response 1 of 83:

Sep 15 01:05 UTC 1991

Probably the most useful thing I've found Windows good for is switching 
between applications. Not even multi-tasking, really, cuz that has some
problems. But just being able to, say, go into some other program and 
tweak something while I'm on-line. Stuff like that. My comm program 
gives me a DOS shell, but Windows does a decent job of bringing it all 
together.
Oh, and I've enjoyed making Icons for all of my games and programs...some
good sports Icons, anyone?

response 3 of 83:

Sep 16 00:14 UTC 1991

re #1:  Do you do this with DOS programs?  I attempted to do something
like this (admittedly after only a cursory look at the relevant
portions of the manual), but succeded only in crashing the computer.

response 5 of 83:

Sep 16 17:14 UTC 1991

   I've used fensters 3.0 for a bit and at least it doesn't crash.  I think
the programming interface system that programmers have to learn is obfucasted,
but at least it doesn't require a reboot every 12 minutes.  Thats something.
I dunno.  COnsidering all the work that has to go into creating a fensters
program, why not use X on a UNIX machine?  I think it pushes DOS beyond
resaonable limits.  Once you've gotten to that stage of complexity, why
not get a real software platform to use?  I know, I know, I'm not being
real reasonable here, and that lots and lots and lots of people will be
peering into their windows now on DOS, but if I write some more serious
software for myself (and need graphical output) I don't think I'll use
DOS anymore.

response 7 of 83:

Sep 17 00:05 UTC 1991

Windows 3.0 is, in fact, "almost" a real complete operating system.  Ever
look at the kinds of things you can tweak in the multitasking kernel?
I'd guess that all Windows 3.0 would need, in order to turn itself into
a full OS that isn't dependant on DOS, is filesystem code.  That's why
Windows NT will be so easy to write; 90% of the code is already there.
Within two or three Windows releases, I bet, running Windows on top of DOS
will be optional; a native-Windows mode will be available.  And native-Windows
mode will be faster and less prone to crashes.  Microsoft could even
license something like VP/ix or DOSMerge for native Windows, to allow you
to run some DOS apps in a virtual 8086.  (Hmm.  Do they have enough DOS
emulation stuff in it yet, for enhanced-386 mode, to not make this necessary?
I don't know.)

response 9 of 83:

Sep 21 16:42 UTC 1991

        I kind of think Windows will be around for a long time.  There's no
widespread acceptance of OS/2 at all; after 4 years you have to begin to
wonder about the viability of a concept.
        Personally, I *hope* Windows wins out.  IBM wants proprietary control
of the world, and I don't want them to have it.  If OS/2 becomes the
oeprating system that replaces DOS and Windows, there'll shortly be a
version with extra features for IBM Microchannel machines only, then a
newer version which only runs on Microchannel, then a version which only
runs on IBM computers, then we'll be back to the long-dead world of using
computers how IBM tells us to.  (Paranoid?  You *can't* be paranoid in
assuming IBM is out to get you.  They are, and always have been.) 

response 11 of 83:

Sep 21 20:18 UTC 1991

        The best tip about Windows I know is: if you have a monitor and video
card capable of 1024x768 graphics, you may be tempted to use a Windows
1024x768 mode.  800x600 is much easier on the eyes on a standard 14 inch
monitor.

        Well, maybe there are some others.
        Standard mode runs faster than Enhanced mode, though it doesn't allow
your DOS programs to run in the background.  (You can task switch DOS
programs, they just won't run in the background.)

        Many people don't realize they can have several icons for each
application.  Just copy an icon you wish to use by pressing your <shift>
key and dragging the icon to a different location (a different group,
perhaps).  Then you can customize your application to load the file you
usually want.  For example, at work I use Excel to edit one particular
spreadsheet file.  To automatically load that spreadsheet, I went into
the <F>ile menu, selected <P>roperties, and changed the Run command for my
customized copy of Excel to "excel /pathname/file.xls".  It doesn't save
me any time in loading, but I don't have to remember where I left the 
spreadsheet file on our network.
        I did the same in Pagemaker, to customize a copy of Pagemaker to load
the newsletter I've been working on.

        I don't have very many Windows applications at home.  I hate
searching through the application groups to find the ones I use.  So, I
arranged my desktop to have all of the groups with applications I might
use to be open at the time.  I can see all of the apps I want on the
desktop when I first run Windows, and can select one by just clicking on
it.
        Many applications create their own groups when you install the
program.  I find it a lot easier to combine all of those apps into one
group, my Windows Applications group, then I deleted my unneeded specific
groups, such as "Excel 3.0".

        Adobe Type Manager is a *great* addition to a computer with a
laser printer.  It makes "WYSIWYG" a reality; your screen really will look
like your print job.
        It adds even more capability to a system with a dot matrix printer, I
understand; it allows a dot printer user to use more fonts than are
supported by the printer itself.  A lot of applications are including ATM
now.  If you havge it and haven't installed it, do so.  If you don't have
it, get it!

response 13 of 83:

Sep 22 12:04 UTC 1991

Three months ago, I moved from the Macintosh to a 386sx clone, running
Windows.  I had heard Windows wasn't as elegant as the Mac interface
so I wasn't surprised to find it a little less intuitive and somewhat
slower in opening files and moving from here to there.  But what I never
anticipated was how much slower certain *applications* would be running 
under Windows.

I went from a lightning fast word processor with the Mac to a word 
processor that often seems like I'm typing under water it's so slow
getting words onto the screen.  I'm told it's the graphical interface.
What I've found is I am spending more and more time out of Windows,
at the DOS prompt, using a non-Windows word processor.

In fairness, I've not tried the new Word for Windows, only Word
running under Windows, and Just Write (for Windows).

Oh, it's fun all right, making your own icons and it's a Type A's
holiday organizing it all, but when I really need to be productive
I shell-out to the C: prompt.  And this from someone who isn't
even proficient at the C: prompt.

response 15 of 83:

Sep 22 19:10 UTC 1991

  Or unless you, your son, or your husband has changed the prompt in the
AUTOEXEC.BAT file.  What you see may very well be "C:" (or C:\> or something
like that (with the pathname included))

response 17 of 83:

Sep 23 21:59 UTC 1991

Just Write is written for Windows and I find it to be too slow.
I tend to type moderatly fast but still, I shouldn't be half a line
ahead of the type on the screen.  One of these days I'll give Word
for Windows a try.  

response 19 of 83:

Sep 24 16:47 UTC 1991

  Amazingly enough, even when the PC's running Windows, Macs and PCs
run different software.  Isn't that bizarre?

response 21 of 83:

Sep 27 23:54 UTC 1991

Windows v3.1 will have Microsoft's TrueType(tm) technology built-in.. Adobe's
ATM will no longer be needed for WYSIWYG fonts. 

IBM seems to have discovered reality within the past year or so.  Check the
amount of software they're creating.  IBM has realized that software is where
the money is at, that the "corporate" programming style doesn't work, so 
they've had what can be equated with "perestroika" in their software depart
departments.  Forget everything you know about OS/2 v1.x: v2.0 is a completely
different animal.  And it WON'T require Microchannel--that has been 
specifically stated many times over on Usenet.  

response 23 of 83:

Oct 2 20:25 UTC 1991

  I'm a satisfied Amiga owner but I wouldn't wish it on anyone who didn't
realize what they were getting into.  It's a neat computer, sure, but it
just never quite made it enough to be useful to a user who doesn't want to
take care of a lot of things for themselves.  Especially if you're coming
from a Mac, an Amiga would be a poor choice for someone used to lots of 
available software.