Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Starting processes
Message-ID: <4bc4c9a3.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 23 Jul 90 21:08:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 52




From: markg@cbnewsk.att.com (mark.r.gibaldi)
:>I believe what you are being informed of is that the application really
:>will not "run" in the background.  This does not mean the application will
:>die (thus it can be iconized or switched to the background, and later
:>de-iconized or brought to the foreground), but that if it were performing
:>some process (such as a sort, recalculation, or any other process that
:>actually requires cpu cycles) that the process is suspended while the
:>application is running in the foreground, and will probably resume when
:>brougt back to the foreground whatever it was doing when it was put in
:>the background.  In other words, you get task-switching, but not true
:>multi-tasking like DESQview provides.
:
:I keep seeing posts like this, and I must admit, I'm baffled.  I regularly
:run DOS apps in the background that continue to process while in the
:background.  Some of these are communications packages which have
:file transfer protocols which will time out due to in activity.  

  The fact that this issue can go unresolved for such a long time
  on Usenet says volumes about Microsoft's inability to get their
  story straight and communicate it to their customers.

  Most of my DOS apps freeze when iconized (most of them use graphics)
  so I've been trying to get a straight answer from Microsoft.  As 
  I promised a few weeks back, I've been taking a poll of Microsoft
  tech support staff on this one.  Results so far:  2 say categorically
  that Windows 3.0 does not do ANY multitasking, two say it can multitask
  almost all DOS programs, including ones which run graphics.  And a 
  fifth one says that Windows will freeze any iconized DOS graphics
  program which attempts to do a direct access to any address inside
  the address range of the graphics board (i.e., control registers or
  display memory).   This actually seemed plausible but he didn't
  know whether the program would run happily in background *until*
  that point or how Windows calculated what the relevant addresses
  are. 
     
  This is pretty typical of the mickey-mouse tech support organizations  
  which plague the PC industry.   It's not that Microsoft's is any MORE
  brain-dead than anyone else's, it's just that none of these companies
  have a clue of what it means to provide competent, professional tech-
  nical support and the people who answer the phones, however
  hard working and well-meaning they might be, haven't got a clue 
  about the products they are allegedly supporting.
                                                      
                                                      ---Peter