Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: QEMM386/Windows config question Message-ID: <3273@gmdzi.UUCP> Date: 30 Aug 90 23:21:54 GMT References: <18950003@hpfinote.HP.COM> <331@news.nd.edu> <1990Aug13.171459.13839@mccc.uucp> <9131@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <9140@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 56 pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) writes: >In article <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >> >>In fact, much of the software (soon to be a vast majority) that breaks the >>640K barrier will ONLY run under Windows 3.0 (these are known as "Windows >>applications"). >But this is the same old song and dance we have been hearing for >years. The facts are that only a few Windows Applications currently >take advantage of this feature. To become "a vast majority", Windows Excuse me, but this is simply not true. All old (i.e. 2.x) applications which played by the rules take advantage of this feature, i.e. run under Windows 3 in protected mode, without any modification. In fact, my little KLOTZ game (which I distributed in February) was written without any knowledge about Windows Version 3. Someone ran it through one of the "mark as win 3 app" utilities, and now you can find it on ftp servers in the Windows 3 app area. Many other applications share this behaviour. >3.0 must be clearly superior, and it is not. It does not provide >tools for making the most of EXISTING APPLICATIONS. Countless others While I like the support for existing old applications - which is clearly superior to what OS/2 delivers -, I definitely am most interested in what Windows 3 does for WINDOWS APPLICATIONS. The ability to run old and matured Windows applications in protected mode is most welcome. The highest priority on my private wishlist is a usable resource management system (like the Macintosh one). But this does not provide anything for existing applications, either (SIGH). >have already learned that you ignore this at your own peril. >Microsoft still seems to be learning the lesson. >>Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't >>work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI >>instead of VCPI. >I understand Microsoft uses DPMI because it meets its own agenda. >What I'm bitching at is that I have to pay the price for this agenda >that contains many things of absolutely no importance to me. I would like to know what things are of absolutely no importance to you. >Microsoft is welcome to go its own way. However, I need to use DOS, >and the extensive powers it already provides. I can't wait for the >still unfulfilled promise of OS/2, and sadly, the currently >unfulfilled promise of Windows 3.0. What promise of OS/2? What unfulfilled part of that? What unfulfilled promise of Windows 3? Wolfgang Strobl #include