Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!microsoft!jamesth
From: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: New MS Windows (?)
Message-ID: <55036@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 90 21:20:57 GMT
References: <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Reply-To: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu> roskill@cs.umass.edu writes:
>In article <1990May31.072828.2220@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes...
>>This is a good point--no machine runs vaporware.  It'll be real interesting
>>to see what is ported to Windows.  Maybe Windows will provide enough of a mass-
>>market to help finance more Windows *and* Mac apps...
>
>I know a lot of mac companies are very interested in porting to Windows
>3.0 because of the tremendous installed base.  I understand that Microsoft
>already has Word (almost identical to the mac) up and running.
                   ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Well, that is stretching the similarity.  I try to use "Word for Windows"
on my 386 machine at work and the menus are not the same as Mac Word 4.  Most
of the features are there, even some new ones, but they renamed and
rearranged the menus so I'm constantly searching for stuff.  I've been
told that the menus can be changed by the user, but it's seemed like
less trouble to work on my Mac, save in RTF, and copy it to the 386.

James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth
Standard Disclaimer++