Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!orsvax1!pyrnj!caip!sri-spam!nike!styx!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: MAC look-alike for MS-DOS PC's
Message-ID: <668@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 07:02:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.668
Posted: Wed May 21 07:02:41 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 06:58:56 EDT
References: <122@njitcccc.UUCP> <621@kepler.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.micro:14678 net.micro.mac:6246

> The closest thing you'll find to Macintosh on the IBM is MS Windows.  It's
> slower and blurrier and nowhere near as slick, but then...

And Microsoft Windows has a couple of weird design flaws that are starting
to get my goat.

	o They seem to have modified the EXEC function, so that you can't
	  even open up a COMMAND.COM window & have it behave normally (which
	  is extremely important if you want to be able to play reversi while
	  waiting for Lattice/Microsoft 'C' to finish compiling in the corner).
	  Why not just implement "new window EXEC" as a Windows call & leave
	  the old exec alone?

	o They don't time-slice, so if you have a compute-bound task in one
	  window you can give up trying to use your PC for anything else while
	  it's running.

But as far as relative slickness goes, I'll take MS-Windows over Finder any
day... or at least until the day that multitasking Finder comes along.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva
-- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076