Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!newkodak!isctsse!pajerek
From: pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Windows-the interface that may never happen...
Message-ID: <1990Jun8.162923.5808@usenet@kadsma>
Date: 8 Jun 90 16:29:23 GMT
References: <4ae0dff2.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Reply-To: pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastman Kodak Telecommunication Services, Rochester, N.Y. 14650
Lines: 27

In article <4ae0dff2.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  Yes, but I don't think you addressed my question:
>
>  I observed that apps written to run under Windows seem to be
>  very expensive.
>
>  I want to know why this is.  
>
>                                                      ---Peter


In ascending order of difficulty (IMHO, of course):

	Macintosh
	Windows
	OS/2 PM

The Mac is easiest because it has only a single event queue to worry
about. Both Windows and PM have message queues for each object. There
is a bit of a tradeoff between Windows and PM in that memory management
under PM is easier, but PM also introduces multi-threaded programming,
which, while useful and valuable, also has its pitfalls. You can do
PM programming without threads, but who would want to?


Don Pajerek