From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: Gates Interview
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:39:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.030952.12486@dmp.csiro.au>, lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

>  
> I'm not saying I agree with the above opinions, but if you
> tally up all small costs? (harddisk, motherboard)
> due to upgrades to 100 or so 
> computers you are looking at a big cost on the books.
> And that is what the accountants look at, not the 
> hidden costs of people having to wait 10 or 30 more
> seconds to get a printout or have a screen refresh. 

During the recent conflict in the Gulf there was a quote from one of the
generals to the effect that 'amateurs talk about strategy, professionals
talk about logistics'. I've always been amazed at how many bean counters
only look at the monetary cost but not the time required for training and
conversion.  I always try to convert the cost to something of meaning to
the individual making the decision.  For instance, I can put 486/33s on
everyones' desk for about what it costs to add one additional person to 
our staff.  Then they can decide whether the switch from 386/20s with small
hard drives to 486/33 with larger drives can be reasonably expected to pay
for itself in a reasonable period of time.

>  
> I quite like Windows and the apps but it is the problem
> with upgrades.  What type of PC are we going to need to run
> the next Windows for DOS upgrade - 500Meg hard-disk 32 Meg of
> RAM?  And the problem is we will just be doing the same old
> things that older versions of Windows did with
> less computer power.  This implies that MS is hiding bad
> code behind the ever increasing speed and size of PC's and
> hard-disks.

I don't know that its ever been proven that Microsoft's code is
bloated.  A lot of the increasing disk requirement comes from the
addition of additional add-ons and tutorial materials.  For instance,
Word for Windows takes up 15Mb of disk space, but if you don't install
the spelling checker, thesauris, tutorial materials and the dozen to
twenty different format converters the disk space is more like 4Mb. 

I tried Windows 3.0 on a 386/16 and it was barely usable but Windows 3.1
has been doing just fine.  For about 1.5 Mb of disk space I got a faster
product (I believe it also consumes less memory) with OLE, Truetype font
support and much more stable network support.  Not bad for about $5
worth of disk space.


> Personally, I would like to flame the 640k limitation of
> DOS rather than what Gates is waffling on about.  This is
> why I am trying to goto OS/2.  I know it needs heaps of disk
> space, but it has a reputation of running applications fast,
> and giving me all my memory.  if anyone knows different
> please say so.  

What exactly do you mean by giving you 'all of your memory'?  Windows
doesn't place any significant limit on memory usage for Windows software.
Its my understanding that any compatible memory extender can be used
withing a DOS window to provide memory past 640K. OS/2 isn't going to
give your DOS applications more than 640K within a DOS window; afterall,
the underlying binary was compiled for the 20-bit address space and the
OS can't change that. 

--rick

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy