jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) (05/02/90)
In article <1990May1.002131.4973@athena.mit.edu> dcling@athena.mit.edu (Douglas C Ling) writes: >Officially, WINDOWS 3.0 is still under Beta-Testing. >Last Friday, I used it with a IBM Portable/luggable-386, on the Big Blue >Mobile Demo Unit visiting MIT. It was IMPRESSIVE (uh, it was very Mac-like!!) Actually, my impression of it has been that Microsoft is tending more towards the NeXT look than the Mac (metallic colors, buttons that push into the screen, etc.). -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
david@metapyr.UUCP (David Relson) (05/02/90)
Microsoft IS going it's own route with DOS extenders. With C6.0 Microsoft brought out its DPMI (Dos Protected Mode Interface) which they say they need to provide protected mode capabilities needed for multitasking - abilities they say are not otherwise available. DPMI is not VCPI compatible, so extended memory managers like QEMM and 386^MAX cannot be used at the same time. To be fair Microsoft does supply HIMEM.SYS, SMARTDRV.SYS, and RAMDRIVE.SYS, but I'm unhappy at losing my expanded memory capabilities.
ericr@hpvcper.HP.COM (Eric Ross) (05/02/90)
Microsoft will release Windows 3.0 at the end of May (the 22nd seems to ring a bell). Eric Ross ericr@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com
bobo@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Bob O'Donnell) (05/02/90)
I believe that PC Week said that it will cost $149 with upgrades costing $50.
andres@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Andy C (aka Riker)) (05/03/90)
My MS Sales Rep says soon... she even offered to call me as soons as the announcement was made and give me upgrade information (I currently use Windows/386 2.11). I can hardly wait! ANdyc
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (05/03/90)
In article <1990May2.014454.6423@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Computer Technology Review decreeing once again the death of OS/2. Sorry folks. The benefits of OS/2s multitasking etc will far outweigh any ability of Windows 3.0 on top of DOS. Besides, once your system has the graphics and memory support for real benefits of Windows 3.0 (multitasking in Protected Mode) than your machine is also good enough for OS/2. >One of the arguments is that Win 3.0 will run protected mode DOS >applications in both 286 and 386 systems (OS/2's compatability box >can't do that). If Windows 3.0 can do it, than a newer version of OS/2 will be able to do it as well. >Is this true? Yes, Windows 3.0 can run multiple DOS applications while using the protected mode of the 386 (maybe even a 286), provided you have 2 or more megs of RAM. >If yes, is Microsoft dictating a >standard for Extended DOS applications? Yes. >Does it support the existing >DOS extenders? No. That is why there is a new program being released by a company called 3 for 3 which is specially designed to allow the OS/2 version of Lotus 123 to run under Windows 3.0. The majority of DOS extenders compete with Windows Extended Memory Management and therefore are not compatible. >Should I wait until May 21 for the answers to these >questions? On May 22nd the world will have the opportunity to play!
pfrennin@altos86.Altos.COM (Peter Frenning) (05/03/90)
In article <922@metapyr.UUCP> david@metapyr.UUCP (David Relson) writes: >Microsoft IS going it's own route with DOS extenders. With C6.0 Microsoft >brought out its DPMI (Dos Protected Mode Interface) which they say they need >to provide protected mode capabilities needed for multitasking - abilities they >say are not otherwise available. DPMI is not VCPI compatible, so extended >memory managers like QEMM and 386^MAX cannot be used at the same time. >To be fair Microsoft does supply HIMEM.SYS, SMARTDRV.SYS, and RAMDRIVE.SYS, but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I'm unhappy at losing my expanded memory capabilities. .............. as well as EMM386.SYS (with 3.0), which does exactly what you want done. BTW: SMARTDRV.SYS is the best disk-caching utility I've seen, CORETEST, which gives me a figure of slightly over 600Kb/s when talking directly to the disk (Adaptec RLL/Priam 230 Mb drive), says 4.6 Mb/s when using SMARTDRV. When configured with 4Mb RAM it load windows 386 (2.11) in abaout 8 sec's the second time, as opposed to 23 sec's the first.(25 MHz 386) I for one cannot wait to have an official release of "the OS/2 killer" and applications like Ami, Excel and other 3.0 compatible applications on my machine. - Peter
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (05/03/90)
In reference to one of the previous responses, is it true that Win 3.0 will not provide an ExPanded memory manager on a 386 machine? I am currently very happy with using Windows/386 v2.11 as my "shell" to spawn a vareity of DOS apps and letting Windows/386 provide EMM to these DOS apps. Please respond to this note, so I can decide whether I should continue holding my breath!! Thanks, Milan .
