From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Gates Interview - 640k Limit
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec17.054715.28689@dmp.csiro.au>, lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:
> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:
>  
> >In article <1992Dec11.030952.12486@dmp.csiro.au>, lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:
>  
> [stuff deleted]
>  
> >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.
>  
> Have you tried running Windows with your machine stuffed
> full of network drivers high and low giving you only
> ~500k of memory.  Both my work and home PC's are 486-33s.

My work machine is a 386/20 with 8 megs.  We're running PathWorks 4.1
with all but 35K of the drivers loaded into umbs leaving me with
around 570K free.  I haven't noticed any big difference in speed when
I'm accessing files locally.  Things crawl when I have to get something
off the network, but that is also true under DOS.
>  
> The 640k limit for DOS isn't just about 
> the maximum memory DOS applications
> will run in but how much of the 640k memory you can "get"
> to run your applications in.                           
>  
> On a vanilla machine you can get around 620k of application memory.
> Start adding a network in and you might be lucky to get
> 400 to 500k of application memory.  You can start loading TSR's
> high but working out the order they are most stable
> in can take quite a few months and your system can
> still be flakey.     

Like I said, with QEMM in Stealth mode I have around 570K free with 
the network drivers loaded. With additional keyboard drivers, drivers
for screen savers, mail notification, etc I have 12 to 14 TSRs or
device drivers loaded at any one time.  It took 1/2 day with many
cold boots to find a stable combination.  After that the system has
locked up once in 6 months.  The MicroVax on the other side of the room
took a hike during the same weekend so I suspect a power problem rather
than a Windows problem.

>  
> While the "present" DOS apps may be limited to the 640k
> limit, is their any technical reason why the DOS kernel and
> TSRs "have" to be limited to either the first 640k
> or polluting system the area between 640k and 1 Meg?

Most of my DOS kernel is loaded high with some shared data areas in
low memory. Some of my TSRs are also loaded either high or in EMS memory
with only a small stub program in lower memory.  There is a 
straightforward solution under DOS which some vendors have implimented,
and some haven't.  Seems it would be more productive to ask the 
specific vendor why their driver can't relocate itself into extended
memory than to blame Microsoft for the problem.

>  
> You mention Windows being the cure for these problems.
> But are you forgetting the main advantage of DOS
> is its wide application base.  One problem at the moment
> is that quite a few really good DOS apps are being wrecked
> when transferred to windows (Lotus Freelance is a good
> example).  Thus users will still want to use
> DOS apps even if there is a Windows equivalent.

I don't have any applications that I can run under DOS in 585K
that I can't run in DOS in 570K except for PERL/386 and that is
an issue of VCPI vs DPMI memory management issue that has little
to do with Windows. The 10K or so over overhead for a DOS box is
only a third of the 35K of low memory that my Ethernet driver uses. 

When I need more memory, I bag the network not Windows.  BTW, when I
get around to upgrading to WorkGroups, I can use the 32-bit mode
drivers which are loaded completely out of the first meg of memory.


>  
> While this may only be a short term problem
> are you forgetting the most important class of
> softare  that is going strong in DOS and not
> being ported to windows.
>  
> - You must know the prime reason for the existance of the PC -
>  
> - which by your naive support for the forces of darkness -
>  
> - may now be threatened?
>  
> (WARNING - I KNOW THE FOLLOWING IS PRETTY STUPID - BUT THAT HAS NEVER
> STOPPED ME BEFORE)
>  
> What is the most important use of the PC?  What type of
> software is so important that no HOME PC
> can be without it - 
>  
> - YES THE GAMES!!!           

Now that we are finally getting something that looks like a
multimedia standard, I suspect that there will be some real
interesting games coming down the line.

>  
> Lets not get lost with this trivial work-related guff, we all
> know its the games that count.  (You want to do serious stuff?
> Haven't you heard of UNIX?)

I've used UNIX extensively and I have have a lot of time invested in
learning the system layout to write reasonable software under UNIX --
not to mention the time required to learn the administrative ins and
outs.  I don't like the idea of taking the time to retool for working
under Windows but I don't see any choice. Some applications that we
need aren't available under UNIX or are available at an extremely high
price.


>  
> Would you put an OS on your system that meant you had
> to junk your DOS games in the garbage - that you couldn't
> buy the new "major" games that are being released.

After several days of Christmas shopping I've noticed that the fact
that Nintendo isn't compatible doesn't seem to have bother too many
of the parents I've run across.

>  
> IBM has brains with OS/2.  They know the really
> important programs have to run in DOS.  If Wing
> Commander V? is too slow in OS/2, a dual boot
> will have it running nicely under DOS.

Dual boot under Windows 3.1 is kind of a no brainer, wouldn't you
say :-)

>  
> Also:-
> If Windows for DOS is here to stay, why should games
> companies bother making both a Windows and a DOS
> version.  All PCs with Windows 3.1 run DOS but not visa-versa.
> And that is especially so on HOME PCs.               

I've got too many non-computer friends with computers running Windows
who have no idea of what DOS is or does.  If it doesn't run under
Windows, they can't use it.  This is where the home market is going!
As for business use -- we aren't buying any new DOS applications, period.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy