Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!sunee!gpsteffl
From: gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: The latest about MSDOS catching up
Message-ID: <1990Jul3.151622.27224@sunee.waterloo.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 90 15:16:22 GMT
References: <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Organization: Gerbils On Speed Inc.
Lines: 52

In article <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes:
>     Windows doesn't change the future of MS-DOS, it pushes it's inevitable
> death-date back perhaps a year.  Windows 3.0 Virtual machines 8086 tasks

Windows does use virtual machines which allow for multitasking of DOS
applications, and sharing of system resources like the serial port.  Not
only does it have virtual machines, it gives you virtual memory on a 386.
On a 286, it will run either DOS, or Windows, but not both at the same time.

The BIG difference is the ability to use the protected mode memory
available to the 2/386 processors.

> on an 80386.  Completely different than what Windows 2.0 did.  Also,
> most Windows 2.0 applications will not work under 3.0.  And there is
> precious little Windows software available.

There you are correct, until a month or two from now...but then again,
does the Amiga have a word processor like Windows Word, or *gasp* a
spreadsheet like Excel...or... etc.

>     Windows is still slow.  Slower than a comprable Mac.  I like the idea

How comparable...$$$$...speed...which one has toilet paper included at
no extra cost?  Windows 3.0 is definately faster than a comparable Mac
for the SAME amount of money.  And allows you to actually multitask
many DOS applications.  Neat huh?

> I can switch between applications with no time lag.  Windows adds little
> to the functionality of MS-DOS.  As (I believe) Windows 3.0 requires
                                       ^^^^^^^^^
What a maroon...sez all sorts of nasty things about a product, and
doesn't even know what/when/how it can be used.  Fly away.

> a 386, I don't see why anyone would chose it over OS/2, which at least
> has a sound foundation.

Check out Windows on a 386 box with 4 megs of memory and VGA, then
compare it to an A3000.  I believe there would be no losers with the
platforms I have stated.  On the other hand...a Mac is too much $$$ for
what you get, and the applications are overpriced.

>
>      F. Michael Theilig  -  The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
>                            GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
>                            GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet


-- 
Co-Op Scum - U of Loo '91             "Bo doesn't know software" - George Brett

"Just got paid today, got myself a pocket full-o change" - ZZ top
                       Glenn Patrick Steffler