-=> Quoting Hans Mangold to Tom Walker <=-
 HM> Hello Tom!
 HM> 12 Feb 98 11:02, Tom Walker wrote to August Abolins:
 TW> I have developed an affection fro File Manager myself and intend to
 TW> continue to use it when the Forced change takes place. I also Intend
 TW> to set up Program Manager with my upgrade so while it might be Win 95
 TW> under the shell it will look like and operate like Win 3.11 for me.
 TW> :-)
 HM> Tom, that's not a good idea.  Neither File Manager nor Program Manager
 HM> can deal with Win95's long filenames.  The W95 DeskTop and Explorer
 HM> take a little getting used to, but once you've mastered them, you'll
 HM> =never= want to go back to the pre-historic File / Program Manager.
 So what, Hans? How long were you using "File Mgr." using the 8bit filename
 capability before Win95 came along? You managed didn't you?
 Additionally, MANY of the programs written today, even those intended
 exclusively for Win95, won't allow the 32bit filename capability either!
 So what good is it to name your, "letter to the editor.doc" using the
 longer 32bit filename, if your "made for Win95" scanner program reads
 the filename as "LETTER~1." when you want to fax it to your newspaper
 editor??? What good is the longer filename now?
 HM> It appears you dislike Win95 without even being familiar with it.
 HM> Win95 is not the greatest or best, but it is infinitely better than Win
 HM> 3.1.
 Only in some respects. IMO, not offering the full potential of File Mgr.
 is a serious drawback. Another is the START button. How much of an
 improvement was done there over the old Program Manager Groups? Again,
 not much IMO. Besides, let the mouse pointer slide off the "hot spot"
 for the area your trying to go to, and you have to start the procedure
 all over again. That's a real waste of time isn't it? And, how many times
 has that happened to you? Click on START, go to PROGRAMS, goto ACCESSORIES,
 slide the pointer down diagonally to goto, opps. START over...grrr!
 One "infinitely better" thing about Win95, is that it uses all of your
 systems resources which makes apps run faster. Unlike Win3.xx.
 OTHO, it "infinitely" takes far more space on your system than Win3.xx.
 And, what it saves in speed, by using all of the systems resources,
 programs like MS OFFICE eats the saved resources up again! You can't do
 much multitasking while using those programs, unless you have more than
 the required RAM. And again, that is a waste of money too.
 Typically, according to many upgrade manufacturers, a 486 system upgraded
 to a 586 133MHz CPU with 16M RAM is considered sufficient. Adding more
 RAM doesn't necessarily increase the speed of your system. Therefore,
 you're wasting money adding the additional RAM. MS OFFICE requires 16M of
 RAM. However, 24M or more is considered ideal. Obviously, using the typical
 minimum requirement of 16M, your entire system runs well, until you use
 MS OFFICE, then it bogs down quite noticeably.
 Now then, if the average home users child uses MS OFFICE maybe once a
 month to create a report for school, using detailed graphic insertions,
 ect. Is the added expense for the additional RAM really worth it?
 So, while I agree with you that Bill Gates has given us a lucrative line
 of products for a reasonable price, (your opinion). The additional costs
 incurred to the average user upgrading his system in order to use those
 products, at the optimal performance level, is not IMO, economically
 efficient.
 Sincerely,
 Michael Sharon
 
... VirusScan - Windows 95 found. Remove it? (Y/n)
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------