mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) (07/07/90)
I am seeking opinions on the following three configurations:
- Windows 3.0
- Deskview 2.3
- Desqview AND Windows
The target environment will (probably) be 386SX w/ 2M RAM, VGA, mouse,
1.2M & 1.44M floppies, 40M HD, and internal modem. In particular what
are the pros and cons with respect to:
1. Documentation
2. Ease of installation/administration
3. Ease of learning
4. Ease of use
5. Predicted stability (Are there major changes coming soon,
e.g., Motif compatible Windows?)
5. Demands on resources
6. [other considerations]
Which version of MS/DOS is recommended for each configuration?
--
George Mitchell, MITRE, MS Z676, 7525 Colshire Dr, McLean, VA 22102
email: gmitchel@mitre.org [alt: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org]
vmail: 703/883-6029 FAX: 703/883-5519doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) (07/08/90)
In article <112649@linus.mitre.org>, mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) writes: > I am seeking opinions on the following three configurations: > - Windows 3.0 > - Deskview 2.3 > - Desqview AND Windows > The target environment will (probably) be 386SX w/ 2M RAM, VGA, mouse, > 1.2M & 1.44M floppies, 40M HD, and internal modem. In particular what > are the pros and cons with respect to: > > 1. Documentation. Windows documentation is more user oriented and DV's is more technically oriented. (I prefer DV, but I'm a techie) DV tech support (phone, FAX, BBS) are fairly notorious for being very crowded and thus frustrating. I've no experience with MSoft tech support. > 2. Ease of installation/administration DV can be quite a problem to install, especially in a LAN or other environment that has a lot of drivers. On the other hand, it is very flexible: you have access to just about every tuning parameter thinkable. Windows is much easier to install, but much less flexible. If it knows about your LAN, everything's okay, if it doesn't, it just refuses to load. Not many parameters are available for tweaking, and the documentation doesn't go into enough detail on how it works to figure out if it needs tweaking or not. Basically, Windows is an out-of-the-box application. DV is not. > 3. Ease of learning Not much to learn with either one. > 4. Ease of use Not much here either. Windows complains a lot more than DV, and refuses to run some apps (notably Borland's Compilers). DV doesn't complain as much, but it seems to lock up a little more. (I've not had a lot of trouble with either of these locking up). > 5. Predicted stability (Are there major changes coming soon, > e.g., Motif compatible Windows?) Motif and Open Look compatible Desqview has been announced for later this year. Haven't heard anything on the Windows side, other than a smooth path to OS/2 2+. (The OS/2 2+ kernel is supposed to be able to run Windows apps). > 5. Demands on resources Windows seems to be more of a resource hog. I haven't done any formal testing, that's just my observation. > 6. [other considerations] Well, DV lets you hold onto character mode for a little longer. Does anyone know if it is possible to write a character mode application that makes use of other Windows features (such as interprocess communication and multitasking) but avoiding the painful transition to GUI? It seems the answer is no, but I can't see a good reason why not. I have both DV and Windows 3.0. I was real impressed by Windows when I got it, it is gorgeous. But I went back to DV because I can do the things I do easier and faster, and I have more control over my environment. Hope my observations are helpful. -- Doug. "If you want Peace, work for Justice."
lulu@ucrmath.ucr.edu (david lu) (07/08/90)
In article <6683@ozdaltx.UUCP> doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) writes: >In article <112649@linus.mitre.org>, mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) writes: > >Not much here either. Windows complains a lot more than DV, and refuses to >run some apps (notably Borland's Compilers). DV doesn't complain as much, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this really true? I was thinking about getting Windows, but if it really won't work with Borland's compilers, then maybe not. Maybe this is a marketing strategy on MS's part against BI (:-) ? -- ---==lulu@ucrmath==--- just another bewildered college undergraduate. David T Lu, Amateur Thinker: lulu@ucrmath.ucr.edu, {ucsd, uci}!ucrmath!lulu "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." - Geoffrey James, _The Tao of Programming_
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/08/90)
I think what was meant is that Borland's compilers cannot yet produce code for windows applications. You can run all Borland products as a Dos program under win3, and run any program created by Borland compilers also as Dos programs under Win3. Milan .
