Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    >Can this be the begining of the end for AMIGA, and maybe even
     Macintosh?
    
     I havn't seen it running yet, but have read enough reviews etc to
     conclude that especially APPLE have been to slow. If they had released
     a low end affordable colour MAC in time it would have taken some of
    the wind out of this release -- to late. Both APPLE and AMIGA I reckon
    are bound to be hit hard by W3.0
    
    Dom

    	W 3.0 will be more of a problem for the Mac than the Amiga,
    initially. It can do many of the things an Amiga can do - some of
    them better - but it seems to be able to do things that many Macs
    cannot. The Amiga still has an edge in a number of areas, enough
    to hold on if CBM is willing to push for a fix. The longer CBM waits
    to respond to this, the more likely they will go under. Apple will
    be hurting immediatly but has enough of a cushion that they are
    more likely to survive if their response is quick enough.

It has real multitasking, ala Amiga ?

My only observation is that you need a pretty powerful PC to run it all, which
equates to fairly expensive. So that's fine for a bunch of serious computerists
or professional users, but what about the lower end of the market place ?

Of course the hardware gets cheaper as time goes by, and maybe Microsoft will
release an updated version later which is better optimised (like V2 of 
DECwindows).

So, now maybe we have an alternative for our Amigas if Commodore should happen
to fail to respond to the challenge (heretic he hears them cry !)

Mike

P.S. I still prefer my Ami.

    It doesn't cost $149, seems like a lot of places are discounting it
    to $99.  Upgrade from the previous release is $49.
    
    It looks like Microsoft is very serious about trying to make this a
    new standard.  According to one of the announcements, a number of ibmpc
    clone vendors will be including it with their systems - Commodore and
    Atari are in that list.  I hope the AmigaDOS 2.0 folks get a good look
    at the competition.
    
    But hey, it isn't the end of the world.  Look at it as a way to make
    the AT bridgeboard more useful :-)  Also remember that Windows 3.0
    just shipped, so this is a period of optimism.  NAC::IBMPC should
    have news about how compatible it is with existing applications fairly
    soon. 
    
     -Dave

    From a potential buyer of either system, this seems mighty impressive, 
    yes, mighty impressive indeed!
    
    (P.S. If you all have seen this already, let me know.  I'll delete
    it.)
    
    Betty
    

                 <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MSWINDOWS.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Microsoft 'Tiled' Windows >-
================================================================================
Note 339.11                       WINDOWS V3.0                          11 of 25
WCW::WHITNEY "Classy node names are hard to come b" 414 lines  23-MAY-1990 08:46
                             -< A review from MIT >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 2086 of comp.windows.ms:
Path: ryn.esg.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!e2big.dec.com!decuac!haven!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!mikew
From: [email protected] (Michael B Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Review of the New Windows 3.0
Keywords: microsoft windows review
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 23 May 90 03:32:44 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 195

I'm sure a lot of you have been itching to know more about the new
Windows 3.0.  I've been working with it for a few weeks, and I'm
writing a review of it for the next issue of the MIT PS/2 & PC
Users Group Newsletter.  I thought I'd upload it for those who are
interested.  Please note that permission is granted to use this
material, provided that the copyright notice is displayed. --MBW

Windows 3 is here!
By Michael B. Williams

Copyright 1990 by Michael B. Williams and the MIT PS/2 & PC
Users Group

Whether you're a DOS command-line purist, an OS/2 convert,
Macintosh user, or a part-time GUI user, the new Windows 3.0 will
have a dramatic effect on you.

The first group, the fast-typing command-line purists, won't even
consider mousing around with a slow, memory-hogging GUI (graphical
user interface) such as those offered by the popular DOS word
processor Microsoft Word and the painting program PC Paintbrush.

OS/2 converts, on the other hand, are power users who welcome the
processing power of Microsoft's multitasking operating system--and
can afford to pay dearly for a machine capable of running it.  OS/2
users, like Jaguar owners willing to drive a hundred miles to the
nearest dealer, are attracted to OS/2's power more than its
practicality.

The last group is by far the largest, in part because there has
been no other practical choice.  These users have been resigned to
work with character-based programs for spreadsheets and text
processing, reserving graphical software for projects that involve
drawing and desktop publishing.