dorsai@pawl.rpi.edu (G. Donald Moncreaff) (05/04/90)
In article <46500085@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >In reference to one of the previous responses, is it true that Win 3.0 will >not provide an ExPanded memory manager on a 386 machine? I am currently very >happy with using Windows/386 v2.11 as my "shell" to spawn a vareity of DOS >apps and letting Windows/386 provide EMM to these DOS apps. Please respond to >this note, so I can decide whether I should continue holding my breath!! > i heard (fairly reliable) that the windows 3.0 pif editor will allow you to specify the amount of base, ems. xms that the program can use. you also should be able to set foreground/background priorities. btw, you might want to try to post to comp.ms.windows as you can get in touch with the beta testers. (assuming they'll tell you anything :-) ) -- respectfully yours, Gregory D. Moncreaff dorsai@pawl.rpi.edu --- Assassination is the highest form of public service ---
dorsai@pawl.rpi.edu (G. Donald Moncreaff) (05/04/90)
In article <**5#5~=@rpi.edu> dorsai@pawl.rpi.edu (G. Donald Moncreaff) writes: >In article <46500085@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>In reference to one of the previous responses, is it true that Win 3.0 will >>not provide an ExPanded memory manager on a 386 machine? I am currently very >>happy with using Windows/386 v2.11 as my "shell" to spawn a vareity of DOS >>apps and letting Windows/386 provide EMM to these DOS apps. Please respond to >>this note, so I can decide whether I should continue holding my breath!! >> >i heard (fairly reliable) that the windows 3.0 pif editor will allow you to >specify the amount of base, ems. xms that the program can use. you also should >be able to set foreground/background priorities. > >btw, you might want to try to post to comp.ms.windows as you can get in touch >with the beta testers. (assuming they'll tell you anything :-) ) > better make that comp.windows.ms :-) -- respectfully yours, Gregory D. Moncreaff dorsai@pawl.rpi.edu --- Assassination is the highest form of public service ---
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (05/05/90)
> .............. as well as EMM386.SYS (with 3.0), which does exactly what you > want done. BTW: SMARTDRV.SYS is the best disk-caching utility I've seen, > CORETEST, which gives me a figure of slightly over 600Kb/s when > talking directly > to the disk (Adaptec RLL/Priam 230 Mb drive), says 4.6 Mb/s when > using SMARTDRV. > When configured with 4Mb RAM it load windows 386 (2.11) in abaout 8 sec's the > second time, as opposed to 23 sec's the first.(25 MHz 386) > Just for comparison, SUPERPCK running under QEMM386-5.0 gives me about 6 Mb/s under CORETEST and load windows 286 (2.11) under 3 to 4 sec's. Besides, the SUPERPCK cache can share EMS memory with a RAM disk and print spooler. > I for one cannot wait to have an official release of "the OS/2 killer" and > applications like Ami, Excel and other 3.0 compatible applications on my > machine. > Me neither, but from reliable sources, I heard that under the 286 protected mode, almost no existing Windows application run properly except Word for Windows. Excel is the worst culprit --- hangs the machine stiff ! My source hasn't tested the 386 protected mode operation yet. He too is very reluctant to dismount QEMM-386 :-). Personally, I feel very PISSED OFF that Micr*s*ft chose to create a new DOS extender standard when one is already in place. In fact, Windows 286 refuses to install when QEMM-386 is loaded ! But, if you disable QEMM-386, install Windows and then re-enable QEMM-386, boot and run, Windows 286 works perfectly fine under QEMM-386 ! What an ARSE-HOLE !!! Sorry for the langauge, but I just think that Micr*s*ft is disgusting in this count. Regards, ## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ ... also at: pnl@hpfipnl.HP.COM Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
davidr@hplsla.HP.COM (David M. Reed) (05/05/90)
