scott@hpcvca.HP.COM (Scott Linn) (04/07/88)
Hello out there... Does anyone out there in the PC world actually use Microsoft Windows? I have an HP150 running windows 1.03, and I have gotten hold of a few windows programs, but most are just "cute" drawing games (moire, web, boxes, etc.). Anyway, I know some people have written some nice shareware programs (browser and proteus), which I have just received. Is there a BBS where there are windows apps? Also, has anyone out there tried using ACTOR to generate windows programs? Thanks for any help, Scott Linn hplabs!hp-pcd!scott
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/11/88)
I recently got windows 386 running on an IMB model 80. Even with the horsepower of the model 80, Windows is still pokey at times. One thing windows 386 does do is to manage extended memory quite nicely. The model 80 I am using is equipped with 6 megabtyes of memory. When I run noton's SI from an interactive command.com window, it reports 5.5 meg of *expanded* memory are free. Thus windows is automattically converting the system's extended memory into the more dos-usable expanded memory through emulation. Neat trick. The multitasking aspects of windows 386 do work. Some nasty things like Lotus 1-2-3 or most any grphics program (windows paint excepted) must be run in "exclusive" mode that essentially puts everythig else away while they run. The renering of text into the VGA display is reasonably quick, and is much, much better than the excuse of a windowing system in windows 1.03. The resizing of windows is rather klutzy compared to systems like the Commodore Amiga or the Apple Macintosh. The most obvious thing missing is a "depth arranger" on the window that makes it easy to move what's on the top of the pile to the bottom. the Amiga's way of doing that is much more elegant -- probably copyright -- and why windows doesn have it. There is a zoom box that lets one iconize a window and send it to an icon row at the bottom of the desktop -- this is the easiest, if not most elegant way to quickly get to the bottom of the pile of a bunch of windows. on the screen. One other feature that the Amiga has that is not on the Macintosh or windows 386 are screens that can be rolled down like window shades. Windows related to specific projects can be attached to separate screens on the Amiga, thus making life easier when several projects each have several windows open. Windows multitasking is reasonably quick until an application starts doing disk I/O, then things rapidly fall apart. I wrote some batch files that used a c program to generate ridiculous newspaper headlines. The batch file was intentionally designed to use the disk a lot. I could really only run three background task command.com windows running the batch program before the system bogged down and got difficult to control. For contrast, I ran the same "benchmark" on my AT&T Unix PC (10 MHz, 16 bit, 2 meg versus the IBM with 32 bit, 16 MHz, 6 meg). I was careful to construct a Bourne shell script that thrashed the disk similarly to the msdos batch script. The Unix PC also used bit-mapped windows with text renering. The Unix PC does have a simpler job since its screen is about 700 * 380, whereas the VGA screen is 640 * 480. VGA is also color, while the Unix PC is a monochrome display. The Unix PC running 3 windows generating headlines was able to geneate about four times as many per second as the windows 386 system. I also was running an online telecom session on a second virtual console on the Unix PC. Speed comparisons between the Unix PC rendering text and windows 386 were nearly equivalent, if the program running didn't need to access the disk. Obviouly the inefficient file system design of msdos shows itself quite nicely here. I wonder if OS/2 is going to be dogged by similar crummy disk performance since it also uses the same old msdos file structure. One thing that windows 386 gets you that OS/2 does not is the ability to run several current generation msdos applications at once. For instance, I was able to run two Turbo C compile sessions from TC's integrated environment. I suppose I could have run more, but I didn't feel like trying it. OS/2 is only going to be able to run one current generation msdos application at a time in the "compatiblity box" (recently re-named "compatibility window"). I guess they felt "box" sounded sexist -- like they prefer "planar" rather than "motherboard". OS/2 will run multiple OS/2 applications, of course. I think some of the Unix based DOS merge products may be the answer for people that want to run simultaneous msdos appplications, for these will be able to map the msdos file system onto the unix file system. Since I haven't seen any of the Unix 386 DOS merge products I can't really honestly comment yet. To sum up, windows 386 is probably worth the bucks, if one has an appropriately beefy 386 system. I wouln't try to run it with less than 4 megabytes of memory aournd. That is, presuming that you want to take advantage of the multitasking capabiltiies -- which at the current time are main reason for having windows 386 around. --Bill
brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (04/17/88)
In article <1097@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes:
[... author discusses Windows 386 ...]
Well, I hate to burst your bubble about Windows386, but I have had trouble
with it and don't use it anymore. I am using a Compaq386/16 with 3MB of
memory (will be 4 when the chips come in). The version of Windows386 that
I was using is 2.03.
Here are the problems that I have encountered:
1. (Actually not a problem) Lotus 1-2-3 runs without having to declare it
as an exclusive program.
