From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:49:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: >Yes, but is it so difficult for you to accept that there may be people
: >out there for whom virtual memory is a heck of a lot more important than
: >optimal real-time response?  Why is it that you believe that real-time
: >response is somehow a more desirable OS feature than virtual memory?
:
: The only people who DON'T want optimal real-time response are those
: running non-interactive applications.  For ANY interactife
: application, you WANT the best real-time response you can get.
: Anything less will shaft you.
:

Don't you think that for some people, VM, MP, DIG, etc., may be worth a few
extra CPU cycles?  If real-time response is always the most important thing,
why do all these other OS's bother with all these other things?

:
: >The point I was making is that Windows has device independence.  This allows
:
: The point _I_ was making is that it MUST.  Because there are 1200
: different standards, Windows would become unsuitable as a good
: solution if it didn't JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER
: MAKES INCOMPATIBLE GRAPHICS BOARDS.
:

You're ducking the fact that it's an advantage.  The benefit is that it works
with all types of video, cheap SVGA to super-fast coprocessed video.  You say
that there are many incompatible graphics standards on the PC?  Take a look
at the Amiga!  You've got three different chipsets from Commodore, and several
high-end graphics cards which are compatible only with themselves.  Wouldn't
it be nice to have the Resolver work with all Amiga software?

:
: Same thing with the sound cards--since there IS no one standard, it
: becomes that much more important.
:

And that much more advantageous!

:
: And that device-independent sound
: is some of the worst stuff.
:

Why do say that?

:
: Seriously.  Ever see a lemming scream
: seconds after he should have?
:

No.

:
: >There are two reasons.  First, DOS is necessary because people still want to
: >run DOS commands and applications.  Second, Microsoft would much rather sell
: >two products per PC than one.
:
: If people want to run dos applications and cmds, then give them a
: Virtaul DOS like in OS/2 and NT.
:

Windows does give you virtual DOS.  But the two products are unbundled because
MS can make more money that way.

:
: I say that the dependence on DOS runs much deeper.  In fact, I say the
: dependence runs down to the CORE of windows itself.
:

Absolutely incorrect.  You have no basis for saying this.  Windows certainly
contains code which allows it to co-reside with the original copy of DOS which
loaded it, but while it runs, DOS is dormant, and practically no DOS code is
being used.

: Greg
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+