are not very attractive.  In order to
remain compatible with mouse-less PCs Windows designates one letter in each
menu title or command as the keyboard shortcut, and shows it underlined.
The result is messy and distracting.  There is no consistent visual clue
as to which window is in front (in part because the front window isn't 
necessarily the active one).

* Windows is slow.  On a 16Mhz 386sx machine the windowing functions seemed
slower than MacOS on a Mac Plus.  It's also bigger than the MacOS -- nearly 
6Mbytes is required for a 386 machine.  I'm not sure that you can buy a 
machine that would make Windows feel like MacOS on an '030 Mac.

I didn't notice anything that Windows does "better" than MacOS.  It does
a lot "more" -- you can set a window color scheme and a desktop picture,
make windows into icons, access all commands from the keyboard, etc. --
but most of those things are available as INITs for the Mac.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development--
Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development