josephc@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Joseph I. Chiu) (12/12/90)
evanc@isishq.fidonet.org (Evan Champion) writes: >I was looking into multitaskers and Desqview and Windows came up. I have >heard a lot of negative feedback on Windows, but I still consider it an >option. Can anyone give me some advice on this topic? It would be running >on a 386 with 2-4MB of Ram. One of the possibilities that are still viable are multi-tasking multi-user PC-DOS emulating operating systems. I personally have Concurrent DOS running on my 386-PC, and I had 2 megabytes of memory - it was good enough for a 4-task multi-tasking single-user use. The nice thing about Councurrent DOS (and this may not be what you are looking for, but...) is that it also has a multi-user support. With 8 megs of memory and two Wyse-60 terminals hooked up, my 386 system now acts as three virtual computers. And the thing is relatively stable. Except for a few slight problems, Concurrent works just as well (and even better) than PC-DOS. Even Turbo Debugger runs in Concurrent DOS, allowing me to switch from window to window (or even console to console) and reduce my cycle time. There also is a product called PC-MOS that supposedly does the same thing. (BTW, you mileage may vary depending on what you need the multi-tasking for.) >Evan -- JosephC@Coil.Caltech.Edu
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec11.172423.5673@nntp-server.caltech.edu> josephc@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Joseph I. Chiu) writes: >evanc@isishq.fidonet.org (Evan Champion) writes: > >>I was looking into multitaskers and Desqview and Windows came up. I have >>heard a lot of negative feedback on Windows, but I still consider it an >>option. Can anyone give me some advice on this topic? It would be running >>on a 386 with 2-4MB of Ram. > >One of the possibilities that are still viable are multi-tasking multi-user >PC-DOS emulating operating systems. I personally have Concurrent DOS running >on my 386-PC, and I had 2 megabytes of memory - it was good enough for a >4-task multi-tasking single-user use. > >The nice thing about Councurrent DOS (and this may not be what you are >looking for, but...) is that it also has a multi-user support. With 8 megs >of memory and two Wyse-60 terminals hooked up, my 386 system now acts as three >virtual computers. And the thing is relatively stable. Except for a few >slight problems, Concurrent works just as well (and even better) than PC-DOS. >Even Turbo Debugger runs in Concurrent DOS, allowing me to switch from >window to window (or even console to console) and reduce my cycle time. > >There also is a product called PC-MOS that supposedly does the same thing. > There is also VM-386 and a few other products. PC MAgazine had a review of such products, a couple of months ago I think. Email me and I will try and find the exact issue if you cant find it. Jeff Sicherman sichermn@beach.csulb.edu
banko@lisboa.tmc.edu (Brad Banko) (12/20/90)
Does Windows 3.0 actually multi-task? That is, can several programs actually be running simultaneously as under multifinder on the Mac? Brad Banko -- ============================================================== Brad Banko, Theoretical Biophysics, Beckman Institute Dept of Physics, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign banko@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu, (217)-244-1851, 328-4932
jal@acc.flint.umich.edu (John Lauro) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec19.180746.29082@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> banko@lisboa.tmc.edu (Brad Banko) writes: >Does Windows 3.0 actually multi-task? That is, can several programs actually >be running simultaneously as under multifinder on the Mac? > Yes Windows 3.0 does actually multi-task. In fact, you don't even need version 3.0 of windows to multi-task. As to multifinder on the Mac, the answer is no. If you run something that takes awhile to finish you get to look at the watch and have to wait for it to finish. You can not switch to a different application while the other one is busy. (With some exceptions depending on what the other program is doing.)
kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec19.180746.29082@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> banko@lisboa.tmc.edu (Brad Banko) writes: >Does Windows 3.0 actually multi-task? That is, can several programs actually >be running simultaneously as under multifinder on the Mac? > >Brad Banko I think we need to make some important distinctions here. Yes, Windows does multi-task, but it uses a rather crude time-slicing system. Multifinder does *not* multi-task, unless you count Print Monitor. Multifinder on the Mac is more like a *multi-loader*; i.e. you can load several programs at once but only one of them will actually be doing any processing. The other programs will be loaded in memory to be sure; however, they will not be *doing* anything. Mind you, I find this very convenient (having several programs loaded), but it's not the same as true multi-tasking. For really optimal multi-tasking, check out OS/2 or Unix. (Check out OS/2's multi-threading sometime, it's quite impressive ..) Please, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I just want to clarify things for the average user, and don't intend any bias towards/against Windows, Multifinder, OS/2 or Unix (I use all four, and each have their merits). Any comments, please direct them to E-mail. Dave Kirsch kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu ".. so, like, if you were in outer space and you blew your wad, would it go on for infinity?" - Billy, in 'Patti Rocks'