If you're in this last group, then Windows 3.0 was designed for
you.  Once a slow, unattractive GUI with limited appreciation for
the desktop metaphor, the newest version of Windows can
dramatically improve your productivity by providing an easy-to-use
interface across all your applications and allowing you to switch
effortlessly among them.

For the other groups, Windows 3.0 is bad news.  The command-line
purists who have been courting DOS over the last decade are sure to
worry when they discover that their ability to remember and recall
arcane DOS commands no longer impresses their co-workers as it used
to.

OS/2 users may feel a lull coming on as the new Windows takes much
of the wind out of their sails.  Windows 3.0 offers most of the
advantages of OS/2 and Presentation Manager, and Windows can
actually run multiple DOS applications concurrently--something that
OS/2 can't do in its current incarnation.

Macintosh users, who have been enjoying a fast, easy-to-use GUI for
six years now, are probably wondering what's so special about
Windows 3.0.  The answer: an installed base of millions of
PC-compatible machines, most of which are powerful enough to run
Windows.  Already, a number of Macintosh software developers have
begun working on versions for the Windows environment.  (Look for
Wingz, a popular Mac spreadsheet, in the months ahead.)  Before
long, the primary advantage of the Macintosh--its common graphical
user interface--may be history.

Why does Windows 3.0 have the power to accomplish what Windows 2
failed to do?  Previous versions of Windows suffered from poor
memory management, an unattractive interface, and a lack of
graphical features such as icons.  Windows also demands
high-resolution displays, several megabytes of memory (and disk
space), and a fast processor in order to be usable.  Only in recent
years have such machines become widely affordable.

Painless Installation and Setup

The Windows 2 installation program has long been a sore point among
its users.  It's slow (the entire process can take 20 minutes),
sloppy (it clobbers your PIF files and any previous customizations
to WIN.INI), and redundant:  You have to go through the whole
sordid installation procedure each time you add or change a video
or system driver.

The installation of Windows 3.0 is a exciting by comparison.  The
setup program, which occupies the first of six 5.25" high-density
diskettes, is divided into two parts: a character-based setup and
a graphical setup.  The first part, which is entirely text based,
determines your machine's graphics adapter, mouse, keyboard, and
any necessary machine-specific compatibility fixes.  The program
also warns you if you have less than the suggested amount of free
space (4.5 MB for the 286 version, and 6.3 MB for the 386 version).

The rest of the installation is completed in graphics mode. The
installation program, called Windows Setup, polls your machine and
asks you to verify information about your computer's resources
(such as what type of printer you have and whether you'll be
running Windows on a network) and prompts you to insert the
remaining disks according to your selections.  A bar chart
graphically shows the percentage of the installation that has been
completed so far, and a help window remains on the screen at all
times to advise you on your selections.

If you desire, you can have Windows Setup run the Control Panel so
you can configure your printer.  (You can delay this step, but
Windows Setup provides you with step-by-step instructions that the
Control Panel lacks.)

In addition to being helpful, Windows Setup is a gentleman:  Unlike
many programs which clobber your CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files,
Setup proposes changes to these files in an on-screen text editor. 
You can then edit the changes as you see fit.

Automatic Setup of DOS Apps

You can have Setup scan your disk for DOS applications that it
recognizes, and Setup will create PIF's (Program Information Files)
for them, attach appropriate icons to them (such as a telephone for
ProComm), and place them in a ``program group'' for you (program
groups are explained below).

Once Windows has been installed, you won't need the text-based
installation module again.  You need only rerun Windows Setup to
install an updated video driver, change your keyboard or mouse
type, or rescan your hard disk for new applications.

The improved Windows installation program, especially the Windows
Setup after-installation utility, is impressive--but it's only a
start.

No More Color Clash

The first thing you'll notice when you run Windows 3.0 is the new,
Motif-inspired windowing design and Macintosh-like icons of the
Windows Program Manager.  The Program Manager is a utility for
organizing applications in ``program groups'' similar to the way
Mac visually organizes files into folders.  Like the Mac's folders,
program groups contain icons that represent files.  But unlike
folders, program groups are abstract collections of programs and
data files (termed ``program items'') that have no relation to the
physical location of the files on disk.

Windows Setup creates at least four program groups for you. The
Main program group contains seven program items: the Program
Manager, File Manager, Control Panel, Clipboard, Recorder (a macro
recorder), Setup, and the DOS Prompt (command interpreter).

