Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0/Multi-tasking/286 & DOS window shells?
Summary: Yup!!
Message-ID: <1990Dec22.014555.23736@rti.rti.org>
Date: 22 Dec 90 01:45:55 GMT
References: <27220002@hpclapd.HP.COM> <27220003@hpclapd.HP.COM>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 57

In article <27220003@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes:
> >/ hpclapd:comp.windows.ms / bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) / 12:08 pm  Dec 19, 1990 /
> 
> >This happens when the application is somewhat mis-behaved and loads
> >the hourglass cursor while it does some compute-bound operation, but
> >then doesn't relinquish the CPU to other apps in the system until it's
> >through.
> 
> You  got that right!    Considering the   application  in  question  are MS
> supplied with Windows 3.0, are you  saying that even MS applications aren't
> well behaved?

There's been no secret for some years now that Microsoft applications
are often not as well-behaved as they ought to be.  This is just as
true in Windows as in vanilla DOS.

In other words, this is stale news.

However I might point out that it is possible that your system is
underconfigured as far as memory goes - if a large application has to
reload segments from disk very often then it can take much longer to
perform some operations than the developer expected, and he/she might
not have provided for allowing a task switch in those places that
'ought' to be fast.  But in limited-memory situations, you can easily
get situations where _nothing_ is fast because Windows is thrashing
the disk.  It can also be helpful to run with a disk cache.

Moral:  Windows likes memory.

> >I'm afraid that you'll either have to live with it or upgrade the
> >CPU to a 386 of some flavor - a 386sx shouldn't be too different in
> >cost from a 286 at this point.
> 
> My 286 is a loner from work so it cost me $0.00.  Do you know  where  I can
> get a 386sx for the same?!?

I'd submit that the 286 you're using is therefore not 'your' 286.  If
you're using it and Windows 3.0 for company purposes they may agree
that it would be worthwhile to swap it out for a 386sx or get one of
the 386 plug-in cards for the existing machine (usually a costlier
option...), assuming anyway that those company purposes are more
demanding than using Terminal to read E-mail ;-).

I can certainly agree that it's annoying to lose a feature;  this
was one that I regretted losing as well.  I have an old V20-based
portable PC with a 10MB external hard drive that I sometimes use 
for Windows programming if I'm away from home (stop laughing out 
there :-) and it was really nice to be able to fire up small, well-
behaved DOS apps on that machine.  The performance is even not as
bad as one might think;  the only problem is compiling, but if I'm
at the beach I can do some programming early in the morning and 
after lunch and start up the compiler while I swim or walk on the
beach :-).  Not a very productive work machine, perhaps, but still
one that you can use to hack on 'fun' programs with (sort of a
bus driver's holiday :-).

						Bruce C. Wright