Well, I finally did it.  After successfully resisting Windows for
almost a year, I upgraded my machine to 3 Mbytes of RAM and
bought Windwows 3.0.  Although I've only played with it for a
couple of hours, I am pleasantly surprised.
 
As my computer is only a 386SX running at 16 MHz, I thought
Windows would be a real dog, but it's not bad at all.  Although
it's true that the only applications I've run so far are the
programs that came with Windows.  The solitaire game is kind of
fun, as is the Paint program.
 
At any rate, I'd like to hear about your experiences with Windows
-- good, bad, or ugly.  I'd also like to hear about any good
shareware/public domain programs that you've found to be useful
and any tips on making Windows more useful.

83 responses total.

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?

 I don't do Windows..

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.

I go between my Amiga WB and Windows ... and I find Windows too klunky
compared to WB.

   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.

  Programming a decent application for Windows probably isn't any more of 
a pain that programming one for X, and if it is, it's probably because X
has been around longer and there are better toolkits and more source examples
available.

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.)

Buying Windows 3.0 at this point is kind of a waste of time.. Windows v3.1 and
OS/2 v2.0 ought to be out within the next couple of months.  At least by
the end of the year.. (well, okay, maybe it's not a waste of time..)

Byte had a neat article on Windows 3.1 an issue or two ago.. and the rumblings
on Usenet seem to think that OS/2 v2.0 will be a very nice Windows killer. 
(Unforch, I haven't been able to get to Usenet lately..)  I'm betting on OS/2
v2.0, especially if Borland lets me upgrade my Borland C++ v2.0 compiler to
the OS/2 version at a reasonable price.  (DOS, Windows, and OS/2 apps all
multitasking, anyone?  What the hell, RAM's under $40/meg..)

        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.) 

I also expect that I will be able to easily and cheaply upgrade to
Windows 3.1 when it actually does come out.  I'm not so sure *I* would
bet on OS/2, especially now that IBM is the sole developer.

Do any of you have any Windows tips?  That's what I was really hoping
to get out of this item.

        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!

Thanks, John!  Exactly what I was looking for.

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.

It's been pointed out to me that the prompt is a C> not a C:.
Unless of course I was using DOS v1.?.  I'm not old enough to
know of such versions.

  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))

        Mary, a Windows word processor should be faster than a DOS word
processor running under Windows.  I use Word for Windows; it works just
fine.  It is slower, perhaps, than Word for DOS running under DOS, but not
that bad.
        It's amusing to hear MS Word called "fast".  I used to use Word 1.15
on a dual-floppy XT system.  It was the slowest word processor I've ever
used, or ever will.  Even though the word processor was small enough to
load itself into memory without too many overlay accesses, it was
s-l-o-w.  I'm not a fast typist, but it was much too slow even for my
fingers.  (Even so, it had a lot of features that other programs didn't,
and was useful for that reason.)

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.  

If you wanted to run windows, why did you sell your Mac?  The Mac GUI
has undergone far more development than the PCs "Windows payload".

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

I wanted an upgrade to color and a larger screen and it was far more
cost effective to do so with a clone than a Mac.  I'm not at all sorry
I made the switch.  

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.  

Re: 20 -- Never thought of an Amiga, did you?

  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.

That's one of Amiga's few problems, lack of major software-house software.
They all think that the Amiga is a 'Game Machine'.

That reflects on Commodore as much as anything.  While Apple was busy
encouraging software developers everywhere to create software for their
machines, plus advertising the machines (on prime time nation-wide TV!),
Commodore, apparently interested in not undercutting its C-64 sales, did
no advertising initially, and made little effort to encourage software
developers.  (If you are an independent software developer, do you
develope software for something everyone is buying, or a machine whose
maker seems wishy-washy?)

Problems have persisted ever since.  Commodore, continuing a tradition
started when it drilled holes in its PET's to keep users from adding
memory, made incompatible changes to its bus when it introduced newer
hardware.  Most IBM users, for all the fussing everyone did about the
AT, found they could still often move stuff over, preserving their
investment in hard drives, modems, printers, displays, etc.  When newer
Mac's hit the market, Apple provided a modest cost "upgrade" program so
that consumers who had invested in the original Mac weren't totally out in
the dark.  Commodore effectively screwed the relatively small number of
companies making add-on hardware to the Amiga; and this critically
limited ones options for such "necessities" for a "serious" machine as
hard disk drives, in particular.  Commodore didn't have one yet, and the
few guys who survived charged you an arm and a leg for the ability to
add a hard disk--and sometimes looked more than a little shady to boot.

One presumes the situation has since improved, since the machine is
still around.  Nevertheless, software developers, after-market hardware
makers, and consumer alike have little reason to trust Commodore.  An as
a serious competitor to IBM and Apple, Commodore tied itself up at the
starting gate and then shot itself in the foot.  No wonder it's not
winning, the wonder is that it's still in the race at all.

