From: rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:38:34 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@avon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 18170@netcom.com, xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Nov12.032128.20427@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov12.001222.25542@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>true, your mother, methinks, made a very short-sighted decision based,
>>it seems, on the incompetence of the people who configured here Windows
>>system at work.  I use Windoze at home, in the office, on my portable
>>(and in my wife's office, legal copies all!) and it simply doesn't
>>crash.
>
>I didn't say anything about crashing.  My mother types over 150 wpm. 
>Windoze cannot keep up with her typing.  She also doesn't like rodents. 
>Especially when you have to use them in a word-processing program. 
>She upgraded from a dedicated word-processing machine.  Coming from an
>environment like that, Windoze looks like a *total* dog.

I'm sorry, but I find this hard to understand: If your mother was using a
DOS word processor that could not keep up with her, would you blame DOS, or
would you find a better word processor ?  I find it hard to believe that
there are no Windows word processors that can handle fast typing.

On the other hand, if all someone does is word processing, and doesn't care
about running multiple programs, or graphics, or the other things Windows is
good at, then by all means stick with DOS.

>
>I haven't seen any Windoze software yet that I'm
>interested in.  There's far more DOS software out there, and most of it
>works better than the Windoze equivalents IMO.

Do you think there is a better spreadsheet then Excel under DOS ? A better
graphics program then Corel Draw ? A better word processor then WfW (I type
pretty slow :) )? Can you multitask, or have virtual screens with DOS ?
I can believe that someone finds Windows to be slow; but it seems clear to
me that in almost any catagory you can think of, Windows applications are
more powerful and easier to use (and often more fun to use).
>
>ObAdvocacy: of course, this is why I like OS/2.  I get to use the truly
>gigantic base of software available for DOS, *and* I get real
>multitasking, 32-bit apps if I want, and I could even run a Windoze
>program if the urge ever struck me.  Though I can't really imagine this
>latter circumstance.  :-)

Of course, you mother won't like OS/2, for the same reasons she doesn't
like Windows.

I also have to believe that when native OS/2 applications start showing up,
they will be much like the Windows programs you don't like.
>
>
>Actually, it seems that Windoze is far more popular with bosses than it
>is with the hordes of secretaries and such.  I can't count the number of
>office workers I've talked to who complain about Windoze, but have to
>use it because it's mandated in the office.  Certainly far more than the
>number of office workers I've talked to who actually *like* Windoze. 
>I'd be interested in seeing a poll of the reactions of people who find
>themselves using Windoze in the workplace, will 'e or nill 'e.  It might
>surprise a lot of people.
>
I'm sure there are lots of people who don't care for Windows. But walk into
CompUSA, or Egghead someday, and look at what is for sale, and look at what
people are buying. Lots of people LIKE Windows.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy