Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) (05/17/91)
In acticle <1991May17.094930.25084@wam.umd.edu>, "ys@wam.umd.edu" wrote: > Has anyone tried running a BBS in the background of Desqview? > At present I have a 386SX-16 w/2MB and 80HD... I was wondering how it > would be to run a BBS in the background and still do work in the > foreground... How would the speed be, for example, if someone was > downloading files i n the BBS, while I was working on a WP, or > graphics program in the foreground... I used to run a BBS in the background of DESQview (in fact, I still would be, but Telegard doesn't get along with DV very well) and found it worked very well, even with only 2 megs on a 386DX-25. The only problems you'll run into with the system is when the user is doing things where he is watching the turn-around time on what you type. For instance, if he is reading messages, or searching the file lists, he will be able to tell that you are there unless you're in a DV aware program. In fact, one of the major processor-hogs (I assume it's because it has its own internal multi-tasking) is WordPerfect. The user will never notice a difference when using a file transfer protocol (except maybe 1-2cps, which is neglegable). One thing to keep in mind, graphical programs are generally a bad idea. If you need to use one, it's best to do it without DESQview. Also, when choosing a FOSSIL driver, make sure you choose BNU (currently BNU170.* on Simtel. If you need a copy, email me) as the other common one, X00, is very buggy, and will crash DESQview whenever it is activated. Jordan. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Jordan C. Melville Voice: (604) 943-7155 Vancouver, BC BBS: (604) 943-3503 (2400baud) UUCP: a516@mindlink.UUCP "So let's make our own movies like Spike Lee, 'cause the roles bein' offered don't strike me, as nothing the black man can use to learn, BURN HOLLYWOOD, BURN" - Public Enemy "Burn Hollywood Burn"
ys@wam.umd.edu (05/17/91)
Has anyone tried running a BBS in the background of Desqview? At present I have a 386SX-16 w/2MB and 80HD... I was wondering how it would be to run a BBS in the background and still do work in the foreground... How would the speed be, for example, if someone was downloading files in the BBS, while I was working on a WP, or graphics program in the foreground... I have never used Desqview before, so any help would be appreciated... Hopefully it is better than Win 3.0 in multitasking dos programs... Thanks in advance! Ys
ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) (05/17/91)
ys@wam.umd.edu writes: > Has anyone tried running a BBS in the background of Desqview? Yes. I run Waffle and process news and mail concuurently. Typically, the 'bbs' runs while I use a second copy to read news and mail, while a cron task processes a full news feed and mail forwarding. Another partition or two might contain text files for cut-and-paste, or QuickC. > I have never used Desqview before, so any help would be appreciated... > Hopefully it is better than Win 3.0 in multitasking dos programs... Well, around here, folks might be prejudiced. There will be some degradation depending on types of applications, disk i/o, etc., but it's workable. Plan on a lot of memory, using a pretty hefty cache, and a 386DX. The drives should be pretty quick, also. Take advantage of things like TAME, DVKPOLL, etc., that can be used to fine tune your setup. In a gross generalization, when doing this sort of thing, more and faster is better. -- The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++
Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) (05/17/91)
In article <eBg621w164w@halcyon.uucp>, seattleu.edu!halcyon!ralphs (Ralph Sims) writes: > This is a generality, which generally isn't true. I know of hundreds > of folks running BBS's under DESQview and use X00. As a matter of > fact, It use it on occasion myself and have NEVER had it crash an > application.Using X00 v1.24 on a 386DX, blah blah blah... First, I'm not out to sabotage the people who make X00, I'm just offering a consumer's opinion. And this consumer had nothing but trouble with X00 from the start. All of the versions I have tried were buggy and hindered the running of the BBS. BNU has never caused me any problems, and I've found it to be better documented and generally faster. _In_my_opinion_ and my experiences, I would not recommend X00 to anyone. Jordan. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Jordan C. Melville Voice: (604) 943-7155 Vancouver, BC BBS: (604) 943-3503 (2400baud) UUCP: a516@mindlink.UUCP "So let's make our own movies like Spike Lee, 'cause the roles bein' offered don't strike me, as nothing the black man can use to learn, BURN HOLLYWOOD, BURN" - Public Enemy "Burn Hollywood Burn"
ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) (05/18/91)
Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) writes: > FOSSIL driver, make sure you choose BNU (currently BNU170.* on Simtel. If you > need a copy, email me) as the other common one, X00, is very buggy, and will > crash DESQview whenever it is activated. This is a generality, which generally isn't true. I know of hundreds of folks running BBS's under DESQview and use X00. As a matter of fact, I use it on occasion myself and have NEVER had it crash an application. Using X00 v1.24 on a 386DX, blah blah blah... -- The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++
stern@ims.alaska.edu (Pete Stern) (05/19/91)
In article <5912@mindlink.bc.ca>, Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) writes: > > First, I'm not out to sabotage the people who make X00, I'm just offering a > consumer's opinion. And this consumer had nothing but trouble with X00 from the > start. All of the versions I have tried were buggy and hindered the running of > the BBS. BNU has never caused me any problems, and I've found it to be better > documented and generally faster. _In_my_opinion_ and my experiences, I would > not recommend X00 to anyone. > For what it's worth I have had the opposite experience. I had nothing but trouble with BNU. This is not to say X00 has been completely trouble free but Ray Gwinn has been nothing short of amazing at times trying to work out problems. During one period of time he delivered 3 test versions within 24 hours for me to try. He has been very responsive to well documented bug reports. David Nugent is also a fine programmer but calling Australia is a bit too expensive for my budget in trying to debug problems. pete -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Stern stern@ims.alaska.edu Box 60285 pstern@f38.n17.z1.fidonet.org Fairbanks AK 99706 65' North DVNet Headquarters BBS
c9106510@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (05/19/91)
In article <eBg621w164w@halcyon.uucp>, halcyon!ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) writes: > Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) writes: > >> FOSSIL driver, make sure you choose BNU (currently BNU170.* on Simtel. If you >> need a copy, email me) as the other common one, X00, is very buggy, and will >> crash DESQview whenever it is activated. > > This is a generality, which generally isn't true. I know of hundreds of > folks running BBS's under DESQview and use X00. As a matter of fact, I > use it on occasion myself and have NEVER had it crash an application. > Using X00 v1.24 on a 386DX, blah blah blah... > Well.. The problem we have been having so far, is that BNU is great.. Has the nice DV TaskManager, and the flow control works correctly. BUT it will not share IRQ's.. So we change the IRQ you say.. Fin.. Easy.. BUT!! And this is a BIG but.. HOW DO YOU TELL BNU ABOUT THE DIFFERENT IRQ????!?!?!? There is that program BNUPORT.. But No docs.. no help.. and there aint something easly like.. IRQ 5.. Its got some other things, that we still havent worked out.. Now.. X00.. Will share IRQ's fine.. BUT.. He STILL hasent fixed the CTS/RTS flow control.. As on a 19200 locked modem, we cant download Zmodem at 9600/rel.. Cause its overunning the buffer.. So both ways, we hit adversity.. (sob).. Hope someone fixes these problems Soon..... -- +----------------------------------------+ | Anthony Rumble | | INTERNet c9106510@cc.newcastle.edu.au | | SIGNet 28:2200/108 | +----------------------------------------+ | SBUTIL1 SoundBlaster TP6 LIB | | raMUD The MUD for MS-DOS under RA 1.01 | | raCHAT MultiLine Chat for RA 1.01 | +----------------------------------------+ | Currently in "LOOKING FOR WORK" mode | +----------------------------------------+
w8sdz@rigel.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) (05/21/91)
