nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) (08/14/90)
I want to thank those who took the trouble to write me about my recent posting. I learned two things: that some Win3 users are *dedicated* types and don't like to have their favorite program maligned; and, two, that Win3 is being marketed through false and misleading advertising. For, indeed, the "standard" mode does not support multi-tasking for any but Windows applications, something one discovers only after reading the manual. Nowhere in the glitzy ads, or indeed in most of the unpaid hype, is there a hint that one will have to scrap several thousand dollars worth of software. Well. Does one expect more from Microsoft? NM
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (08/14/90)
norman miller <nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu> writes: > I learned two things: [...] that Win3 is being marketed through false and > misleading advertising. For, indeed, the "standard" mode does > not support multi-tasking for any but Windows applications, > something one discovers only after reading the manual. Nowhere > in the glitzy ads, or indeed in most of the unpaid hype, is there > a hint that one will have to scrap several thousand dollars worth > of software. No, the ads don't say that you can't multitask DOS software. But then the ads don't say much at all beyond extolling the virtues of the GUI and telling about how you can have applications bigger than 640K. However, just about ANY article on Win3 would say that; for example Infoworld's introductory article said that "the 386 mode allows multitasking of DOS applications". Did you buy the product based solely on Microsoft ads? Second, Windows was not meant to be a software switcher or a multitasker: it's a graphical operating environment. The idea is that you run Windows applications in Windows, not that you use it to switch between DOS apps. If ALL your applications are of the old-fashioned type (Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect), you should (1) stick to a manager such as QEMM, (2) replace them with the new Windows apps (Excel, WingZ, Word for Windows, Ami), or (3) wait for the Windows versions to arrive (WordPerfect for Windows will be available first quarter '91). Windows applications are what Windows 3.0 was INTENDED to run! Finally, DOS programs can NOT be safely run in protected (286) mode. This is also why OS/2 can only run one DOS session at a time (and has to switch to real (8086) mode to do it), and why 286 Unix/Xenix doesn't do it at all. A 386 has a virtual 8086 mode, which allows multiple 8086 processes to run simultaneously. This is the only way to safely run multiple DOS apps, and it's used by Win3 enhanced, Win386, QEMM/386, OS/2 2.0 and the various 386 Unix/Xenix DOS emulators. Alas, due to poor design on the part of Intel, it's easy and fast to switch a 286 into protected mode, but switching back to real mode (to, for example, run a DOS application) requires that the chip be reset, which is VERY slow. This is why it takes a long time to switch to a DOS application. The problem has been fixed on the 386 chip. In short, please don't bitch about Windows' ability to multitask DOS apps in standard mode until you understand why it's not possible, and don't forget that Windows 3.0 apps CAN be multitasked in standard mode, and they CAN use more than 640K of memory each. Oh yeah --- did Lotus' ads tell you that 1-2-3 3.0 won't run under Windows 3.0, or under OS/2's DOS box, or with VP/ix? No? So is that misleading advertising as well? I think not... [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
jeremy@epochsys.UUCP (Jeremy L. Mordkoff) (08/16/90)
In article <546@mstr.hgc.edu> nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: > >Well. Does one expect more from Microsoft? > >NM Nope. -- Jeremy L. Morkdoff ...!uunet!epochsys!jeremy Epoch Systems, Inc. (508)836-4711 x346 8 Technology Drive (508)836-4884 (fax) Westboro, Ma. 01581 Providing Mass Storage Solutions for Unix Systems
tgp@sei.cmu.edu (Tod Pike) (08/17/90)
In article <546@mstr.hgc.edu> nmiller@mstr.hgc.edu (norman miller) writes: >I want to thank those who took the trouble to write me about my >recent posting. I learned two things: that some Win3 users are >*dedicated* types and don't like to have their favorite program >maligned; and, two, that Win3 is being marketed through false and >misleading advertising. Norman, if you believe that there is false and misleading advertising going on about windows 3.0, I would suggest that you file a claim with the Postal Service, and contact the Better Business Bureau. I repeat, I've read the advertising, seen the hype, talked to people who know more about these things and they all agree that Windows 3 is all right. Not great, not perfect, but all right. I'm not in love with it; it's not my "favorite program"; I just don't like to see people spreading this kind of misinformation around where people who don't know better can see it. >For, indeed, the "standard" mode does >not support multi-tasking for any but Windows applications, >something one discovers only after reading the manual. Nowhere >in the glitzy ads, or indeed in most of the unpaid hype, is there >a hint that one will have to scrap several thousand dollars worth >of software. > I would presume that you didn't read my first followup to your first article. In that article I wrote that I started up a terminal session, then went off to a DOS window (full screen mode) and started up a database program. I worked on the database for a half an hour, then quit, came back to my terminal session and discovered that it had continued to run just fine. I repeat: if this is not multi-tasking (of some type), then what is it? Note that I run in standard mode on a 286 box. I agree that speed is a relative and somewhat subjective term. Xwindows on a Decstation 3100 is pretty fast. Xwindows on a Sun 3/50 with 2 meg of memory is pretty slow. Windows 3.0 on a 286 with 1 meg of memory is somewhere in the middle. Not something that I'd want to use eight hours a day, but something that I willingly use almost every night to dial in. I'm not claiming that everyone thinks it is the greatest thing since the invention of the computer (and don't believe that most other people are claiming that, either). I simply belive that the system is usable. >Well. Does one expect more from Microsoft? I got what I expected, and am happy. >NM Tod Pike -- Internet: tgp@sei.cmu.edu Mail: Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Pittsburgh, PA. 15213-3980