2. It doesn't manage the com ports correctly. Windows actually complains
about a partition messing up the one of the ports and tells the user
to reboot. Here are the circumstances; the partition brought up is
RBBS-PC. After RBBS starts up OK in its partition, I do the old ALT-TAB
to get back to the Windows control window and I get to see Windows386
dumping characters out to the modem. Then Windows complains about the
integrity of the com port being messed up. Hell, the only program using
the com port was RBBS and Windows goes and decides to spit out characters
to the com port, and then has the guts to tell me that it is messed up.
It doesn't always happen. Sometimes everything will work just fine,
for awhile and then it will mess up again.
This isn't good if one is trying to run a 24hr RBBS system. A night
wouldn't hardly go by when I would come back to work and find the PC
locked up.
3. The background time slices are very poor. If someone is downloading
something from the RBBS, the efficiency of the download is about 40%.
If the download is done in the forground, it is about 80-90%. Not
good for the poor person spending the money to call the RBBS system.
So, how did I get around these problems? Well, for the time being I am
using DesqVIEW 2.01. Yes, I know, it isn't a 386 system. But at least
the com ports don't mess up and the time slices for the background job
are MUCH better. I have purchased and am awaiting the 1.1 release of
VM/386. Version 1.0 doesn't like MS-DOS 3.31 disk partitions larger
than 32 MB. VM/386 is a true virtual 86 multitasking environment.
It creates each partition as its own little DOS world. ALT-CTL-DEL
only reboots that partition. Each partition can run a different version
of DOS.
When the new version of VM/386 arrives I will be installing it real fast.
So, for true virtual 86 operation, software like VM/386 will be required.
DesqVIEW/386 is also coming out soon.
As I have always said; I don't do Windows!!!!
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video !uwvax.................!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ terminus-/ decvax--/rthralls@netxcom.UUCP (Roberts Thralls) (04/23/88)
In article <1097@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > > >The multitasking aspects of windows 386 do work. Some nasty things >like Lotus 1-2-3 or most any grphics program (windows paint >excepted) must be run in "exclusive" mode that essentially puts >everythig else away while they run. Conventional applications (Non MS Windows) have complete control over the screen, they do not cooperate with the Windows manager when displaying graphics, so windows does not try to keep the screen clean, it simply allows the application to have the screen to itself, and when it is finished, windows will allow well behaved programs to run. >Windows multitasking is reasonably quick until an application >starts doing disk I/O, then things rapidly fall apart. I wrote >some batch files that used a c program to generate ridiculous >newspaper headlines. The batch file was intentionally designed to >use the disk a lot. I could really only run three background task Take Care in comparing apples to oranges - Window's provides window applications special file i/o routines that swap the File pointers in DOS. Each application that has files open, must have windows swap file pointers before continuing file i/o. Applications that were not written for the windows environment will need help doing file i/o from the windows manager ( a lot of help ). a DOS application doing disk i/o in the windows environment is very, very, very different from a windows application doing file i/o in the windows environment. > >Speed comparisons between the Unix PC rendering text and windows >386 were nearly equivalent, if the program running didn't need to >access the disk. Obviouly the inefficient file system design of >msdos shows itself quite nicely here. I wonder if OS/2 is going to >be dogged by similar crummy disk performance since it also uses the >same old msdos file structure. Again, watch out for those oranges when looking at file i/o under windows -- Granted msdos file system S*CKS, but that isn't all that is bogging disk i/o here. Try writing a windows program to do the disk i/o. > > >I think some of the Unix based DOS merge products may be the answer >for people that want to run simultaneous msdos appplications, for >these will be able to map the msdos file system onto the unix file >system. Since I haven't seen any of the Unix 386 DOS merge >products I can't really honestly comment yet. if DOS emulation is what you want, this is the better choice. Windows was not meant to be an efficient multitasking environment. Its purpose is for "intuitive and consistent interface to the user" and a reasonable task communication and multitasking environment. Basically, form and function over muscle. > >To sum up, windows 386 is probably worth the bucks, if one has an >appropriately beefy 386 system. I wouln't try to run it with less >than 4 megabytes of memory aournd. That is, presuming that you >want to take advantage of the multitasking capabiltiies -- which at >the current time are main reason for having windows 386 around. > >--Bill As a windows application developer, Multitasking is much lower on the list than say: + an intutive and consistent interface + Complex Graphics capabilities + Device Independence + Windowing functionality + Interprocess Communication Several Alternatives to Data Sharing amoung applications MicroSoft Canned: - Clipboard Formats ( generally user controlled ) - Dynamic Data Exchange ( generally automated data sharing ) Mine: - Proprietary Protocols ( have it your way ) + Last, but not least Multitasking Bob. -- Disclaimers: so it is written, so let it be disclaimed. uucp: uunet!netxcom!rthralls Robert K. Thralls NetExpress Communications, Inc.
