Hello MICHAEL!
20 Feb 98 14:51, MICHAEL SHARON wrote to HANS MANGOLD:
 HM>> Tom, that's not a good idea.  Neither File Manager nor Program
 HM>> Manager can deal with Win95's long filenames.  The W95 DeskTop
 HM>> and Explorer take a little getting used to, but once you've
 HM>> mastered them, you'll =never= want to go back to the pre-historic
 HM>> File / Program Manager.
 MS>  So what, Hans? How long were you using "File Mgr." using the 8bit
 MS> filename capability before Win95 came along? You managed didn't you?
Yes, I did "manage".  Does that mean I should now suffer for the rest of my 
life with this primitive 8.3 implementation?
 MS>  Additionally, MANY of the programs written today, even those
 MS> intended
 MS>  exclusively for Win95, won't allow the 32bit filename capability
 MS> either! So what good is it to name your, "letter to the editor.doc"
 MS> using the longer 32bit filename, if your "made for Win95" scanner
 MS> program reads the filename as "LETTER~1." when you want to fax it to
 MS> 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
 HM>> than Win 3.1.
 MS>  Only in some respects. IMO, not offering the full potential of File
 MS> Mgr. is a serious drawback. Another is the START button. How much of
 MS> an improvement was done there over the old Program Manager Groups?
 MS> Again, not much IMO. Besides, let the mouse pointer slide off the "hot
 MS> spot" for the area your trying to go to, and you have to start the
 MS> procedure all over again. That's a real waste of time isn't it?
Well, all you have to do is adjust the timing slightly and you won't run into 
this problem much anymore, if at all.  However, you are confusing things a 
bit: the new "Desktop" has taken the place of the old "Program Manager".  The 
"Start" button launches the Windows Explorer, the replacement for the old 
File Manager.  Michael, I'm not trying to defend one over the other, as far 
as I'm concerned, it's all still a bit Mickey Mouse and I hope the next 
generation of user interfaces will arrive sooner rather than later.  But, in 
the meantime, I might as well get with the program and leave the past behind.
 MS> And,
 MS> how many times has that happened to you? Click on START, go to
 MS> PROGRAMS, goto ACCESSORIES, slide the pointer down diagonally to goto,
 MS> opps. START over...grrr!
Nope, it only happened to me during the first few days, until I adjusted the 
timing (Menu Speed).  Now it doesn't happen to me at all!!!  (Hint: get the 
POWERTOYS, go into "Tweak UI", which will then be in the Control Panel, 
adjust "Menu Speed" to your preference.)
 MS>  One "infinitely better" thing about Win95, is that it uses all of
 MS> your systems resources which makes apps run faster. Unlike Win3.xx.
Yes, and it is in fact a multi-tasker.  Finally I can run my BBS properly 
while still enjoying the rest of the computer; under Win 3.1, this was 
virtually impossible.  Some sysops used "crutches" like DesqView, others, 
like myself, switched to OS/2 to get the benefit of efficient multi-tasking.  
Many (most?) who have gone that route have since looked at all of the 
compromises and decided Win95 was, on balance, the best choice.  Win95 has a 
lot of drawbacks, but, as I said, on balance, it is the preferred choice for 
most PC users today.
 MS>  OTHO, it "infinitely" takes far more space on your system than
 MS> Win3.xx. And, what it saves in speed, by using all of the systems
 MS> resources, programs like MS OFFICE eats the saved resources up again!
That's life.  A 350 V-8 will take more space than a sub-compact's 2 Ltr. 
engine.  And, because it's heavier, it will require more horsepower just to 
move itself around.  However, at the same token, when I installed Win 3.1 on 
my system, hard drive space was about $1.00/Meg., now it's ten cents and 
still falling.  I have 64 MB of RAM in this system; back in the days of Win 
3.1, it would have cost me about $3,200 -- I just bought it last week for 
=under= Can.$175 (equals US$125)!  This allows me to have multiple OFFICE 
applications active at the same time, including ACCESS, which is a real 
memory hog, and the speed is just fantastic.  Browsing the internet is 
infinitely faster now with the added memory.  Want to compare that to "the 
good old days"???  I don't think so!  If I compare what I paid for my old 20, 
105 and 340 MB drives to today's 6.4 GB drives, and compare the size of the 
software then to now, no, thank you very much, you can keep "the good old 
days".  :-)
 MS> You can't do much multitasking while using those programs, unless you
 MS> have more than the required RAM. And again, that is a waste of money
 MS> too.
That makes little sense.  If it gives you the efficiency you want, then it's 
obviously not a waste of money, is it?
 MS>  Typically, according to many upgrade manufacturers, a 486 system
 MS> upgraded to a 586 133MHz CPU with 16M RAM is considered sufficient.
