Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!amelia!eos!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: New MS Windows (?) Message-ID: <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 May 90 21:40:54 GMT References: <34844@<1990May23> <71100007@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <22321@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Sender: Aaron Wallace Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Department Lines: 142 I'm not a regular reader of comp.sys.mac.misc, but just to set the record straight and prevent the spreading of mis-information... In article <22321@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes: > >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. Windows does run over DOS, and the filename limitation holds. But files are typed according to their filename extension. For instance, text files end in .TXT, WinWord files in .DOC, and so forth. Double-clicking on such a file will cause it to be loaded into the appropriate application. Admittedly not as transparent as the Mac way, but effective. NeXT does a similar thing with UNIX, incidentally. It's also nice to be able to get rid of all files of a certain kind using wildcards... Windows definitely does have a system-wide printer which all Windows apps can use. Documents can also be forced to use a certain printer (i.e. Epson for unimportant stuff, PostScript for illustrations). Windows apps share printer drivers, too--transparently. I've used the Mac and Windows and see little difference between them in the printer dept. >* There is no "Finder", just a program launcher. So file manipulation is >still performed with path names, etc. Bzzzt. There is a "File Manager" that allows directories to be viewed in a hierchical/tree format, subdirectories/folders to be opened by double-clicking, files and folders can be copied and moved about by dragging, multiple selections can be made, double-clicking on files or documents causes them to load, and so forth. I'd say everything I've ever done with Finder could be done here; the main diff is icons aren't used extensively in the File Manager. >* 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. I used to feel the same way about Windows in the 2.0 days, but for multiple applications I find the Windows way much easier than Multifinder, especially for running multiple programs. Windows can be closed by double-clicking on a box in the upper left corner of the window; using the menu is optional. The frame width is pre-set at 2 pixels but can be made whatever you want in the Control Panel. I find frames much easier to manipulate than the silly resize- box (which Windows 2.xx had until no one used it!). Windows can be made to fill the screen by use of a "maximize" button (like the zoom button in the Mac) The ability to iconify a windows is something I really wish the Mac had--I like to be able to load an app, use it, shrink it down when I don't need it, and restore it to use it again. Cycling through programs or choosing one from the Finder is klunky and still leaves the unneeded ones occupying real- estate. >* 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). Believe it or not, a lot of people who love Windows hate mice. Even mousers will find themselves using the keyboard shortcuts (as do most Mac users I know). I'm always miffed when I can't ESC out of a Dialog box or hit Enter instead of clicking OK on a Mac. At least Mac Word supports this... As for the system fonts, they're changeable, too. Won't surprise me if some weird ones start showing up... >* 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. The speed of Windows is a function of the hardware. a 16 MHz 386sx with only a Meg, VGA, and a slow hard disk will seem slower than a Plus, but a 16 MHz 386sx with Hercules graphics, 2 meg, and a fast 1:1 hard disk (cost: $1100) will run circles around a Plus. A lot also depends on the quality of the graphics card--some older ones were meant for XTs and ATs and are slow. Remember than the VGA under Windows 3 has the same colors/resolution as the Mac II color card (640x480x8-bit), and I know of many Mac II users who run in the 2-color mode because of the performance hit. Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space* It runs well in 2 mb of RAM. Most of the 6 Mb is non-essential stuff--reams of on-line context-sensitive help, background bitmaps, assorted "DA"-type stuff, and so forth. Win 3.0 can be pared to about 2 Mb of disk space. Compare/contrast to System 7... >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. "Better" is always subjective, but in my opinion Windows is better at: 1) Loading/running multiple applications. This is a function of the windowing interface and the better memory management of Windows (applications are incrementally loaded, so only as much as is needed is in memory. Keeping Excel and Winword around costs about 300K total). Windows was always intended to multitask; in Multifinder I'm always reminded (i.e. global menu bar) that the Mac was a single-tasking OS with multitasking thrown on later. 2) DDE (a/k/a interprocess communication). DDE allows information pasted from the clipboard to be updated automatically when the source is updated. It also allows one program to "remote control" another, so (using the favorite example) an Excel macro could automatically load a communications package, dial in, get the relevant data, and paste it back into Excel. Or, stay con- nected and continually update the spreadsheet as things change. Okay, System 7 will have this as well... 3) Support for a wide range of displays and printers. At least until very recently, most Mac people I knew held that going the non-Apple route (esp. in printers) was a rough road. In Windows all 3rd party products are equal--no support for one or the other is hard- wired into the system. Hooking up a cheap 1024x768x8-bit display system to Windows is no harder than using the more standard adapters, provided the drivers exist. 4) Virtual memory. The performance hit isn't too bad, and VM allows for running an occasional program that needs a lot of RAM without shelling out the $$$ for SIMMs. 5) Memory protection. On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably will make an appearance. Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme, Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital part of multitasking--what's the use of having 6 applications running if one of them can cause the whole works to crash? >Jim Matthews >Dartmouth Software Development I'd recommend comp.windows.ms for those really interested in what Windows 3.0 really is... Aaron Wallace