Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!acook
From: acook@athena.mit.edu (Andrew R Cook)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Is Write for Windows 3.0 for real?
Message-ID: <1991Jan9.142200.16771@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 91 14:22:00 GMT
References: <27220004@hpclapd.HP.COM>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: acook@athena.mit.edu (Andrew R Cook)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 40

In article <27220004@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes:
|> Is Write, distributed on the  Windows 3.0 disk  for real?  I mean I started
|> using the thing and I like  the multiple fonts,  etc but  whenever I type I
|> see it refresh the screen in an obviously dumb algorithm of repainting lots
|> of things that are unnecessary and it's so damn slow when this stuff starts
|> happening.  Also, using the mouse  to  select the  whole file is  painfully
|> slow, even on a 1-2  page  document.   Do  I just have the thing configured
|> badly?
|> 
|> Is seems  more and more  apparent  to me that as  I  utilized the MicroSoft
|> provided Windows 3.0 tools, that they were  probably never meant to be real
|> live production type  tools to  actually get   work done, but just  toys to
|> demonstrate what window application can do.  Is this the case?

In my opinion, Windows Write is a perfect example of MicroSoft's sloppy 
programming.  Big code, slow performance.  It seems that Microsoft's method
of programming does not consider code size or execution speed, using the
(stupid) argument that you can just buy faster hardware, and eventually 
everything will run OK.  Being a big company, and a major force in the industry,
MicroSoft can get away with this attitude - they will always be able to sell
their products.  I admit, I like many of their products, but am frustrated at
times waiting for windows.  Though I have not used it, Geoworks, an alternative
to windows (if anybody ever supports it) is supposed to be much faster.

All emotional outbursts aside, I think Windows Write and Paint started out 
as a Microsoft attempt to duplicate MACwrite and MACpaint that came free with
the original Macintosh.  Microsoft either gave up, got disgusted, bored, or
had to meet a release deadline, thus never got around to giving the windows
versions of these programs half the quality or functionality of the original
MAC applications.  Win write and Paint have become "toys" as you put it to
demonstrate some windows features.  They are also included so that you have
something to fiddle with when you first buy windows (along with solitare -
yes!) to convince you that it is worth switching to, and buying other 
applications for.  Personally, I deleted these programs to free up some of the
hundreds (sarcasm) of MB of disk space windows requires.  It's too bad that
MicroSoft can't send any better quality programs along.  Windows does have
a big potential, but you wouldn't ever guess that looking at Write and Paint.

Andy Cook
acook@athena.mit.edu