The Accessories program group contains supplemental Windows tools,
such as a PIF editor, Paintbrush (a Windows version of PC
Paintbrush), Notepad (a limited text editor), Write (a limited word
processor), Cardfile (a limited database), Calendar (an appointment
program), a very capable terminal emulator, an analog/digital
clock, and a useful scientific calculator.

Setup also creates a third program group, Windows Applications, for
any extra Windows applications it finds on your hard disk, and a
fourth group, Non-Windows Applications, for familiar DOS
applications.  The proper path, PIF, and icon settings are
determined by Setup, so you need take no extra steps to run these
programs.

Assign Icons to DOS Programs

You can easily add new applications by specifying the command line
needed to run the program and providing a short description that
appears below the icon.  You add data files in a similar manner, so
that when you double-click on the icon, the data file is loaded
along with the corresponding application.  The Program Manager
assigns the program item a default icon, but you can choose from
nine other icons stored in the WINFILE.EXE program itself as well
as an icon from any Windows .EXE file.

The Program Manager provides menu functions for adding, deleting,
or moving program items and groups and for automatically tiling or
cascading the program groups or aligning their icons when
minimized.  In a salute to the object-oriented GUI, the Program
Manager allows you to move a program item from one program group to
another by clicking on the item and dragging it to the other group. 
(You perform the analogous copy operation by holding down the CTRL
key while dragging the item.)

You can configure the Program Manager so that it automatically
minimizes itself when a program is launched and retains its shape
and position from one Windows session to the next.

File Manager Supplants Executive

Any longings for the old Windows Executive might be satisfied by
the new File Manager, which provides support for files that aren't
part of a program group.  But instead of a list of files, the File
Manager shows a tree of the subdirectories on your hard disk. 
Double-clicking on a subdirectory expands the directory's contents
into a window of files along with their size, time of last
modification, and attributes.

You can vary the order in which the listing appears and select
which file information is included.  You also can choose to view
the directory in lower case or display a status bar showing the
total size of all currently selected files.  (You select multiple
files with SHIFT-click; unfortunately, you can't select files by
sweeping with the mouse.)

The File Manager isn't at a loss for icons, although they are much
less pervasive than in the Program Manger. Subdirectories are
denoted by a folder icon, programs by a screen icon (which looks
like a screen with a menu bar), and text files with a document
icon.  Other file types use a generic icon.

As with the Program Manger, you can move and copy individual files
(or groups of files) by dragging with the mouse, and you can launch
applications by double-clicking on a program or one of its data
files.

Push-button Control Panel

The menus of the familiar Control Panel have been supplemented with
a dozen or so colorful icons that represent categories in which you
can customize Windows.  The usual means of installing printers and
changing mouse sensitivities are there, as well as a few new
faculties, such as network and limited sound support.

The color customization is greatly improved.  A set of 11
predefined color schemes (including some undoubtedly designed by
the Windows 2 crew) with names such as Bordeaux to Pastel is
included, but you can create your own schemes and call them
anything you wish.

You have a choice of 48 well-coordinated basic colors, and you can
add 16 of your own liking from a palette of a seemingly endless
range of shades.  The palette lets you specify 256 levels each of
red, green, and blue, as well as 240 degrees each of hue,
saturation, and luminescence.

The Control Panel as added a few conveniences to font support as
well:  Now you can view the fonts installed in your system in
addition to adding and deleting them.  Windows supplies the usual
bit-mapped versions of Courier, Helv (a Helvetica clone) and Tms
Rmn (a Times clone) and adds a bit-mapped version of Symbol as
well.  The scalable fonts are the same Roman, Script, and Modern
that we're used to.

But the most interesting addition to the Control Panel is within
the Desktop icon.  As you might expect, you can change the cursor
blink rate, the border width, the icon spacing, and the granularity
of the invisible grid on which you position windows.

You can also change the pattern or image on the desktop.  Windows
supplies 12, 8 x 8 bit-mapped background patterns (with names such
as diamonds, paisley, quilt, and weave), but you can create and
save your own with the built-in pattern editor.

