Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Another county heard from Message-ID: <3214@gmdzi.UUCP> Date: 18 Aug 90 18:10:05 GMT References: <14679@shlump.nac.dec.com> Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 100 simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >In article <94J1N6w162w@zooid.UUCP>, dve@zooid.UUCP (system operator) writes... >>If you want to simply switch between or multitask DOS applications, then you >>should use Software Carousel or Desqview. However, if you want to be able >>to run programs that break all of DOS' restrictions and work in an updated >>and powerful environment then you should buy Windows. >I am afraid I am also the one who is missing the point. What are "all of >DOS' restrictions" that Windows break? If I have Word Perfect or Lotus, >will it run better under Windows then under DesqView? Or is the >"breaking" is relative only to specifically Windows written software? An - incomplete - list of DOS restrictions/problems which Window overcomes: The 640K limit. DOS runs in real mode. Windows 3 applications run in protected mode, which makes up to 16MB accessible without overlays or code swapping. The real memory limit. Windows on an I386 has virtual memory. The device dependency problem. It is a proverbial saying, that most usefull MSDOS programs are device dependent. Many big DOS programs come with disks full of mouse drivers, printer drivers, video drivers and so on. This is because DOS has no abstract device interface. Windows has. The user interface confusion. DesqView may have no problems to multiplex SuperCalc with Paradox and MS Word, to name some random examples. But even power users have problems to memorize more than a few user interfaces and to switch quickly between them. Windows, on the other hand, delivers the technical base of a similar user interface for different applications, to be run and used concurrently. I consider this to be essential to take actual advantage of the - technical - ability to multiplex applications on a single screen. Internationalization support. Windows support is not complete, and even Microsoft seems to have problems to actually *use* it right, but at least the core is there. For the people in Europe it matters whether they may expect national language versions of the applications they want to use. Of course, all this requires programs which are written specifically to the Windows interface. But I thinkh the message you are answering to made this quite clear. >>You are treating >>Windows as a DOS shell, which it is not because it provides many features >>that DOS does not have. >Which? See above. The only area where Windows is simply ugly DOS is its use of the file system of DOS. >>So I think that you have missed the entire point of >>Windows. >I think I do. I still have not been able to figure out what Windows has >vs. what other specialized programs and DesqView 386 does not. Windows' >accessory are next to useless comparing to PC TOOLS' DESKTOP; its File >Manager is crippled (in comparison to PC-TOOLS or Norton Commander), it >doesn't even have a file viewer let alone being slow; the Terminal >emulator that can't handle ^H, etc. You make some valid points here. But have you noticed that the PC TOOLS user interface for example looks more and more like Windows with each new version? Windows is a user interface framework comparable - not similar! - to the Macintosh user interface. The applications which come with it are somewhat limited and sometimes broken (for example Terminal, which is unusable outside the US), but if you need more, there *is* more available from other vendors selling Windows applications. Just to show that your comparison is a bit biased: How good is the DesqView or the PC-TOOLS text editor compared to Windows Write? Does it support PostScript printers or the HP DeskJet, for example, including access to proportional fonts of varying sizes? >This is not degrading Windows or flaming, it is a real search for the >answer. I think there is no single right answer here. There is still need for old character based applications and OS extensions, and as long as Windows does not have some kind of resource management integrated into the file system, I don't consider it to be a complete environment, but that may be fixed in the future. My own answer is to use a mixture of Windows and character based applications, prefering those "text mode" applications which adhere to a text mode adaption of the Windows style guide. IBM calls this the Common User Access (CUA) part of SAA (System Application Architecture). Wolfgang Strobl #include (Nonstandard disclaimer: English is not my native language)