Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!mercury.cair.du.edu!diana.cair.du.edu!jvilhube
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Extremely Gonzoid)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows needs groups within groups
Message-ID: <1990Oct7.070842.6251@mercury.cair.du.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 90 07:08:42 GMT
References: <37683@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: news@mercury.cair.du.edu (netnews)
Organization: University of Denver
Lines: 31

In article <37683@ut-emx.uucp> johnl@walt.cc.utexas.edu (John Lange) writes:
>Is it just me, or is there anyone else that does not like the Program
>Manager in Windows 3.0 because it does not allow groups within 
>groups?  I've spent the last several years organizing things on
>my computer into things called subdirectories.  It does not make
>sense to me not to allow these new entities called groups to mimic
>subdirectories.
>
>As a poor substitute, Microsoft repackaged the shell from Windows 2.X
>with Windows 3.0.  It is called MSDOS.EXE and can be made the 
>default shell from system.ini.  I was really hoping for a more
>Mac-like interface, so until it arrives, I will use MSDOS.EXE as
>my shell for Windows 3.0.
>
>Does anyone know of any 3rd party software (shareware or other) that
>allows a more graphical representation of things than PROGMAN.EXE?
>WINFILE.EXE (the File Manager) is not professional enough for me.

But MSdos.exe IS?? I just looked at (didn't even know it was there),
and my first thought (and remark..I said it out loud) was "Oh my god...".
msdos.exe is just BAD. I'd prefer a single-level progman.exe over
msdos.exe ANYTIME. I can always use the filemanager if I want dos-level
stuff...(msdos.exe ....sheesh..)



 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The jammin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
"Drunken Milkman...driving drunk...Family of four,    
family no more...milk and blood...blood and milk."  Scatterbrain