bturner@hpcvlx.UUCP (07/01/88)
> This seems awfully basic, but does anyone actually compile and link their > Windows applications under Windows? Unfortunately, the C compiler requires too much memory to allow it to run from under Windows. I haven't tried specifying in the .PIF file that it accesses memory directly, which would force Windows to to a shutdown/restart, but this doesn't seem like it would help too much... --Bill Turner
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (07/01/88)
>This seems awfully basic, but does anyone actually compile and link their >Windows applications under Windows? I haven't been able to determine the >right combination of PIF files and/or whatever else is needed. Is this >documented in the SDK manuals? Probably not, unless they have a 386 with mucho megabytes and Windows 386. I do, and it works fine if you set up a command.com PIF with "exclusive" and say 530 kbytes. You get in that screen (it isn't a window) and work as usual. Compilers and linkers seem to work OK in windowed command.com's. Be sure to get your path and environment variables right before entering Windows. I tried to use regular Windows on my 386, using a RAMdisk for swapping, before I got the Windows 386. It was a disaster. Too slow. I have also used Desqview 386 for compiling, and try my final files in regular Windows run as a task under Desqview. This also works just fine. In fact, it is better because frequently (but not always) when my Windows program dies, taking Windows along with it, Desqview survives, and I don't have to reboot. In general, though, I just use regular DOS. None of this is documented. Doug McDonald
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (07/03/88)
>This seems awfully basic, but does anyone actually compile and link their >Windows applications under Windows? Actually, does anyone out there do ANYTHING under windows, except maybe use it for running those very few commercial programs that run only under it? The only thing I have found it useful for is testing programs which run under it (for which I was given a Model 80), and running Flight Simulator (which, after being de-copy-protected by a program I got off a bulletin board, will run under Windows 386 and ONLY there!) Doug McDonald
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/04/88)
[ description of how hard it is to compile stuff under Windows ] I don't understand this. I'm running Intuition, which does everything that Windows does. I can compile and bind in 512K, using the Manx compiler, on a 68000. The 68000 is *not* as powerful as the 80386, even in 80286 mode. Does DOS compatibility really cost that much? And if so, is it worth it? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null. -- "Running DOS on a '386 is like driving an Indy car to the Stop-N-Go"
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (07/04/88)
>[ description of how hard it is to compile stuff under Windows ] >I don't understand this. I'm running Intuition, which does everything that >Windows does. I can compile and bind in 512K, using the Manx compiler, on >a 68000. The 68000 is *not* as powerful as the 80386, even in 80286 mode. >Does DOS compatibility really cost that much? And if so, is it worth it? I think you misunderstand. It is perfectly possible to run just about anything "under" windows. It will get out of the way and let you do what you wish, if you tell it to. But then you are back to a basic DOS command prompt. If you do run compilers in a window, it still takes up its own space, as it must to do real windows programs at the same time. And that space is maybe 200 kbyte. In addition, the Windows 386 user interface for DOS programs sucks. It requires dozens of keystrokes and button clicks to make it do what the user wants. One is always having to get into the "settings" menu and play with them. Remember that Windows is basically a second operating system. Real Windows programs are not in the least like DOS programs, or any other programs for that matter. As as operating system, Windows supports NO, that's right, NO standard languages. Not C, not Pascal, not Fortran, not Ada, not anything. That's because it doesn't support normal IO. The classic "Hello World" C program won't do anything. It is like the classic circus dancing elephant: it's a miracle that it works at all. The real question is not whether DOS compatibility costs too much. It is whether Windows costs too much. To that, the answer is probably YES. Comparing Windows to Intuition is not fair. Intuition is, correct me if I'm wrong, the original O.S. for the Amiga, and came with it from the start. Thus all programs naturally work with it - and, again correct me if I'm wrong, if it is multitasking, presumably the thing was designed to do multiprogram windows from the start. Remember that Windows DOES work fine for programs designed for it. It is just that 640k is not enough for serious multitasking. It works great with one serious program and lots of little ones, which on the Mac would be called desk accessories. Doug McDonald
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/07/88)
In article <68600011@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >I don't understand this. I'm running Intuition, which does everything that > >Windows does. I can compile and bind in 512K, using the Manx compiler, on > >a 68000. The 68000 is *not* as powerful as the 80386, even in 80286 mode. > >Does DOS compatibility really cost that much? And if so, is it worth it? > Remember that Windows is basically a second operating system. A pretty well-behaved one. I ran the original Windows in one DoubleDOS partition once. > Real Windows programs are not in the > least like DOS programs, or any other programs for that matter. As as > operating system, Windows supports NO, that's right, NO standard languages. They look pretty much like Amiga programs (or, I presume, Mac programs). > Not C, not Pascal, not Fortran, not Ada, not anything. That's because > it doesn't support normal IO. The classic "Hello World" C program > won't do anything. It is like the classic circus dancing elephant: > it's a miracle that it works at all. I seem to remember running a DOS window. It was a bit slow, but it worked. I was even able to run a non-windows terminal program in a Windows window. It was agonizingly slow, but I blamed that on the 8088. Windows on a 286 should be a different beast altogether. A terminal program doing busy-waits is a pretty nasty load on any system. > Comparing Windows to Intuition is not fair. Intuition is, correct me > if I'm wrong, the original O.S. for the Amiga, and came with it > from the start. Yes, this is all true. Now if Windows wasn't running under DOS, it would have all the advantages you list... naturally multitasking, etc... That's what I mean by the cost of DOS compatibility. The first time I saw Windows, my first reaction was "Why isn't the Mac like this?" It just seemed to need a 68000-class processor (which the '286 is close to being). It even seemed to handle DOS windows just fine. A little slow, but again that old 8088 isn't that hot. Given that it was working with an '88 it was nothing short of miraculous. What happened? > Thus all programs naturally work with it - and, again > correct me if I'm wrong, if it is multitasking, presumably the thing > was designed to do multiprogram windows from the start. Also true, but it runs shell windows with "Hello World" type programs in them just fine. Apart from the fact that Windows uses DOS, rather than emulating it using its own calls (at a cost in compatibility) there's no reason Windows couldn't do the same. > Remember > that Windows DOES work fine for programs designed for it. It is just > that 640k is not enough for serious multitasking. I'll have to remember that the next time I run Xenix-86 on an XT. Quite a serious multitasking package. With the improved drivers, it's quite a bit faster than DOS. -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null. -- "Running DOS on a '386 is like driving an Indy car to the Stop-N-Go"