More impressive is the selection of bit-mapped color graphics that
you can display on the desktop.  If you have seen the bitmaps that
some Project Athena users display on their workstations and wished
that you could do the same, you've been granted your wish.  Windows
installs seven sample .BMP files to choose from (including an
impressive 3-D chess bitmap), and any of these can be centered or
tiled on the desktop.  The last Windows disk (untouched by the
installation program) contains a few more, and you can create your
own using the Windows Paintbrush program.  You can also use
Paintbrush to load .PCX files and save them again in the .BMP
format required by Windows.

If you're running in 386 Enhanced mode (see below), there is an
icon on the Control Panel labelled ``386 Enhanced.''  You use this
module to specify how to distribute system resources such as
communications ports, printer ports, and processing time.  You can
specify the priority of Windows applications over DOS applications
(or vice versa) as well as the minimum time slice for either.

Installable Help System

All of the Windows tools provide non-context-sensitive help via the
Windows Help program, which is a separate utility that provides
generous text-presentation capabilities. Each Windows tool comes
with a .HLP file that is fed to Windows Help.  You can also load
.HLP files as you would with any program.

Windows Help displays five icons, labelled Index, Back, Browse
(backward), Browse (forward), and Search, that resemble somewhat
the buttons of a cassette player.  (The Back button is a departure
from this metaphor, containing cutely drawn footsteps in retreat.)

Windows Help contains a thoughtful annotate feature that provides
a place to jot down notes that are helpful to you.  You can
annotate any help screen, which is then marked with a paper clip
icon; clicking on the paper clip retrieves the notes.

Compatibility Suffers in Protected Mode

Windows 3.0 is a departure from previous incarnations in that it
supports three modes of operation:

Real mode is analogous to the operation of Windows/286.  All
programs (including Windows applications) are restricted by DOS'
640 KB memory limit.

Standard mode takes advantage of the larger memory space of the 286
processor, allowing Windows applications to address up to 16 MB. 
DOS applications are still limited by the DOS address space (but
can still take advantage of expanded memory).  Unlike Windows/286,
Windows 3.0 cannot run even well-behaved DOS applications (such as
COMMAND.COM) in a window while operating in Standard mode.

386 Enhanced mode uses the 386 to allow multitasking of DOS
applications.  Unlike Standard mode, 386 Enhanced mode lets you run
DOS applications (including those that write directly to screen
memory) in a window.

The Standard and 386 Enhanced modes use a memory scheme that
differs from that used in previous versions of Windows.  Because of
this change, many Windows applications won't run correctly (if at
all) under Windows 3.0.  If you try to run a Windows application
that was not written to execute under version 3.0, Windows will
display a message to this effect and allow you to abort the
request.

Unfortunately, most programs will need to be updated in order to
run correctly, and some developers have already planned upgrades. 
The developer of CorelDRAW! has indicated that version 1.2, to have
been announced with the introduction of Windows 3.0 on May 22, will
support the new Windows.

One program that does run is Microsoft Word for Windows 1.0, which
was written with Windows 3.0 in mind (and won't display a warning). 
Smaller Windows applications, such as GCP 4.20 (a graphics viewer)
and Tiffany 1.01 (a screen capture utility) also run under Windows
3.0.

If the applications that you use, won't run, you have two
alternatives:

Invoke Windows with the /R switch, which runs Windows in real mode. 
Your applications will run, but you'll be forsaking the large
memory space offered in Standard mode (which you may not need
anyway.)

If you're using a 386 and you still want to be able to multitask
DOS operations, it is possible (indeed, practical) to run another
real-mode copy of Windows 3.0 while you're in 386 Enhanced mode. 
(This actually works quite well, and for maximum effect, the second
copy of Windows runs about the same speed as Windows/286!)

Minor Improvements

A host of minor improvements is sprinkled throughout Windows 3.0.

The Terminal program now supports the ASCII, X-modem, and Kermit
download protocols.  You can assign macros to any of eight function
keys and change the font in which the text is displayed.  Modem
commands are configurable, and Hayes, MultiTech, and TrailBlazer
modems are supported directly.

The Calculator offers both a standard (``four-function'') mode and
a mode that contains most of the functions of a
statistical/scientific calculator.

The Clipboard can display text using various fonts and can save
clippings in a proprietary .CLP format.

The Print Spooler (renamed the Print Manager) can alert you when a
file is being sent to a printer, keep a record of the files
printed, and manage a networked printer.

