mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (10/13/87)
Reading various articles about Microsoft Windows and the "presentation manager" of OS/2 seems to indicate that screen writing must go through a canned device driver. Since most pc's running these programs will be using EGA's or VGA's I would have assumed that the driver would provide pretty complete support for their features. I am particularly referring to the ability to swap pages, to write to one bit plane while not effecting others by setting the mask register, and the ability to change colors quickly using the palete registers, and also the choice of direct, OR, AND, or XOR writing. I don't see reference to any of this in the calls I have seen listed. Are the descriptions I have seen simply incomplete, or have these things actually been left out. As most of my pc programs use animation, whose smooth functioning depends on all of the above, it would seem that they wouldn't work under the new system (except of course using compatibility mode.) Does anyone know how do animation in the new environments? I realize that the presentation manager is presently vaporware, but Windows really exists, so somebody should know the answer. Doug McDonald
zeus@stratix.UUCP (Mark Mullin) (10/29/87)
In article <419@srs.UUCP>, dan@srs.UUCP (Dan Kegel) writes: > > Unlike Windows, GEM has been a real product for years... >. >. >. > In the MS-DOS world, these conditions will probably be met by Windows-386 > running on a 640x480 screen. > Perhaps other windowing systems already meet these conditions. > > Comments, anyone? > > - Dan Kegel (...rochester!srs!dan) I gave MS the benefit of the doubt and spent a great deal of money moving certain applications to Windows. My end feeling is that MS is way over their head, the package is basically unstable, and there are multiple instances where they have convinced people to spend money on their failed promises. More than resolution is a concern here, the primary concerns about multiple representations of data being best addressed by Object Oriented systems such as Smalltalk,C++, and the like. With MS's implementation strategy being so weak, I believe that Apple truly has a possible big win with the MAC II. There you have windows coupled into a nice development environment without MS's unfortunate tendancy to mimic IBM's more abstruse command and program grammars. The basic viewpoint in windowing must address far more than screen resolution, given the fact that windowing operations are as complex as they are. When considering such a user interface, high resolution isn't worth too much when the basic system makes these types of interfaces prohibitivly expensive. PS: To flamers, I realize I have offered opinions without backing facts. I have done this deliberatly to avoid overloading the net with undesired data. If there is enough interest (heat) I am very willing to prove my little thesis. MS has cost me a fortune, in cash and credibility, and I would love to save others the grief I have gone through. Mark Mullin @ Stratix Inc uunet!stratix!mark Experiments must be reproducible. They must fail in the same way.
il@utai.UUCP (11/06/87)
>From utai!utegc!utcsri!utgpu!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!stratix!zeus : >In article <419@srs.UUCP>, dan@srs.UUCP (Dan Kegel) writes: >> > Unlike Windows, GEM has been a real product for years... >>. >> In the MS-DOS world, these conditions will probably be met by Windows-386 >> running on a 640x480 screen. >> Perhaps other windowing systems already meet these conditions. >> >> Comments, anyone? >> >> - Dan Kegel (...rochester!srs!dan) > >I gave MS the benefit of the doubt and spent a great deal of money > >.... > >PS: To flamers, I realize I have offered opinions without backing facts. >I have done this deliberatly to avoid overloading the net with undesired >data. If there is enough interest (heat) I am very willing to prove my >little thesis. MS has cost me a fortune, in cash and credibility, and I >would love to save others the grief I have gone through. >Mark Mullin @ Stratix Inc >uunet!stratix!mark I've always been amazed at why ms windows has emerged as a standard. 2 years ago, I was involved in making either windows/gem work on a now dead (may it rest in peace) msdos micro. After extensive usage, I was sure that gem was slightly better in its ease of use. The thing that convinced me was gem draw. Sure, now windows has a draw program, but remember, this was 2 years ago! Then there's Ventura Publisher which does not support WINDOWS, reason enough for WINDOWS to die a silent death. JUST AN OPINION. Now I can just see lots of people posting things about pagemaker etc. -- ........................................... Indra Laksono Theory Group, Dept. of Comp. Sc. University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 ........................................... il@ai.toronto.edu, il@ai.toronto.cdn il%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net {uunet,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!il ...........................................
michael@orcisi.UUCP (11/09/87)
> Then there's Ventura Publisher which does not support WINDOWS, reason > enough for WINDOWS to die a silent death. I think this will change with MS Windows 2.0. > JUST AN OPINION. Now I can just see lots of people posting things ditto.