Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:52582 comp.windows.ms:2841 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo!nelson_p From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: RE problems with Windows/Disk Manager.... Message-ID: <4b0558f9.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 15 Jun 90 19:30:00 GMT Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Distribution: usa Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA Lines: 89 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. ---Peter