There still doesn't sem to be an overwhelming amount of software for
Windows, though.  Especially shareware.  Anyone run across good
shareware for Windows?

Shareware abounds; the biggest dearth is in freeware (as in, you don't
pay anything, and don't have to pay anything).  This is probably because
the Microsoft Windows Software Development Kit, which (up until recently)
you *had* to have to develop Windows software, cost upwards of $500.
There's no way a spare-time hobbyist programmer is going to shell out
that kind of money, let alone give away the software they write with it.
Now that Borland's Turbo C++ includes Windows support, I think we may
see more freeware Windows apps, since Turbo C++ is only $150 or so.

  Not all freeware developers are hobbyist programmers.  A lot of them
develop the freeware on their own time and program professionally for a 
living.  Probably most of those types would have access to Windows 3.0
development tools.

How about Visual BASIC?  Sounds like VB is cheap enough  so that
hobbyists can gin up a Windows application and give it away.

But, I'll repeat my question.  What Windows shareware have you used
that is good?

Windows has traditionally been an unpleasant enough environment that I
suspect most "professional" programmers stuck using it have probably
elected to spend whatever "free" time they have programming, doing
something else instead.  I mean "unpleasant" in several senses.
Firstly, older versions of Windows have been just plain flakey --
tending to crash without notice and without much clue as to what went
sour.  Secondly, the documentation, if it's like any other MicroSoft
documentation I've ever seen or heard of, is going to be real pain to
deal with.  Thirdly, there is the display issue -- older CGA cards just
don't put enough stuff on the screen to make any sort of windowing
environment real attractive.  Newer EGA cards don't necessarily show
that much more, and are often hampered with incredible I/O delays that
discourage really interactive graphics work.  With all of these hassles,
chances are, most people who have worked with it for a living, will be
just as happy to do something else (almost anything else) than deal with
it recreationally in their free time.

Well, since I like to get work done on my computers, Windows is unpleasant
from the other side, too.  The overhead effectively kicks you down two
processor chips in terms of speed, and that interface, yech!  It seems to
be designed for people who shouldn't be trying to use computers in the
first place.  I've gotten small jobs done while waiting for a Windows
program to show signs of life. 

It would be less of a problem, none at all actually, if it werent for the
fact that the windows style of interface is contaminating mainstream
programs, sending thier usability down the drain.

I wish GUIs would just go away, but I suspect I have a world full of
user-surly computers on the way, I'm glad I was in it while it was still
fun.

I don't think GUI's are a *bad* idea, just an idea that needs refining.

  I think people need to seperate the ideas of graphical user interfaces
and multiple windows.  One does not necessarily imply the other but ever
since the first release of the Mac OS introduced both to the general public
people have been assuming that they naturally have to go together.

  I prefer a command-line interface but just try and take my multiple 
windows away!  Even when they're not really windows (like "screen" on a
Unix box), I can't do without them..

Right now I am operating on an entirely textual interface, I have this session
running in one window, a phone number reference running in another, and the
system is currently configured for a window limit of 8, and that low only
because I never open more than that and it makes more resources available
to the processes that remain if I don't reserve what I don't need.

I am seldom in single-user mode, only the most horrendous of programs
requires that much space.  I agree with you to a point, it is not the
windows for me but the multi-tasking.  Unless I am doing something truly
bizarre, full-screen is always on and the other processes only come up
when I call for them.  (There's life in the old DOS box yet.)

Ack, Unix on the brain, change single-user to single-process above, it
makes more sense.

I'm a Windows user, and am sold on it for two reasons:  multitasking,
and inter-application data sharing.
 
I'm currently using a borrowed 33 Mhz 386 with 4 Megs of 25 nanosecond SRAM,
and a drive with a built-in 1 Meg cache.  This makes Enhanced mode quite
tolerable.

My usual system is a 286 with 1 meg, and I can't get it to run in Standard
mode, only Real mode.  So, I can't run a whole slew of applications that I
need.  Techies should see item 29 in the hardware conference if they know
chipset technology and can help me with specialized CMOS requirements.

4 meg of static RAM? Geez!

Yeah, its pretty nice, especially when compared with the boat anchor laptop
I have to lug around.

Musta cost a nice piece of change, too...
Wow...all SRAM...
(his eyes glaze over...)
I'm getting a little impatient with my wimpy 386-25.

(Are you sure it's all SRAM?  Most machines I've seen have DRAM for main
memory, and 64K to 256K of SRAM cache...SRAM is sufficiently expensive,
as well as unavailable in high-density chips, that it really doesn't
get used for main memory...)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss