Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!husc6!m2c!umvlsi!dime!roskill
From: roskill@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: New MS Windows (?)
Message-ID: <14934@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 30 May 90 19:26:45 GMT
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: COINS, UMass, Amherst
Lines: 65

In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes...
>The speed of Windows is a function of the hardware.  a 16 MHz 386sx with only
>a Meg, VGA, and a slow hard disk will seem slower than a Plus, but a 16 MHz
>386sx with Hercules graphics, 2 meg, and a fast 1:1 hard disk (cost: $1100)
>will run circles around a Plus.  A lot also depends on the quality of the
>graphics card--some older ones were meant for XTs and ATs and are slow.  
>Remember than the VGA under Windows 3 has the same colors/resolution as the
>Mac II color card (640x480x8-bit), and I know of many Mac II users who run
>in the 2-color mode because of the performance hit.

So...what would be the cost of say a Mac IIcx in the PC world?
I would bet that the pricing would be fairly close.  Given this,
the Mac still seems like the better option because all of the program
currently out there are designed around the MacOS, as opposed to
Windows 3.0 which will require a wait to get up to the Mac's number
of applications.

> 
>Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space*  It runs well in 2 mb of RAM.  Most
>of the 6 Mb is non-essential stuff--reams of on-line context-sensitive help,
>background bitmaps, assorted "DA"-type stuff, and so forth.  Win 3.0 can be
>pared to about 2 Mb of disk space.  Compare/contrast to System 7...
> 

System 7.0, at least the alpha or beta (sorry I don't remember) I got
on the developers CD-ROM was huge.

>1) Loading/running multiple applications.  This is a function of the 
>	windowing interface and the better memory management of Windows
>	(applications are incrementally loaded, so only as much as is
>	needed is in memory.  Keeping Excel and Winword around costs
>	about 300K total).  Windows was always intended to multitask;
>	in Multifinder I'm always reminded (i.e. global menu bar) that the Mac
>	was a single-tasking OS with multitasking thrown on later.

Yeah...that does sound good.  I wish my Mac could do that.  The "set-aside"
function does exist, but does nothing for memory.  Simply put, you can
change the window defintion so it has a "Shrink-to-icon" button.  This
does nothing for memory, however.

>5) Memory protection.  On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably
>	will make an appearance.  Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that
>	the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme,
>	Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital
>	part of multitasking--what's the use of having 6 applications running
>	if one of them can cause the whole works to crash?

Aaron...I think you got this wrong.  All the Mac applications I've worked
with (with Macsbugs on) would just quit and leave the machine fairly 
intact.  It doesn't work all the time...but, as with Windows 3.0, if the
error wasn't too extreme, the MacOS will kick it out and continue.

>I'd recommend comp.windows.ms for those really interested in what Windows 3.0 
>really is...

Thanks! I'll take a look.

>Aaron Wallace

Damian
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Party For Your Right To Fight"  |  "Welcome to the Terrordome!"|
| Damian Roskill                  |                              |
| Roskill@cs.umass.edu            |                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|