seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (06/29/90)
In-Reply-To: message from kudla@pawl.rpi.edu The video is an hour long...$19.95. You should ask your local dealer to order it for you. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com (06/30/90)
Attempting to compare the Amiga to a 386 running Windows from the perspective of multitasking is not at all fair to Windows. Try this: Get a 25MHz 386 with 4 (yes 4) megs of memory. In you win.ini file add the line "run = command.com command.com" (This is kinda like 2 CLIs or shells) Now fire up Toolbook. Now click on a command.com window while Toolbook is doing something. Now go get lunch. Now wait a few seconds. Voila! You have your command.com window. Windows is cute. Is it progress?
a596@mindlink.UUCP (Terry Palfrey) (07/01/90)
I have an Amiga 500 1meg, three drives ARPed and Accelerated and repacked...my next step is probably a Hurricane 500 with a 68020, 68881 and the full four megs of 32 bit ram. With this I hope to continue my personal journey with what is still the machine and operating system I chose on the basis of price and performance as being able to go where I was going. When MSDOS or its ilk catches up that will be great because all of this is heading in the same direction....personal growth and realization. Some people are still using outdated equipment that's all. 83)
scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (07/01/90)
In article <31283@cup.portal.com> Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com writes: > > Attempting to compare the Amiga to a 386 running Windows from the >perspective of multitasking is not at all fair to Windows. Try this: > > Get a 25MHz 386 with 4 (yes 4) megs of memory. > In you win.ini file add the line "run = command.com command.com" > (This is kinda like 2 CLIs or shells) > Now fire up Toolbook. > Now click on a command.com window while Toolbook is doing > > something. > Now go get lunch. > Now wait a few seconds. Voila! You have your command.com window. >Windows is cute. Is it progress? I just tried this. I didn't have time for lunch- I didn't have time to blow my nose. What's your problem?? And I'm only using a 16MHz 386 with 3 megs? This is a profoundly unfair example, since Toolbook is know to be a cycle pig. I defy you to try this very example on your Amiga and run CANDO for a proper comparison. I re-iterate what has been said by others before: Windows 3.0 is incredibly slick- it certainly changes the future of MSDOS. If you haven't seen it yet, then you should check it out... -scott
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (07/02/90)
On 1 Jul 90 14:16:08 GMT you said: > > >I re-iterate what has been said by others before: Windows 3.0 is incredibly >slick- it certainly changes the future of MSDOS. If you haven't seen it yet, >then you should check it out... > Windows doesn't change the future of MS-DOS, it pushes it's inevitable death-date back perhaps a year. Windows 3.0 Virtual machines 8086 tasks on an 80386. Completely different than what Windows 2.0 did. Also, most Windows 2.0 applications will not work under 3.0. And there is precious little Windows software available. Windows is still slow. Slower than a comprable Mac. I like the idea I can switch between applications with no time lag. Windows adds little to the functionality of MS-DOS. As (I believe) Windows 3.0 requires a 386, I don't see why anyone would chose it over OS/2, which at least has a sound foundation. >-scott ---- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet "Gooooood coffee."
gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) (07/03/90)
In article <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: > Windows doesn't change the future of MS-DOS, it pushes it's inevitable > death-date back perhaps a year. Windows 3.0 Virtual machines 8086 tasks Windows does use virtual machines which allow for multitasking of DOS applications, and sharing of system resources like the serial port. Not only does it have virtual machines, it gives you virtual memory on a 386. On a 286, it will run either DOS, or Windows, but not both at the same time. The BIG difference is the ability to use the protected mode memory available to the 2/386 processors. > on an 80386. Completely different than what Windows 2.0 did. Also, > most Windows 2.0 applications will not work under 3.0. And there is > precious little Windows software available. There you are correct, until a month or two from now...but then again, does the Amiga have a word processor like Windows Word, or *gasp* a spreadsheet like Excel...or... etc. > Windows is still slow. Slower than a comprable Mac. I like the idea How comparable...$$$$...speed...which one has toilet paper included at no extra cost? Windows 3.0 is definately faster than a comparable Mac for the SAME amount of money. And allows you to actually multitask many DOS applications. Neat huh? > I can switch between applications with no time lag. Windows adds little > to the functionality of MS-DOS. As (I believe) Windows 3.0 requires ^^^^^^^^^ What a maroon...sez all sorts of nasty things about a product, and doesn't even know what/when/how it can be used. Fly away. > a 386, I don't see why anyone would chose it over OS/2, which at least > has a sound foundation. Check out Windows on a 386 box with 4 megs of memory and VGA, then compare it to an A3000. I believe there would be no losers with the platforms I have stated. On the other hand...a Mac is too much $$$ for what you get, and the applications are overpriced. > > F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest > GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet > GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet -- Co-Op Scum - U of Loo '91 "Bo doesn't know software" - George Brett "Just got paid today, got myself a pocket full-o change" - ZZ top Glenn Patrick Steffler
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/04/90)
In article <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: > > Windows is still slow. Slower than a comprable Mac. I like the idea > I can switch between applications with no time lag. Windows adds little > to the functionality of MS-DOS. As (I believe) Windows 3.0 requires > a 386, I don't see why anyone would chose it over OS/2, which at least > has a sound foundation. [What a lovely topic for c.s.a!] The latest Computer Languages has an article on why OS/2 seems dead in the water. The author's main point is that most of the DOS world is still text oriented applications, and users/developers weren't willing to have IBM/Microsoft cram a GUI (graphical user interface) like Presentation Manager down their throats, with attendant hardware costs, programming complexity, and performance penalties, when all they really wanted was the ability to run several text based applications at once. I know from nothing about this, I last saw an OS/2 PM system over a year ago, over a cubicle wall. Just passing along one viewpoint from the "meedja" for your amusement. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>