Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: The uses of Windows? (was Re: Someone explain this to me...)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:50:48 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <aelman.703114534@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
> 
> fornax@vlsi10.WPI.EDU (Psychadelic Dan!) writes:
> >In the article <1992Apr11.005823.18377@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> in comp.os.msdos.misc,
> >	KUDOS!!  Windoze is a waste.  Try using it to switch between
> >ACAD, WP5.1, and Lotus 3.1... NOT!  I tried it out for awhile, being
> >the adventurous type, but after it crashing my system, being flaky, a
> >disk and memory hog, I said screw it.  A simple 12k PD menu system
> >that I have is much more reliable and does it's job quite well.  No
> >hassles, or any of this other garbage with Windoze.
> >	Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I find that most people
> >use Windows simply to switch between applications, and it hasn't been
> >until recently that there have actually been useful programs that run
> >in the windowing environment.  That might cause a trend towards people
> >using programs like that.. i.e. Lotus for windoze 1.0 and WP 4
> >windoze, but at a few hundred bucks a pop, it's unlikely in the near
> >future.
> >	Overall, I find that using straight MS-DOS batch files to
> >access programs is about the quickest, fastest, less memory dependent
> >way to run a program, not to mention that the user has to understand
> >a few basic concepts of the computer that their working on.
> 
> Well, I'd like to offer a correction here.  :-)
> I have been using Windows fairly exclusively on my own machine for
> about a year now.  As a student, I am able to get some decent
> discounts on Windows SW -- Excel for $120, Word for Windows for $80,
> and Windows itself for $67.  This is quite a bit less of a hit.
> 
> Between that, a couple of cheap add-ons (Amaze!'s Far Side Calendar,
> for instance) and a bunch of shareware have made my Windows
> environment quite nice and workable.
> 
> Frankly, I agree with you completely -- as a task-switcher for DOS
> apps, Windows sucks eggs.  I have a 286, so I can't even _run_ apps in
> a DOS window.  Even on the 386 we have at work, I find it fairly
> useless to run DOS apps in a window.
> 

I use Windows on a 386. I like being able to do several tasks at the same time
- like download a large file from a BBS, while I'm writing a letter in
Microsoft Word and printing labels or reports for a local voluntary
organisation I do work for. Without Windows, I would have to do these things
one after the other (except maybe the printing). As a task switcher Windows is
a waste. Use DRDOS6's TASKMAX if you want a task switcher. For multi-tasking,
though, Windows is good. Cheap on resource (compared to os2/2 and the like)
and easy to use. 
 
As for DOS apps running slowly in DOS Windows - you probably haven't uned your
PIFs to run as well as they might. A PIF in the background with the default 50
units of system resource will run like a dog. Up it to 200 and watch the
difference! It will run like it was on a 4.77m xt. Give it more and it will
run faster still - slowing down others, but at least you have the option of
favouring the tasks you want to run well. The only limit is the capacity of
your processor and the amount of RAM you have.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
Ph. +64 4 478-4714  /                   |  And the stars going round in 
FAX between 6am and 1pm Eastern ST      |  my head." R. L. S.
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:3193 alt.bbs:3456