Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!flowers From: flowers@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: MicroSoft Windows Message-ID: <4683@shemp.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 21:22:26 EST Article-I.D.: shemp.4683 Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:22:26 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 23:35:27 EST References: <75800026@uiucdcsp> <1953@homxc.UUCP> Sender: root@ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: flowers@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Margot Flowers) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 85 In article <75800026@uiucdcsp>, vanzandt@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I'm interested in any comments concerning MicroSoft Windows. ... Two articles may interest you. The PC Tech Journal, (I think) Feb 87, has an article which talks about the underlying design and rationale of Windows. PC Mag, I think V5#19, sometime around then, had an article about ram residency, tsr programs, etc. and the various problems which can arise, and then discussed how Windows was really a solution to that all. In article <1953@homxc.UUCP> rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: >I used MS Windows (actually AT&T's relable of it) for about 2 months. I >came to the following conclusions: > > 1. to use a word processor under windows it either has to be > graphically oriented, so it can run in a window, or all of > windows disapears and has to reload (which is not a quick > process). MS Word, in both text and graphics mode, seems to work fine (not surprisingly) > 2. The card file is a handy way to store phone numbers and such > but produces a lousy print out. It tries to print each card as a > 3 X 5 card using graphics on the epson printer. There is no way to > just get a list of the data. Also I found seeing little pictures of 3x5 cards on the screen was silly (taking Macintosh-ization to extremes). SideKick's phone directory is more straightforward. > 3. Windows really is multitasking and this works very well. It is > possible to have several terminal sessions going and a Write open, etc. Yes. I set it up and used it on a Z-181, which has 640K and only two 720K floppies (no hard disk). The icon commands work pretty well and multitasking was pretty nice. > 4. Setting up the PIF files is very hard. I had no problem with this but I only tried it for one program, where it was easy to ascertain core usage. I could see how figuring what to specify might be hard in some cases. > 5. changing directories is a real pain, in fact most of routine > windows administrative functions require the use of multiple dialog boxes > and/or pop-up menus which must be accessed with mouse. Some then > require keyboard input. It is slow and tedious. Yes, doing routine DOS activities requires using the Windows menu & dialog box interface, but no, it does not require a mouse. Everything that can be done by a mouse can be done without it too (I originally installed it before I got my mouse). Turns out some things are more easily done directly with the keyboard than with the mouse, so even with a mouse I often use the keyboard instead. Initially I found the interface cumbersome and less direct than with DOS commands, but as I got used to them I got to be able to be quick at it. > 6. I ran windows on a ATT6300+ (in dos mode, no unix) which is > 7.2 x as fast as a IBM PC (according to Peter Norton). Rarely > did it seem slow. On a PC it would probably be intolerable. The Z-181 is XT compatible, and benchmarks at slightly faster than an IBM-PC. Yes there were noticable delays but nothing different than with other programs on the same machine. It was useful for a few things (switching in and out of word quickly, etc.); but for the most part I've ended up not using it because most of the time I start up I'm using one main application, and don't need the extra layer. Also, many of the features come in SideKick and other desktops, with much less cost in core, filespace, and disk occupation. With a hard disk and more core however I would probably use it however. I think in the future code written to run under windows will be able to be smaller since much of the interface can come from windows itself. > .... If you are a "power user" in DOS, forget it! >It is just too much of a waste of time. Yes, it is probably most palatable to people who want a Macintosh interface. However, note that it is not only a user interface, but an underlying operating environment for programs to run in, and I think many of its strengths are really in this aspect. I found the interface usable but it could stand improvement in the area of dos activities.