defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (12/15/90)
I have Windows 3.0 installed on my system. I've been told that it does multi-processing. I have a 286 chip though. Anyway, when I'm in Windows I don't see any multi-processing at all. Whenever a Window application is running I get the little hourglass mouse cursor and I can't continue to work in another window. If I can get multi-processing in Windows 3.0 going on a 286 chip then I would be a lot happier but there is still a big hole that I see in this environment: On my workstation (Unix/X) I have some window smart applications running (x11notes, datebook, etc). Any software that I want to run that is window dumb I do in a hpterm. Now, translating that into the DOS world, I would like to be able to run a DOS shell in a window on my PC. I don't expect that I could run, say, Turbo Pascal from the DOS window shell but if I could have multiple DOS window shells running simple DOS commands and programs that don't assume that the monitor is theirs to destroy, I would be alot more productive. Is it possible to run DOS in a Microsoft window using Windows 3.0/286 chip? I see the configuration options in the PIF editor to run things like DOS shells in a window but it says that it is 386 only options and my 286 ignores them. I had Windows 2.0 for a time and I was able to run COMMAND.COM from the MSDOS "Run" selection. It put up a window that I could type DOS commands in. How is this done in 3.0? If it can't be done in 3.0 then isn't this a loss of functionality?
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (12/20/90)
In article <27220002@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: > I have Windows 3.0 installed on my system. I've been told that it does > multi-processing. I have a 286 chip though. > > Anyway, when I'm in Windows I don't see any multi-processing at all. > Whenever a Window application is running I get the little hourglass mouse > cursor and I can't continue to work in another window. This happens when the application is somewhat mis-behaved and loads the hourglass cursor while it does some compute-bound operation, but then doesn't relinquish the CPU to other apps in the system until it's through. Windows _is_ multi-tasking, but only for cooperating processes; a single ill-behaved task can cause the behavior you describe. In general, if the application is going to have the hourglass displayed for more than a very few seconds (say 5), it _should_ relinquish the CPU and run in the background, only displaying the hourglass while it's the window with the input focus. Too many applications _don't_ behave very well though. > If I can get multi-processing in Windows 3.0 going on a 286 chip then I > would be a lot happier but there is still a big hole that I see in this > environment: [...] > > I had Windows 2.0 for a time and I was able to run COMMAND.COM from the > MSDOS "Run" selection. It put up a window that I could type DOS commands > in. How is this done in 3.0? It can't be done on a 286 in 3.0. You can only swap to full-screen DOS mode, not the DOS window like you had in 2.11. > If it can't be done in 3.0 then isn't this a loss of functionality? Yes, of course it is. The consensus seems to be that this isn't an unreasonable trade-off, given that the new method for running DOS programs in a window allows all sorts of apps to run that used to write all over the screen and confuse Windows (or at least the user running Windows). In addition, the new approach allows the DOS app to get a full 640K of memory, rather than just whatever was available after Windows and its apps were loaded. Unfortunately it can't work on a 286 :-(. Worse, there would be problems running _any_ DOS window in protected mode on a 286 even if the DOS app were running in the lower 640K of memory and _didn't_ do anything like direct screen writes. It would be possible to run something similar to a Windows 2.11 DOS window by putting the system in real mode while the DOS app was running, but performance would be terrible. Under Windows 2.11, Windows was running in real mode anyway, so there wasn't much of a penalty for having the DOS window. I'm afraid that you'll either have to live with it or upgrade the CPU to a 386 of some flavor - a 386sx shouldn't be too different in cost from a 286 at this point.
defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (12/21/90)
>/ hpclapd:comp.windows.ms / bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) / 12:08 pm Dec 19, 1990 / >This happens when the application is somewhat mis-behaved and loads >the hourglass cursor while it does some compute-bound operation, but >then doesn't relinquish the CPU to other apps in the system until it's >through. Windows _is_ multi-tasking, but only for cooperating >processes; a single ill-behaved task can cause the behavior you >describe. In general, if the application is going to have the >hourglass displayed for more than a very few seconds (say 5), it >_should_ relinquish the CPU and run in the background, only displaying >the hourglass while it's the window with the input focus. Too many >applications _don't_ behave very well though. You got that right! Considering the application in question are MS supplied with Windows 3.0, are you saying that even MS applications aren't well behaved? >I'm afraid that you'll either have to live with it or upgrade the >CPU to a 386 of some flavor - a 386sx shouldn't be too different in >cost from a 286 at this point. My 286 is a loner from work so it cost me $0.00. Do you know where I can get a 386sx for the same?!?
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (12/22/90)
In article <27220003@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: > >/ hpclapd:comp.windows.ms / bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) / 12:08 pm Dec 19, 1990 / > > >This happens when the application is somewhat mis-behaved and loads > >the hourglass cursor while it does some compute-bound operation, but > >then doesn't relinquish the CPU to other apps in the system until it's > >through. > > You got that right! Considering the application in question are MS > supplied with Windows 3.0, are you saying that even MS applications aren't > well behaved? There's been no secret for some years now that Microsoft applications are often not as well-behaved as they ought to be. This is just as true in Windows as in vanilla DOS. In other words, this is stale news. However I might point out that it is possible that your system is underconfigured as far as memory goes - if a large application has to reload segments from disk very often then it can take much longer to perform some operations than the developer expected, and he/she might not have provided for allowing a task switch in those places that 'ought' to be fast. But in limited-memory situations, you can easily get situations where _nothing_ is fast because Windows is thrashing the disk. It can also be helpful to run with a disk cache. Moral: Windows likes memory. > >I'm afraid that you'll either have to live with it or upgrade the > >CPU to a 386 of some flavor - a 386sx shouldn't be too different in > >cost from a 286 at this point. > > My 286 is a loner from work so it cost me $0.00. Do you know where I can > get a 386sx for the same?!? I'd submit that the 286 you're using is therefore not 'your' 286. If you're using it and Windows 3.0 for company purposes they may agree that it would be worthwhile to swap it out for a 386sx or get one of the 386 plug-in cards for the existing machine (usually a costlier option...), assuming anyway that those company purposes are more demanding than using Terminal to read E-mail ;-). I can certainly agree that it's annoying to lose a feature; this was one that I regretted losing as well. I have an old V20-based portable PC with a 10MB external hard drive that I sometimes use for Windows programming if I'm away from home (stop laughing out there :-) and it was really nice to be able to fire up small, well- behaved DOS apps on that machine. The performance is even not as bad as one might think; the only problem is compiling, but if I'm at the beach I can do some programming early in the morning and after lunch and start up the compiler while I swim or walk on the beach :-). Not a very productive work machine, perhaps, but still one that you can use to hack on 'fun' programs with (sort of a bus driver's holiday :-). Bruce C. Wright