Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!gg2
From: gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Another county heard from
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.224943.16609@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 90 22:49:43 GMT
References: <14679@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Reply-To: gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 23

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*.