Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!gatech!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mmm!mkr
From: mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac debate
Message-ID: <856@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-May-86 16:44:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.856
Posted: Fri May 16 16:44:04 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 19-May-86 01:09:53 EDT
References: <534@sdcc13.UUCP>
Reply-To: mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 32

In article <534@sdcc13.UUCP> 76645668@sdcc13.UUCP ({|lit}) writes:
>I've got a little something to add to this ongoing talk, which I'm
>surprised nobody else brought up:  MicroSoft Windows.
>
>Topview is not considered to be very good by people who have
>reviewed it either.  It has but one redeeming feature: it was

	I've seen it. It sucks. It's character-based, if I remember
correctly, so that windows can only occupy sections of the screen
based on the 80 char x 24 line character screen, rather than being
pixel based. And it's sllllloooowwwwwww.

>[MS windows] run on top of the normal MS DOS, and gives you
>most of the functions of MS DOS, but in a windowed environment.
>It is a complete operating system, just like the Mac's.

	This is contradictory. It is not a complete operating
system - it resides on top of DOS, providing an interface layer
between DOS and the application, but DOS is still there.

>
>First, Windows starts out with two strikes against it.  It must run
>on a machine which may have no pointing device (mouse or other
>non-keyboard input).  Second, it must create windows on a screen
>which wasn;t designed for it, doesn't have the resolution required,
>and has round pixels.

	And the windows are tiled (not overlapping). Yuck.



--MKR