Questions, complaints and comments about the FOSSIL driver "BNU" can be directed to the author at: david@csource.oz.au (David Nugent) BNU is available from SIMTEL20: Directory PD1:<MSDOS.FOSSIL> Filename Type Length Date Description ============================================== BNU170.ZIP B 74398 900411 Interrupt-driven serial port 1-8 Fossil driver Keith -- Keith Petersen Maintainer of the MSDOS, MISC and CP/M archives at SIMTEL20 [192.88.110.20] Internet: w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil or w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu Uucp: uunet!umich!vela!w8sdz BITNET: w8sdz@OAKLAND
david@csource.oz.au (david nugent) (05/21/91)
stern@ims.alaska.edu (Pete Stern) writes: >In article <5912@mindlink.bc.ca>, Jordan_Melville@mindlink.bc.ca (Jordan Melville) writes: > > > First, I'm not out to sabotage the people who make X00, I'm just > > offering a consumer's opinion. And this consumer had nothing but > > trouble with X00 from the start. All of the versions I have tried > > were buggy and hindered the running of the BBS. BNU has never caused > > me any problems, and I've found it to be better documented and > > generally faster. _In_my_opinion_ and my experiences, I would > > not recommend X00 to anyone. > > For what it's worth I have had the opposite experience. I had nothing > but trouble with BNU. This is not to say X00 has been completely trouble > free but Ray Gwinn has been nothing short of amazing at times trying to > work out problems. During one period of time he delivered 3 test > versions within 24 hours for me to try. He has been very responsive to > well documented bug reports. As you can see, everyone has an opinion. ;-) Ask a certain Mr Marwick sometime about the record number of test versions of BNU that have been delivered within 24 hours... I've tracked down so many "so-called problems" down to user abuse of the software that I can't believe that X00 doesn't suffer the same fate. X00's docs never used to be as extensive (but probably less crytpic - I've never claimed to be good at documenting anything!) than BNU's so it probably has more of this. The real danger here is in making generalisations. For example, one of the reasons I had for writing BNU in the first place is that it refused point blank to work on my machine or hardware. I used OpusCom at the time since it was the only alternative... yet I found it's habit of hanging occasionally counterproductive when it came to running a reliable full-time mail system. In any case, in the beginning BNU went through several revisions, mainly in fixing the inevitable bugs in any piece of new communications software that hasn't been tested widely. By version 1.70, it had become stabilised - I'm not saying that version 1.70 is as good as it could have been (nor as good as v1.90 will be when released), but there is a VAST difference between running any two publicly released versions of the driver. I suspect that the same is true of X00. I know that I'm often asked for additional features and capabilities which require a good deal of R & D to implement. There's often a great deal of difficulty attached to beta testing this on your own available equipement and that of your beta testers.. often you have to take a chance, provide the ability to switch something off, and release it anyway in the hope that it doesn't crash and burn in a particular setup. So.. before going out and condemning ANY piece of software, you should consider version numbers. If BNU 1.30 didn't work for you, then perhaps 1.70 will. Or if X00 1.10 didn't work, maybe 1.2x or so will. (for example, what I stated about X00 not working on my equipment was true of v1.11, but not true of v1.24). Generalisations about "X00 doesn't work" or "BNU is buggy" are completely ridiculous without saying WHICH PARTICULAR ONE. Both pieces of software work reliably on a wide range of systems across the globe 24 hours a day, and it may be that certain features of either driver may suit different environments. Certainly BNU is more tuned to my particular environment than X00 is, since that's it's initial testing place. Naturally I tune it heavily to give me the best results. :-) >David Nugent is also a fine programmer but calling Australia is a bit >too expensive for my budget in trying to debug problems. Understandible. :-) -- David Nugent Unique Computing Pty Limited Communications/PC/Unix Consulting 3:632/348@fidonet 28:4100/1@signet Internet/ACSnet: david@csource.oz.au Uucp: ..!uunet!munnari!csource!david