From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:27:42 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

John Bickers (jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
:
: > :     Windows isn't a worthwhile PC OS,
:
: > Why, because *you* don't consider it such?  Fortunately, there are millions
: > of people out there who don't consider you the ultimate authority in OS's.
:
:     No, because it's built on top of DOS. I haven't seen any of the PC
:     advocates here claim Windows is an OS that one should get if one
:     is into clean multitasking and multiple DOS sessions and so on.
:     Unix and OS/2 2.0 frequently ARE mentioned in this context. The
:     applications that come with it are certainly worthwhile, but that
:     doesn't lend credibility to Windows itself.
:

Windows isn't worthwhile because it's built on top of DOS?!  But it isn't!
It pretty much *replaces* DOS!  But even if it *were* built on top of DOS,
why does that make it not worthwhile?  See, you're still trying to pass off
your opinions for fact.

:
: > Both Windows and OS/2 can do this, without extra software, although I'm
: > not sure about column insertion.
:
:     If your not sure, then why do you say that they can do it? This
:     sort of "not sure" feel is unusual in your posts. Normally you are
:     as convinced as Marc Barrett.
:

OK, let's clarify this point a little bit.  In Windows and OS/2, you can
select text in a window using the mouse, copy it into the clipboard, and paste
it into another window.  Column insertion is a function of the editor running
in the destination window, so if that editor supports it, you have no problem.

:
: > Before Windows 3.1, my 386 PC was a bit slower in window updates.  With 3.1,
: > however, it became noticeably faster.  No, I'm not talking about screens,
: > just windows.
:
:     Noticeably faster? So before Windows 3.1, your 386 PC's GUI
:     performance was NOT "as good as or better than" an A3000's?
:

It was hard to tell, comparing a stock A3000 and my 386 with ET4000 VGA,
and I was comparing 800x600x8 to the Amiga's 640x400x2.  With Windows 3.1,
it's obvious.

:
:     There are a couple of interesting things here. One is that you are
:     now only considering a subset of the GUI. You said before that
:     switching between screens took ZERO time on your PC, so I'm not
:     sure why you're leaving it out now. Secondly, it shows that
:     Windows at least had room for _software_ improvement to window
:     updates. Which PC advocates here didn't seem to think possible
:     before 3.1. No, back then it was talk of graphics accelerator
:     cards and other wonders :/.
:

Have you ever heard of software that *didn't* have room for performance
improvement?  If you think you have, you're badly mistaken.

:
: *** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+