Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:15822 comp.windows.misc:526
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: DOS & MS-windows Vs. Unix & X experience + MS-windows Flame
Summary: Lack of a depth arranger on windows
Keywords: MS-windows, DOS, Unix, X
Message-ID: <1193@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: 24 May 88 00:22:42 GMT
References: <10799@apple.Apple.Com>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 23


I agree whole heatedly with John Galloway at Apple that one
glaringly absent feature of Windows is a feature for pushing a
window to the bottom of the desktop stack.  I've used several
systems that do have a depth arranger, and it is extremely handy.

On a screen that has limited resolution such as the PS/2 VGA screen
(compared to a Sun 3, for instance), the windows necessarily stack
up, and some means of managing them is a must.

The ugliness of Windows' fonts in not totally the fault of Windows.
Using the HP Laser Jet's downloadable fonts is laborious.  Those LJ
fonts also suck up a lot of memory.  I do wish that Windows came
with a good utility like Bitstream Fontware for making fonts.  I
guess there is a reason that the Apple PS Laserwriter, QMS, etc
are as expensive as they are.

Windows has still has some way to go to be mature product, but it
is a heck of a lot better than it was a year ago.  Makes you
appreciate how much work has gone into the Macintosh.

--Bill
  wtm@neoucom.UUCP