gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) (07/02/90)
Many people have posted with all sorts of wild ideas about why
Windows can't multitask, or how it DOES multitask.
It's a very simple idea really (but the application is much more
difficult). DOS was written such that it will only allow one task to
use it's resources at any one time. The DOS calls like read/write etc
busy wait until they complete. Absolutely NO concurrent operations are
allowed. Thus, formatting a floppy disk and reading from the hard
drive, although they are independent tasks, they still must be executed
serially. Even allowing processor time to a task while another is
waiting for a DOS operation to complete is infeasible. Windows must
make sure all of it's accesses to DOS are single threaded. Therefore,
background DOS windows in enhanced mode will seem to multitask, but
Windows must wait for the application to complete a DOS operation
before it can "switch" the task away. This is as good as it gets
unfortunately.
I do not claim perfect knowledge of the situation, but I do understand
at least the reasons why Windows is limited to the form of multitasking
it offers. If you don't like it, try OS/2 or Amiga or Unix etc and stop
yer belly achin'.
--
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 Stefflerccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (07/02/90)
In <1990Jul1.193551.6345@sunee.waterloo.edu> gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) writes: >Many people have posted with all sorts of wild ideas about why >Windows can't multitask, or how it DOES multitask. >It's a very simple idea really (but the application is much more >difficult). DOS was written such that it will only allow one task to >use it's resources at any one time. The DOS calls like read/write etc >busy wait until they complete. Absolutely NO concurrent operations are >allowed. Thus, formatting a floppy disk and reading from the hard >drive, although they are independent tasks, they still must be executed >serially. Even allowing processor time to a task while another is >waiting for a DOS operation to complete is infeasible. Windows must >make sure all of it's accesses to DOS are single threaded. Therefore, >background DOS windows in enhanced mode will seem to multitask, but >Windows must wait for the application to complete a DOS operation >before it can "switch" the task away. This is as good as it gets >unfortunately. Then why don't they provide a more reasonable version of DOS along with windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking environment. I have seen heaps of TSR utilities that do DOS-functions (like formating etc) while allowing you to continue working. Does anyone know if the version of DOS that is to be shipped in Microsofts planned "merging of DOS and Windows" will allow Windows to multitask it ? If it isn't planned now, maybe someone in Microsoft should seriously start considering it. Ant -- V ant "It's great to be young and insane" \o/ ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre /0\ Phone (07) 3774078 University of Qld
ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (07/02/90)
In <1990Jul1.193551.6345@sunee.waterloo.edu> gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) writes: >Many people have posted with all sorts of wild ideas about why >Windows can't multitask, or how it DOES multitask. >It's a very simple idea really (but the application is much more >difficult). DOS was written such that it will only allow one task to >use it's resources at any one time. The DOS calls like read/write etc >busy wait until they complete. Absolutely NO concurrent operations are >allowed. Thus, formatting a floppy disk and reading from the hard >drive, although they are independent tasks, they still must be executed >serially. Even allowing processor time to a task while another is >waiting for a DOS operation to complete is infeasible. Windows must >make sure all of it's accesses to DOS are single threaded. Therefore, >background DOS windows in enhanced mode will seem to multitask, but >Windows must wait for the application to complete a DOS operation >before it can "switch" the task away. This is as good as it gets >unfortunately. Then why don't they provide a more reasonable version of DOS along with windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking environment. I have seen heaps of TSR utilities that do DOS-functions (like formating etc) while allowing you to continue working. Does anyone know if the version of DOS that is to be shipped in Microsofts planned "merging of DOS and Windows" will allow Windows to multitask it ? If it isn't planned now, maybe someone in Microsoft should seriously start considering it. Ant -- V ant "It's great to be young and insane" \o/ ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre /0\ Phone (07) 3774078 University of Qld
goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl) (07/02/90)
In article <1990Jul2.000340.27198@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >In <1990Jul1.193551.6345@sunee.waterloo.edu> gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) writes: > >>Many people have posted with all sorts of wild ideas about why >>Windows can't multitask, or how it DOES multitask. > cogent explaination deleted... > >Then why don't they provide a more reasonable version of DOS along with >windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking >environment. I have seen heaps of TSR utilities that do DOS-functions (like >formating etc) while allowing you to continue working. > >Does anyone know if the version of DOS that is to be shipped in Microsofts >planned "merging of DOS and Windows" will allow Windows to multitask it ? >If it isn't planned now, maybe someone in Microsoft should seriously start >considering it. > The solution you are looking for is called OS/2 v2.0. ---------- Bob Goodearl -- goodearl@world.std.com
hdan@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dan Higdon) (07/04/90)
> >Then why don't they provide a more reasonable version of DOS along with >windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking >environment. I have seen heaps of TSR utilities that do DOS-functions (like >formating etc) while allowing you to continue working. > Great idea! While they're at it, let's have them make it a protected mode DOS (no more 640K barrier). Yeah, let's also fix up the stupid DOS interrupt system, and provide a more powerful set of system calls. Let's also support virtual memory, and a Virtual 386 box for DOS programs that don't follow the rules well enough to be run in a multitasking environment... Wait, this is starting to sound like OS/2 2.0...... hdan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Dan Higdon
gjh87@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Gary Hill) (07/04/90)
In <1990Jul2.000340.27198@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >Then why don't they provide a more reasonable version of DOS along with >windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking Because then even fewer people would buy OS/2 and Presentation Manager :-) Seriously though, I read somewhere that Microsoft *could* have made the multitasking better , but pressure from some large corporation worried about the future of a similar product meant that we got Windows 3 in its current incarnation. >-- > V ant "It's great to be young and insane" > \o/ ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team > -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre > /0\ Phone (07) 3774078 University of Qld Gary Hill, gjh87@uk.ac.soton.cm
tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Anthony M. Brich) (07/07/90)
In article <1990Jul2.000340.27198@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> ccant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >Then why don't they [Microsoft] provide a more reasonable version of DOS with >windows itself. Everything that DOS does can be done in a multitasking >environment. I have seen heaps of TSR utilities that do DOS-functions (like >formating etc) while allowing you to continue working. > >Does anyone know if the version of DOS that is to be shipped in Microsofts >planned "merging of DOS and Windows" will allow Windows to multitask it ? >If it isn't planned now, maybe someone in Microsoft should seriously start >considering it. I think they have. I think it's called, uh, OS/2?? Tony Brich