From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sin et al
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:47:59 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <kevinc.727732062@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>I did not say that people do not NEED multitasking: I said that PEOPLE 
>>didn't [conciously] multitask.  Before a GUI allowed an intuitive interface
>>to do so, multitasking was complicated on a PC; constantly switching
>>entire screens, losing track about what was actually running (ps -x, anyone?),
>>having poor or nonexistent methods to transfer data from one application
>>to another...
>
>Now wait a moment Joe. I certainly consciously attempted to multitask
>using DOS on a PC since PC's came out. 

Conciously "Attempting to multitask" and "consiously multitasking" are
two different things.  Many people _tried_ to multitask on early operating
systems (ala Desqview) and found that it was lacking.  The reasons usually
given were (from a client who had me install, then deinstall Desqview
circa 1989)--poor interface (looking at an 80x25 screen through a 10x10
"window" was for the birds) and lack of compatibility.  But mind you, the
applications that this client ran WAS HIGHLY STABLE.  I would daresay,
even more stable than Windows 3.1.  It was when trying to run programs
that utilized graphics modes that Desqview fell short... and he did not
do this often.

I too thought the same thing: it wasn't the stability that disenchanted me
about desqview... it was the kludgy way of switching windows, or cut and
pasting text, or viewing a screen... in short, I wanted to multitask, but
the multitasking environment at that time was UNCOMFORTABLE.


>I was never very happy with only
>doing one thing at a time. I was always very frustrated. When Ms
>announced Windows 3.0 and that it could multitask I was really
>thrilled. 

So you didn't try Desqview?  And if you did, why didn't you use it?  It
was, by far, a better "multitasker" than Windows 3.0.

>I ran out and bought a copy. I very quickly became very
>frustrated again because the manner in which Ms implemented
>multitasking in windows 3.0 was incredibly bad - FOR ME! When IBM came
>out with OS/2 2.0 and said that it had multitasking I didn't run out
>and get it (actually I won it at a computer show). However, since I had
>it, I installed it tried to do my kind of multitasking. I was very
>pleasantly surprised that I could actually do more than one thing at a
>time when I wanted to do my tasks.

Again, many people I know find OS/2 and Windows' multitasking useful because
of the interface.  In other words, I stand by what I said: the GUI is what
made multitasking useful for the ordinary person--hence both IBM and
Microsoft put great effort in developing and marketing the MMI.

Try this: without using multiple windows, or mouse movements (or PM or
WPS, etc.) see how useful multitasking under OS/2 or Windows is...
not very, is it (unless you're a programmer, then multithreading is
a definitely useful thing--that is still somewhat "invisible" to the
secretary)?

>
>For me, IBM's implementation of multitasking was what won my loyalty. I
>have some problems with MS becasue thier version didn't solve my
>problem. Now they claim that their new product Windows NT 1.0 (I don't
>care what the marketing droids want to call it - it's still the first
>release of a new product, from my perspective) is so much better.
>Unfortunately, once burned twice shy!

I do not believe that NT will be technologically better or more
stable than OS/2.  But I believe that there is a good possibility that
NT may become more popular than OS/2.  And with popularity comes 
applications... and with applications, more popularity.

I too will not buy NT until I see it and know it will work for me.

>
>Networking is my other burning desire. But I had that with DOS and
>Windows and OS/2. I have trouble seeing how NT is going to make my life
>better. 

Networking is an integral part of my home office.  It was the main 
reason why I chose NOT to use OS/2 (my networking operations would
require a major redesign for little or no _visible_ benefit).  NT may
or may not be able to drop into my operations... and only when it 
becomes released will we ever really know.

>
>Kevin
>--
>Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
>kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA

Joe
My opinions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy