socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (x6251)) (05/15/87)
In article <18881@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ethan Munson) writes: >In article <565@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@artemis.UUCP (Adam Kao) writes: >>I've been thinking for a long time about the ideal user interface on a >>graphics-intensive computer. The window and icon system popularized >>on the Mac seems to me a step in the right direction, but I still have >>reservations. Some of my major concerns: [Much deleted from the original article and the reply. I am only addressing two minor points.] >You would never consider using a real window interface on a basic >IBM PC because the chip/architecture just doesn't have the stuff to >support it (MS Windows, nowithstanding). You shouldn't worry about the >inefficiency of supporting a fancy graphic interface because these >machines are not intended for computationally intensive tasks. This, I greatly disagree with. GEM from DRI is a very fast environment. I am talking about GEM (and GEM applications such as GEM Draw Plus) on an XT. I feel that a person could use GEM Draw as they use MacDraw. Though in some respects it may not be as smooth to use as a Mac, it is as fast (or close enough) for it not to be an issue. To (ab:-)use one of many similar quotes: "GEM has a tremendous advantage in terms of speed," said John Meyers president of Ventura Software, "but Windows is important for the future." Therefore the issue becomes one of market presence and not hardware/software capability. As another (personal) example, at one point in time (before its release) the FASTest version of Multiplan existed on the slowest machine in the Datapoint family (the 1800/3800) which was slower than a PC/XT. BUT, a very fast Multiplan interpreter was written at Datapoint (faster than the one at Microsoft) and the Datapoint Multiplan was FAST. Once this was realized by MS, the problem was looked into. > I, for instance have yet to find a >reason to use the small icon display in the Mac Finder. I find "Small Icon" display extremely usefull. With a 20 Meg hard disk and many first level folders, I use small icons to display the root directory (if you will). I organize the top half of the disk window by non-modified subject area folders such as: System Folder, Utilities, Applications, Games, etc. The lower half contains my work folders: Projects, Letters, etc. Had I used large icons either more levels of folders would be necessary or windows would have to be scrolled all the time to see what was in them. And, in a command line system I am continuously executing DIR (or ls) to see what is there. Small Icons on a windowing system is the perfect solution to my needs. >>Adam >Ethan Munson **** WARNING: Commercials follow *** In case you didn't notice it, I must admit that I work for Digital Research, the originator of GEM (and the products to be mentioned below.) If feel that the points raised above (especially about the speed of GEM) are accurate. Having used (owning) a Macintosh Plus and having used GEM Draw Plus on a PC/XT I find that the difference in speed between these two machines is not an issue. In both cases you spend much of your time thinging what to do (how to make the drawing) relative to the time spent on how to do it. But, the drawing speeds are still comparable. (OK, its faster on the Mac but not enough to make it a major issue.) ** By the way, go to your local computer store and see GEM applications running ** on the PS/2 Model 50. <<<IT SCREAMS!>>> Now, while I have your attention and while we are talking about preceived vs actual capabilities. Many industry #$@!s have stated that you can't do multitasking on a PC (or AT for that matter). But, DRI has had it available for years. Concurrent DOS XM (Expanded Memory) will run 4 applications on one PC at the same time. And two more to remote terminals! These can be windowed onto one screen or screen switched. These can be true PC-DOS applications or CP/M ones. Basically, only the problem of MS-DOS programmes writing directly to hardware (bypassing the bios) are an issue. For these, instead of running multi-tasked, they are suspended (like the Mac's Switcher). (Yes, TSRs like Sidekick don't work but just use another window!) AND, Concurrent DOS 386 should be released soon (if not already). FlexOS (Flexible Operating System) is a full real-time, multi-user, multi-tasking OS. Again, it does what Industry Figureheads said can not be done. For example, I have seen 3 copies of Lotus 1-2-3 and a graphics programme all running at the same time to the same screen on an Intel 286. They share machine cycles (execute in background) and by simple key sequences any one of the three screens can be brought up. Note that these screens are not redrawn. They have been generated once by the application even when it is in background and are only selected as needed. NOTE: this is not a special version of 1-2-3. It's the same one you bought but running through the DOS Front End of FlexOS 286. ******** Please excuse the ad. But the sad thing is that very few know about the capabilities of these DRI products. Just as they do not know about the Datapoint Personal Computers (never called that). The Datapoint 2200 was sold about one year before the Intel 8008 (Yes, 8 0 0 8) was even available. Machines, Business languages, Local Area Networks, second generation Operating Systems have been all done by Datapoint on a PC about five years before the PC marketplace did it. Ah well, such is life. -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein
socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (x6251)) (05/15/87)
In Message-ID: <1568@drivax.UUCP> I wrote (and others here have commented on): > This, I greatly disagree with. GEM from DRI is a very fast environment. > **** WARNING: Commercials follow *** >In case you didn't notice it, I must admit that I work for Digital Research, >the originator of GEM (and the products to be mentioned below.) >** see GEM applications running on the PS/2 Model 50. <<<IT SCREAMS!>>> >Now, while I have your attention and while we are talking about >preceived vs actual capabilities. >Many industry #$@!s have stated that you can't do multitasking on a PC ... >Concurrent DOS XM (Expanded Memory) will run 4 applications ... >FlexOS (Flexible Operating System) is a full real-time, multi-user, ... [And lots of other stuff about DRI and Datapoint I will not mention again.] WELL, there was commercialism in that article but it is saddly there on purpose. The commercial was a too obvious sidelight. I was raising a point. The commercialism existed as the only means I could think of to make it obvious. The point was a strong reply to the statement that you can't do graphics on a PC. And by that the original author seemed to mean Windows (and only Windows). I had to use the examples and the directness of it to get across that the issue is very often a preceived view of machine capabilities as defined by known products. Sometimes excellent products are unknown to the marketplace. I have no doubt that most people reading the net have not seen GEM run. I have no doubt that there are better products than GEM existing somewhere. I have no doubt that there are better operating systems than FlexOS, XM, etc. I also have no doubt that these better products are also generally unknown. So, again I state: SORRY for the commercialism. But, I felt I had to do it in replying to points made by others that PC-DOS 3.x is it for a PC and you can't get a reasonable Windowing environment because the machine just is not powerfull enough. There is software that CAN and DOES make it powerfull enough. Its just we (in general) don't know about it. --------------- "And we thank you again for your patronage" -------------- -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (05/15/87)
In article <1568@drivax.UUCP> socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (x6251))
writes a lot of advertising. I can't resist the urge to throw some
reality on it:
<Many industry #$@!s have stated that you can't do multitasking on a PC
<(or AT for that matter). But, DRI has had it available for years.
Ever since they did MP/M. I hope the current incarnation is better
than that one, where running everyones favorite menuing hack (which
nearly every large business package for CP/M used) could leave people
who hadn't invoked it in the menu.
I also hope that a few years of _not_ being a dominant force in the
micro market has convinced the DRI tech support to actually care. I
gave up on them years ago, and so can't say for sure.
<The Datapoint 2200 was sold about one year before the Intel 8008 (Yes, 8 0 0 8)
<was even available. Machines, Business languages, Local Area Networks,
<second generation Operating Systems have been all done by Datapoint on a PC
<about five years before the PC marketplace did it.
Yes, DP did all that. On the flip side, if the PC market had the
capabilities that DP was peddling, it usually cost less than 1/5th of
what DP wanted for it. I.e., it was sold into the minicomputer market.
And if you went with the PCs, you got a reasonable architechture like
an eight-eightysux instead of the oddball stuff that DP was selling
(I'm _serious_; the DP architechture I looked at made an 8086 look
reasonable!)
<mike
--
Take a magic carpet to the olden days Mike Meyer
To a mythical land where everybody lays ucbvax!mwm
Around in the clouds in a happy daze mwm@berkeley.edu
In Kizmiaz ... Kizmiaz mwm@ucbjade.BITNETdyer@atari.UUCP (05/15/87)
in article <1568@drivax.UUCP>, socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (x6251)) says: ^^^^^^ 'nuff said. > > This, I greatly disagree with. GEM from DRI is a very fast environment. > I am talking about GEM (and GEM applications such as GEM Draw Plus) on an XT. If GEM is a "very fast" enviroment, then ... then ... (giggle) I'm at a loss for words. 'nuff said! -- -Landon Dyer, Atari Corporation {sun,amdcad,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those SEGMENTS of Atari or the AI software that has taken over my brain. ARE FOR Yow! I am waiting for my warranty-expired interrupt! WORMS
alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander) (05/21/87)
In article <732@atari.UUCP> dyer@atari.UUCP (Landon Dyer) writes: >If GEM is a "very fast" enviroment, then ... then ... (giggle) >I'm at a loss for words. 'nuff said! I believe the original article was comparing GEM to MS-Windows. By that standard maybe GEM is fast. Compared to text-only systems it's darned slow. Your posting just flames GEM without saying what you're comparing it with. I'm not sure that it's possible to make a fast graphics enviroment for machines like an 8088 PC or the original Atari ST. I could be wrong here, but it seems like hardware help is really required (blitters, faster CPUs, graphics coprocessors -- gosh, that sounds like an Amiga!). If GEM is so lousy, why is Atari selling it with their upcoming PC clone? Why not go with MS-Windows, which is rapidly becoming the industry standard for PCs? Or better yet, write your own Windows and make it small AND fast AND robust AND powerful. That shouldn't be too hard :-) seeing as how crummy the existing products are. Disclaimer: I don't use GEM. It's too slow. -- Mark Alexander ...{hplabs,seismo,sun,ihnp4}!amdahl!drivax!alexande "Bob-ism: the Faith that changes to meet YOUR needs." -- Bob