lulu@ucr.edu (david lu) (07/09/90)
In article <46500138@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >I think what was meant is that Borland's compilers cannot yet produce code for >windows applications. You can run all Borland products as a Dos program under >win3, and run any program created by Borland compilers also as Dos programs >under Win3. Does this include Turbo Debugger as well? *That* would be something! -- ---==lulu@ucrmath==--- just another bewildered college undergraduate. David T Lu, Amateur Thinker: lulu@ucrmath.ucr.edu, {ucsd, uci}!ucrmath!lulu "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." - Geoffrey James, _The Tao of Programming_
doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) (07/09/90)
In article <7474@ucrmath.ucr.edu>, lulu@ucrmath.ucr.edu (david lu) writes: > In article <6683@ozdaltx.UUCP> doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) writes: > >Not much here either. Windows complains a lot more than DV, and refuses to > >run some apps (notably Borland's Compilers). DV doesn't complain as much, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Is this really true? I was thinking about getting Windows, > but if it really won't work with Borland's compilers, then maybe not. When trying to start either Turbo Pascal 5.5 or Turbo C 2.0, Windows issues a "Program has violated system integrity" or some equally snippy message and refuses to run it. I have heard from other people who have successfully run TP under Windows, but I have not been able to duplicate their success. I'm still trying. -- BTW, I haven't tried Turbo C++ 1.0 under Windows yet. -- Doug. "If you want Peace, work for Justice."
doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) (07/09/90)
In article <46500138@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>, mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > I think what was meant is that Borland's compilers cannot yet produce code for > windows applications. You can run all Borland products as a Dos program under > win3, and run any program created by Borland compilers also as Dos programs > under Win3. No, that is not at all what I meant. The install procedure for Windows does recognize that Turbo Pascal (but not C) is on my hard disk, and generates what it thinks is an appropriate PIF file and makes an icon under "Non-Windows Apps" for it. However, if I try to run either compiler, Windows tells me that "system integrity has been violated" and returns to the Windows environment. Much tweaking of parameters has not fixed this problem. -- Doug. "If you want Peace, work for Justice."
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (07/10/90)
Windows 3.0 works great with Turbo C++
reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (07/10/90)
[I tried to reply by mail but our mailer couldn't figure out where community-chest was on the network. Anyway...] <mitchell@community-chest.uucp> writes... >I am seeking opinions on the following three configurations: > - Deskview 2.3 I assume here you mean DESQview 386, which is both DESQview (the task manager) and QEMM 5.0 which is the memory manager. You'll want QEMM to make the most use of the program. >1. Documentation Quarterdeck documentation is less than adequate. Organization is terrible. If you have absolutely no hacker in you at all, beware. >2. Ease of installation/administration I found installation relatively painless. Tuning (optimization) is another story, but isn't necessary in most cases. >3. Ease of learning Program is a cinch to learn. In fact, though it's mouse driven, I find the keyboard easier for some functions (opening and switching windows, for example). >4. Ease of use See 3. above. >5. Predicted stability (Are there major changes coming soon, > e.g., Motif compatible Windows?) Rumor is an Motif/X-windows version of DESQview by the end of the year. >5. Demands on resources Demands, what demands? With QEMM installed in a 2 MB system (-384KB for a disk cache, and assorted other stuff for DOS, etc.), I have about 1 meg available to run programs in. This means I can open up a couple of 512K programs at the same time. The disk is only used to swap programs out of memory that can and need to be swapped out (my communications tasks aren't allowed to swap). The whole package took under 1 MB of disk space once installed. >6. [other considerations] > >Which version of MS/DOS is recommended for each configuration? I am running v4.01 and haven't had any problems. Don't know about other versions. Hope this helps, George. jim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749-2895
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (07/13/90)
In article <13233@shlump.nac.dec.com>, reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: > > >5. Predicted stability (Are there major changes coming soon, > > e.g., Motif compatible Windows?) > > Rumor is an Motif/X-windows version of DESQview by the end of the year. > No rumor. They were showing it at PC Expo. It was called Desqview-X. Maybe the timetable is a rumor, but they were saying September. I wish they would put out an interim product that does the popups in graphics mode, so it doesn't screw up some VGA screens in background temporarily (it screws up, it restores when the window goes back to active. Ugly, but nothing serious.) > >5. Demands on resources > Comparing my system without QEMM (optimized) to an optimized configuration with a Desqview Window, the system overhead of Desqview on my system came to -23Kb (that's negative 23K - 23K more than I had without it - the amount that LOADHI'd exceeded the program size by that amount. I heard MS Windows takes up to 80K and doesn't LOADHI, so Windows can be stuck with 440K unless they are tailored (rewritten) to take advantage of Windows memory management. ~. of Windows memory -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 5.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Knowing you, you're probably doing twice as much as is healthy for you."