David_J_Buerger@cup.portal.com (04/25/88)
Anyone who wants to do multitasking on an AT or '386 within an MS-DOS environment should forget MS-Windows. I've successfully used DESQview to do this for the past two years. You can adjust background and foreground time slicing to your taste. There is little degredation with two applications running. And, best of all, DESQview doesn't give a hoot if your software is "well behaved" or not. Frankly, with all the constraints that MS-Windows places on would-be users, I'm surprised that anyone has the patience to stick with it---especially when it doesn't even do the job right! David Buerger dbuerger@scu.bitnet
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/25/88)
Robert at Netexpress commnets on an article I wrote that appeared to criticize Windows. Robert points out that there are substantial benefits to be had by *writing* programs for Windows, notably that an interprocess communications facility is avialable. I do agree with this. From a programmer's view, windows is a good programming environment. I really wrote my article from the slant as any Joe off the street would view windows. Currenlty, windows-native software accounts for less than 1% of the market of software available for ibm-compatible computers. To the end-user the performance of msdos software under the windows system is a very relevent concern. Because Windows must overlay file pointers whent it switches the context from one application to another, disk operations are necessarily slow. I'd imagine that room for further fine-tuning and speeding things up is there, however. I think I will abide by my comparisons of Windows running DOS applications and Unix/Simultask running DOS applications. But.. of course only comparing for the purpose of running DOS applications. Simultask does do better because the Underlying Unix file system is better. Simultask also has the minor advantage of running on cheaper hardware (8 MHz AT clone), not requiring a '386. If windows catches on, my answer a year or two from now might be very different, from the end-user's view. As I said before, I endorse buying Windows if you've got a model 80 PS/2 or Compaq '386. And.. as I said, you'll want to have 4 megabytes of memory around. A final note: windows is picky about display cards. We have not been able to get it to work with any of the clone VGA boards we have. It also has trouble with some of the clone EGA boards (STB for instance). Yes, Microsoft is working to make Windows more tolerable of odd hardware. --Bill NEOUCOM wtm@neoucom.UUCP
letsch-david@CS.YALE.EDU (David Letsch) (04/26/88)
The continued attacks on Windows/386 seem unjustified. I have used MS Windows 2.03 and find it seriously limited, but Windows/386 is really a fantastic product. It does use an incredible amount of memory, and imposes slightly more overhead than Desqview, but you get a low more from it. Windows/386 does a much better job of handling "misbehaved" programs (Brief or Wordstar 4.0 in 43-line mode, Autocad Release 9, etc.) than Desqview does, especially if one is using VGA mode. Windows/386 also does a better job of scaling applications down to fit into a window than Desqview. While I'll admit that Desqview's ability to control time slicing has advantages, I don't consider them to be too critical. Also, before I'm attacked on this, I use both products regularly - I'm a college student with a Model 80 in my room (Windows/386) and a Zenith Z-181 laptop for library work (Desqview). And, like it or not, Windows/386 has considerably more claim to the future (OS/2 PM, IBM SAA, etc.) than Desqview - it might help ease the transition. The real point of this article is that most of the complaints about Windows/386 that I see in this newsgroup are valid really only for Windows 2.03 (except for the Terminal program - doesn't work for me, either.)
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/28/88)
Windows 386 is a relatively decent product, if not a little pokey and memory hog. -- Microsoft just this week announced that a peppier versioun of Windows is in the works, but didn't give an official realease date. Windows 386 does have a few problems. Mostly what I've had happen are crashes when something is happening on the com ports. I have a model 80 PS/2. I'm using an AT&T CEO 2400 baud modem on COM1: and the IBM (really made by Racal) internal 1200 buad modem as COM2:. Using Windows' terminal with the internal IBM modem will occasionally cause a hang upon exit, but CTRL-ALT-DEL will get you out. Natuarally anybackground processes are lost. The bug seems related to moving the mouse while terminal is exiting. I also had problems last night while running PROCOMM 2.4.1 in a windowed command processor. I bumped the mouse while doing a Kermit download. Windows exited spontaneously, and left me in regular DOS where I was just before I invoked Windows. I also had a crash several weeks while Turbo C 1.5 was doing a big compilation, but I could not get the crash to repeat, so I don't know what was going on with Windows. Despite the bugs, Windows 386 is an interesting product. I don't think I'd use Windows though if I were running an accounting system for a small business, for instance. The inexplicable Windows crashes make me nervous about the potential of losing data. Windows is useful to me as a developer since I am careful and know what is going on. I don't want to give it to clients though, becuase I don't want them yelling at me when it was windows crashing on some other background job. --Bill