One writer complains, rightfully in my opinion, about the loss of benefits derived from such Expanded Memory Managers as QEMM and 386^MAX if the new MSWindows 3.0 is to be used in all its glory. Another user pointed out that an Expanded Memory Manager is provided with MSWindows. Unfortunately, that Expanded Memory Manager is, in my opinion, simplistic. Perhaps the second user did not understand what is lost by MSWindows' EMM instead of using QEMM or 386^MAX: the ability to load device drivers and TSR's into the memory region between 640K and 1MByte. This can be a critical point, especially if you have network drivers, which often take 100K of RAM. If, after loading the operating system (including your standard device drivers and any necessary TSR's) you only have 475K of conventional RAM left, then the largest "vitual" machine (window) you can have under MSWindows 3.0 is approximately 470K. This is not a problem if the large programs you want to run are written for MSWindows (e.g. Excel), but this is too small for several large non-Windows products, requiring the user to exit MSWindows if they need to run their special application. (And thus robbing the user of much of the benefits of having a windowing operating system.) I was very interested in MicroSoft's stated reasons as to why they would not adopt the Virtual Control Programming Interface (VCPI) that 95% of the rest of the industry seemed to be agreed upon for managing multiple protected-mode programs at one time (such as Paradox and MSWindows). A primary reason was because it lacked what they felt were appropriate means for handling multi- tasking! And this from a company that has yet to learn how to do multi- tasking properly! (Their concept being that the primary (foreground) application running is considered "real-time" and therefore has ultimate control of the cpu. Meaning that only if the foreground application gives up some of its cpu time will any background tasks get any.) This reason for not adopting VCPI seemed very strange, especially since another company who does provide a real multi-tasking environment (Quarterdeck, with DESQview) is a supporter of VCPI. At least I would like MicroSoft to have pointed out shortcomings of VCPI that need to be addressed, and then enhanced (or created a superset of) VCPI to satisfy those needs. That way MSWindows 3.0 could run with other protected- mode programs (including the extremely valuable QEMM and 386^MAX). But, no, they have to do it THEIR way. And I believe most users will suffer from that decision (at least for a couple of years, until things become better resolved, and new versions of programs come out that deal properly with this issue).
georgf@polari.UUCP (George Forsman) (05/07/90)
In article <5190090@hplsla.HP.COM> davidr@hplsla.HP.COM (David M. Reed) writes: > [material regarding MS supplied memory manager deleted for brevity] >This can be a critical point, especially if you have network drivers, which >often take 100K of RAM. If, after loading the operating system (including The general idea is to write the device driver so that it can make use of high memory itself. This is much cleaner, and does not require the overhead of a yet another memory manager to handle interrupts destined for the driver. The XMS spec details how this can be done. I agree, however, that in todays memory-tight environment, large TSRs/drivers should be placed outside of transient program memory. > [stuff about win3.0 removed for brevity] > >I was very interested in MicroSoft's stated reasons as to why they would not >adopt the Virtual Control Programming Interface (VCPI) that 95% of the rest >of the industry seemed to be agreed upon for managing multiple protected-mode >programs at one time (such as Paradox and MSWindows). A primary reason was >because it lacked what they felt were appropriate means for handling multi- >tasking! And this from a company that has yet to learn how to do multi- >tasking properly! (Their concept being that the primary (foreground) >application running is considered "real-time" and therefore has ultimate >control of the cpu. Meaning that only if the foreground application gives >up some of its cpu time will any background tasks get any.) This reason >for not adopting VCPI seemed very strange, especially since another company >who does provide a real multi-tasking environment (Quarterdeck, with DESQview) >is a supporter of VCPI. "Microsoft's concept of multitasking" that you quote above is true for windows, but not for os/2. Windows uses "non-preemptive multitasking" relying on the