That depends; are you talking about the crappy CPU's that one particular 
company fraudulently marketed as being a "586" when in fact it was and still 
is a 486?  Or are you talking about the =true= 586 (speak: Pentium-class) 
CPUs? The Pentium-class benefits from many speed improvements at various 
levels, including the motherboard's chipset and bus, e.g. PCI vs. VESA, as 
well as the video and disk I/O interface.  There are many variables, and by 
today's standards, a "586 133MHz" is not exactly a high performance system.  
16MB of RAM are simply not adequate for running today's software in the 
manner we've become accustomed, i.e. multi-tasking.  It was great under Win 
3.1, but the way most of us actually =use= computers today, 32 MB is the 
minimum and that's exactly what is supplied even in the real entry-level 
systems.  Don't forget the price of 32MB high-performance RAM is less than 
what the slow 16MB of just a few months went for.
 MS> Adding more RAM doesn't necessarily increase the speed of your
 MS> system.
It does increase overall performance by a =huge= amount!!!  Don't forget that 
Win95 has excellent memory management facilities, matter of fact, that's 
probably the best part of Win95!  It will take advantage of the added 
resources and result in a very considerable performance gain, depending on 
applications used.  One of my friends (in his mid-seventies) just upped his 
memory from 64 to 128MB to give Adobe Photoshop a bit of a boost.  Talk to 
him about 16MB being adequate and more memory not necessarily increasing the 
speed!  :-)))
 MS> Therefore, you're wasting money adding the additional RAM. MS OFFICE
 MS> requires 16M of RAM. However, 24M or more is considered ideal.
 MS> Obviously, using the typical minimum requirement of 16M, your entire
 MS> system runs well, until you use MS OFFICE, then it bogs down quite
 MS> noticeably.
Michael, you're getting lost in tiny bits and pieces; it's penny-wise and 
dollar-foolish.  Why bother with the difference between 16 and 24 MB of RAM? 
Heck, 32MB of high-performance RAM (SDRAM) cost here less than Can.$90, 
that's about US$65.  Instead of worrying how much better 24 will be than 16, 
think how much better 64 will be instead of 32!!!
 MS>  Now then, if the average home users child uses MS OFFICE maybe once
 MS> a
 MS>  month to create a report for school, using detailed graphic
 MS> insertions, etc.. Is the added expense for the additional RAM really
 MS> worth it?
Wrong question.  What the heck is MS OFFICE doing on that system in the first 
place?  Would MS Works not be much better suited?
Same old argument, should I get a V-8 engine when all I'm doing is driving to 
church on Sunday mornings, three blocks down the street?  And 
high-performance radials?  But that doesn't mean everyone else should get 
whatever =I= buy to drive to church!
 MS>  So, while I agree with you that Bill Gates has given us a lucrative
 MS> line of products for a reasonable price, (your opinion). The
 MS> additional costs incurred to the average user upgrading his system in
 MS> order to use those products, at the optimal performance level, is not
 MS> IMO, economically efficient.
How much depreciation the moment you drive a brand-new car off the dealer's 
lot?  Is that "economically efficient"?
"Economically efficient" means "productivity".  In my particular case, yes, 
indeed, having 64MB of RAM for US$125 instead of 32MB is economically 
efficient -- my internet usage has dropped considerably now that the browser 
works much faster and I am able to run multiple tasks at once, like ftp a 
file from one place while doing something else in the browser and 
transferring e-mail all at the same time.  Time is money and my internet 
access is unfortunately not based on a flat fee.  If I amortize the 
investment of an additional US$65 over 24 months (64MB instead of 32MB), 
meaning $2.70 per month or less than nine cents per day, yes, in my case it's 
"economically efficient", especially that =all= of my applications run 
considerably faster and the time savings really do add up at the end of a 
busy day!  But heck, if all I were to do is write a report for school once 
per month, I'd fire up my old XT and WP5.1/DOS!
BTW, having an "adequate" amount of memory reduces hard-drive access = wear 
and tear =dramatically= as Win95 will rely more on a large disk cache, etc., 
etc. Hard drives are for the most part =mechanical= devices, so the reduced 
wear and tear is an important factor in terms of "economic efficiency".
Michael, I agree that today's software is absolutely bloated to the point of 
no return; the PC industry today is where the car industry used to be a few 
decades ago (bigger is better).  Today, Detroit manufactures very efficient 
cars and at long last they've even learned from the Japanese and the Germans 
how to mount doors straight.   It will take some time until we see a similar 
trend in the PC industry; for now, we'll just have to make the best of the 
best. :-)
Cheers, Hans
... Let he who takes the plunge remember to return it!
--- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Binkley32 / Maximus / Squish / WINDOWS 95 / V34+
---------------