Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:45337 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:159
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: RE programs crashing in Desqview
Message-ID: <48e591a9.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 90 16:29:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 54


   Recently I posted something about programs crashing in Desqview.

   As a result I got mail from others who have had the same problem
   (unfortunately I don't yet have a solution).

   But this does raise another question. 

   Someone once said that    " [...]  is like a talking dog.  It's
   not a question of how well it does it.  The wonder is that it 
   can do it at all!" 
 
   Are multi-task environments on PC's just talking dogs?   Are
   they an idea that the PC world is just not ready for?  PC's
   were designed as single-user devices.   Both the hardware and
   the operating system were designed for single programs which
   own the machine.   Moreover, an enormous number of existing
   programs were written with that in mind.    By now I've heard
   quite a few problems with Desqview and I've heard even more
   horror stories about Windows. 
 
   On the other hand, many people have bought these products.  I
   think I remember seeing somewhere that Quarterdeck has sold a
   million copies of Desqview.   My suspicion is that most users
   fall into 2 camps:  Those who are running a handful of carefully
   chosen applications programs that are "well behaved" in such
   an environment   or   those who are trying to do as I want to
   do, and use it for general stuff including software development
   and arbitrary commercial applications.   I suspect that most of
   the latter just resign themselves to odd crashes and collisions.
   But I'm not sure I'm prepared to do that.

   Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect to be able to run multiple programs
   on PC's without worrying about them crashing into each other the way
   we (usually) can on workstations and mini's.  Perhaps it's a bit like
   trying to fit wings to a car and fly it.  Sure, it's been done, but
   it's a tremendous kluge and most people would rather fly planes which
   were designed as planes to begin with.

   Someone wrote to me to say that I have unrealistically high
   expectations for being able to apply the same standards to PC's
   as I do to workstations; that PC's are single-user *micro's*,
   after all.

   In a sense this is true, but my new "micro" machine has more MIPS
   and more RAM than the minicomputer my whole software *department*
   shared at my last job!    PC's are like a child who has suddenly
   grown very big and very strong but still has the intellect and
   emotions (software) of a child.   This can make them very unruly.

                                                ---Peter