application to give up control to the operating system. I'm not certain for the reasons behind this, but they are likely to have been forced by the need to support 8086/8088 hardware. I guess that Win 3.0 could have been designed to use preemptive multitasking for windows applications, and in fact it might. Win/386 does do pre-emptive multitasking between windows itself, and any DOS applications running under it. I believe that the reason for not adopting VCPI was that it did not provide a secure multitasking environment. That is, it would allow applications to access memory that did not belong to them. This may be acceptable under DOS, but cannot be allowed under OS/2. I don't think Microsoft would want to promote something that was not going to be available under OS/2. > >At least I would like MicroSoft to have pointed out shortcomings of VCPI that >need to be addressed, and then enhanced (or created a superset of) VCPI to >satisfy those needs. That way MSWindows 3.0 could run with other protected- >mode programs (including the extremely valuable QEMM and 386^MAX). But, no, >they have to do it THEIR way. And I believe most users will suffer from >that decision (at least for a couple of years, until things become better >resolved, and new versions of programs come out that deal properly with this >issue). Hopefully there will be a movement to unify the standards, or at least let them coexist in peace. It may seem that Microsoft has gone off on a tangent, but I'd like to suggest the possibility that maybe they _did_ think about all of this, and found that the current methods did not suit long-range plans. With new technology there seems to be a period of confusion before the dust settles and standards emerge. Hopefully all parties involved will work together to bring about a solution that benefits all. -- George Forsman | georgf@polari.uucp | "I know that you think you understand ...!uw-beaver!sumax!polari!georgf | what you thought I said, but I am not --------------------------------------| sure you realize that what you heard Disclaimer: Ask me! I'll deny it! | is not what I meant."
msschaa@cs.vu.nl (Schaap MS) (05/08/90)
Does it support 8088? Michael.
mussar@bcars53.uucp (G. Mussar) (06/05/90)
In article <1978@polari.UUCP> georgf@.UUCP (George Forsman) writes: [stuff deleted] >> >>At least I would like MicroSoft to have pointed out shortcomings of VCPI that >>need to be addressed, and then enhanced (or created a superset of) VCPI to >>satisfy those needs. That way MSWindows 3.0 could run with other protected- >>mode programs (including the extremely valuable QEMM and 386^MAX). But, no, >>they have to do it THEIR way. And I believe most users will suffer from >>that decision (at least for a couple of years, until things become better >>resolved, and new versions of programs come out that deal properly with this >>issue). > >Hopefully there will be a movement to unify the standards, or at least let >them coexist in peace. It may seem that Microsoft has gone off on a tangent, >but I'd like to suggest the possibility that maybe they _did_ think about >all of this, and found that the current methods did not suit long-range >plans. With new technology there seems to be a period of confusion before >the dust settles and standards emerge. Hopefully all parties involved will >work together to bring about a solution that benefits all. > It might interest you to know that the DPMI committee had a few more companies than just Microsoft working on it, among others, Intel, Lotus and Quarterdeck. Don't be too surprised if Desqview works under DPMI in the near future. OTOH, Qualitas (386^MAX) stated that they had no intention of looking at DPMI (at least in a phone conversation with them). Microsoft could have better publicized the deficiencies of VCPI and stated the names of the companies working with them toward a more suitable standard. Oh well, nobody is perfect. Is Microsoft alone with DPMI? I don't believe so, and with the popularity of Windows 3.0, I think more people will jump on the DPMI bandwagon RSN, IMHO. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mussar |Bitnet: mussar@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-4937 BNR Ltd. | UUCP: ..uunet!bnrgate!bcars53!mussar | FAX: (613) 763-2626