simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (06/16/90)
In article <55253@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil BARRETT) writes... >In article <4aff1a12.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >> I do have a question. Since Windows can apparently detect "known >> incompatibility" (1st paragraph, above) does it tell you when it >> finds such an incompatibility? > >Since it refuses to create a permanent swapfile, it kind of figures >that it gives you a message. It says (from memory so dont nitpick) >something like -- incompatible device driver foo in config.sys. The message unfortumately does not state what device is incompatible. You have to figure it out on your own. My config.sys is not that big, it didn't take me long to find out that Windows didn't like Speedstor's HarDisk.sys. The HarDisk.sys was also the reason why Windows refused to see any partition of the disk beyond C: while scanning the disk for the applications. Removing HarDisk.sys and re-partitioning with FDISK fixed the problem. --------- Leo Simon simon@pwrvax.enet.dec.com Who is not liberal when young, does not have a heart. Who is not conservative when old, does not have a brain.
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (06/16/90)
philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil BARRETT)
:> I do have a question. Since Windows can apparently detect "known
:> incompatibility" (1st paragraph, above) does it tell you when it
:> finds such an incompatibility?
:
:Since it refuses to create a permanent swapfile, it kind of figures
:that it gives you a message. It says (from memory so dont nitpick)
:something like -- incompatible device driver foo in config.sys.
A simple "yes" would suffice...it certainly doesn't *figure* that
it will tell you. Lots of environments don't produce useful error
messages (GEM sometimes produces none at all), or produce error
messages which are not real helpful, as Windows does when I try to
minimize my DTP package "Publish-It!". Which brings me to a
problem...
One of the big problems that many companies, including Microsoft,
have is inconsistency in the training and knowledge of their tech
support staff. On some questions I have literally called several
times and "averaged" the answers to try to get at the truth! I have
heard of other people doing this and I sometimes wonder if it accounts
for the long phone lines.
It's amazing the number of different answers I've gotten to whether
Windows 3.0 in Enhanced mode can run DOS applications in background.
I use several graphics packages which I'd like to keep using and
sometimes they do things which take a long time (like preparing
output for a laser printer) so I'd like to run them in background
if possible.
Before buying 3.0 I was told by an MS Tech Support person named
"Matt" that in Enhanced mode it could run any reasonably well-behaved
DOS app, even graphics ones, minimized. I called back, got
a different person whose name I don't recall, who said that ALL
programs are frozen, i.e., not run at all, in background. If I wanted
a program to continue to execute in background, he said, I'd have to
buy OS/2! ( Note also that "minimize" and "background" are not
necessarily the same thing).
Anyway, I bought Windows 3.0 and tried to run Publish-It!. It ran
OK in foreground. But it stops doing whatever it's doing as soon
as I minimized it, although it promptly starts up where it
left off if I maximize it again. It doesn't give me any message
SAYING that it's stopping, it just stops. So I called Tech Support
and talked to "Denise" who said that only NON-GRAPHICS programs
will continue to run minimized. Considering how the press is
going ga-ga about how well Windows 3.0 can multitask DOS apps,
and considering how many DOS apps are graphical in nature, I'm
a bit skeptical -- on the other hand I've noticed some variations
in how people use the term "multitask". Anyway, next week I'll
call MS Tech Support *again* and go for a tie-breaker. Stay tuned,
campers.
BTW, last time I called, the recording said to expect a 30 minute
wait! From here that's $7.50 just for the wait, PLUS whatever time
it takes to get your questioned resolved. I have some suggestions
to reduce the call volume:
1a. Better trained staff. I had to make three calls to get a
problem with Paintbrush resolved. The Tech Support person
was not familiar enough with Paintbrush and at one point
even suggested calling ZSoft! I don't make all these phone
calls for fun. (ah, well, I'll admit it's fun to point out
the results on national networks...) Quick answers that
you can have confidence in would help a lot!
1b. More specialized tech-support routing. Nobody can know
everything. If I have a question on Write, or Paintbrush,
or multitasking DOS apps I'd rather be directed to someone
who knows a lot about that, than a little about all of Windows.
2. A more detailed user's manual. Microsoft tries to cram
the whole Windows 3.0 description *plus* details on the
included apps like Paintbrush, Terminal, and Write into
a manual which is smaller than my Laserjet IIP manual.
More technical details (f'rinstance about how the information
in the .pif files is used) and an appendix with a complete
description of the conditions under which all the error
messages are generated would be a good start.
3. Better built-in diagnostics. Something like Quarterdeck's
Manifest would be good.
---Peternelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (06/17/90)
I posted... > One of the big problems that many companies, including Microsoft, > have is inconsistency in the training and knowledge of their tech > support staff. On some questions I have literally called several Later that day I had an illuminating conversation with *another* MS tech support person for Windows. I commented that the included apps (Write, Terminal, Paintbrush) appeared to be hobbled versions of real, useful apps. In other words they seemed toylike and incomplete to me. She said that they *were designed to be*. She said that they were not meant to be used as practical applications but rather to just demonstrate how a Windows interface would look, sort of like the little demo's which came with the Asymetrix product. This struck me as odd and I suspect she is not really representing Microsoft, which is why I'm not giving out here name on the Net. But on the other hand it IS interesting to ask WHY Microsoft bothered to include them at all. They take up valuable documentation and tech support resources and no doubt they cost something non-trivial to port to Windows. But if you really NEED a paint, word-processing, or communications program to do anything serious you would almost certainly opt for some commercial package like PC Paintbrush IV, XYWrite, or Crosstalk. [ speaking of which: Does anyone here know if Crosstalk for Windows is A.) compatible with 3.0 and B.) comparable in features and functionality with "regular" Crosstalk-- I think it's called version 16 ? ] I would have preferred that Microsoft not bothered with ANY included apps (like QD Desqview), and instead devote the resources into a more robust basic product, better documentation, and better tech support. Alternatively I wouldn't have minded if they had charged another $20 or $30 for Windows and used the extra revenues to make better apps. If they sell a million copies of Windows that comes out to another $20-30 million (assuming the price increment doesn't kill their sales volume). That should buy enough software engineers to really come up with some serious versions of those apps. But because of the huge volume of Windows sales, compared with the sales volume of many 3rd-party products, the incremental cost to the user is small. Another approach would have been: instead of having a whole bunch of "eh" apps, they could have just included ONE real killer app. ---Peter