The Clock has a digital setting in addition to the analog view.

Bugs and Features

As with any program that has been subject to a major overhaul,
Windows 3.0 has its quirks (and bugs).

Notepad files are still limited to approximately 48K of text (a
ridiculously small amount considering the 16 MB address space of
standard mode operation).  Realistically, you'll be limited to much
less than this, because Notepad becomes more sluggish as the file
gets bigger.  A bug in the program tends to produce a ``File is too
large for Notepad'' error when you attempt to load a file
significantly larger than the one you were previously editing.

The File Manager reads a tree of your directories every time you
run it.  While this takes only a few seconds the first time, the
delay seems to increase in direct proportion to the number of times
you have to sit through it.  The File Manager should instead save
the tree for use in subsequent sessions.

Conclusions

The above quirks, however, are too minor to dwell on.  Windows 3.0
is a robust, mature operating environment that has an excellent
chance at becoming the de facto standard on IBM PC-compatible
personal computers.  Its speed rivals that of OS/2, its looks match
those of the Macintosh, and it has more compatible applications
that both combined.  If the computer for the rest of us turns out
to be an IBM PC compatible, then it must be one running Windows
3.0.

                                                     ___
Michael B. Williams		      |	       /|  /|   )|  /|  /   
Room 527			      |	      / | / |--< | / | /   
Laboratory for Computer Science	      |	     /  |/  |___)|/  |/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology |	Internet: [email protected]
545 Technology Square		      |	CompuServe: 73667,3264
Cambridge, MA 02139		      |	AT&T: (617) 253-6015


    

    Keep in mind, there have been many attempts in the past to move MS-DOS
    customers to a MS-Windows enviornment.  It will be interesting to watch
    what happens now.  Alot of the really nice features of MS-Windows 3.0
    are only available on the 386SX or 386 systems.  Given an installed
    base of over 50 million systems, most of which aren't 386's, the
    marketing campaign should be a wonder to see.
    
    However, that will change over time since 386SX systems have dropped to
    about $2000 for a clone system+disk+video+monitor capable of running
    MS-Windows 3.0.  It makes the Amiga 2000HD seem way overpriced...
    
    Of course, this isn't X-Windows compatible...but that's another fun
    battle on the way.
    
    regards,
    dennis

    
    In the latest Computer Shopper there is a review of the Mac IIfx.  In
    the review, the author praises the Amiga for it's use of coprocessors
    and it's efficient kernal which permits preemptive multitasking on a
    mere 512 K machine.
    
    The reviewer states that Windows 3.0 does _not_ have preemptive
    multitasking.
    
    Is this a handicap?  In what ways?
    
    Ed.
    

	RE .7
    
>    The reviewer states that Windows 3.0 does _not_ have preemptive
>    multitasking.
    
>    Is this a handicap?  In what ways?

    
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Windows 3 doesn't have real good multitasking
.
.
.
Date: 25 Jun 90 11:05:06 GMT
.
.
. 
With Windows 3.0 appearing people, especially reporters in computer
magazines (and among them mostly those who do not know much about
computers) were SO HAPPY about the new multitasking which is now
available to MS-DOS programs and that now OS/2 is no longer needed :-).
 
But if you look closer, you don't really get good multitasking, that
means, no useful scheduling. First of all, you have to enable the
background check box in the settings for the program (either system menu
or PIF file) to get "some kind of background activity".
 
But not all programs will run correctly in this mode. For example, open
a command window and start the Landmark speed test in it. (Of course
this is no real useful program, just an example). Now, when you switch
to another window, you will see it aborting with internal error (at
least, my version did so) and perhaps get a message box with "Program
has violated system integrity ...".
 
Now I tried a real useful background job. I compiled a medium size C
program, linked it and bound it. I used the family mode versions of the
MS C 5.1 compiler, the linker and bind utilities and my compiler shell
(something like make). I ran this test in forground (as the only
process) and in the background with a single Microsoft Editor in
foreground where I was looking at a file and somtimes paging through it.
I ran this test exactly similar under OS/2 1.2, with exactly the same
programs. I have a 386/24MHz with 8MB and used 2MB disk cache under DOS
and 1M cache under OS/2. Windows ran in 386 enhanced mode.
 
Here are the timing results for this compiler job:
 
- OS/2 1.2, compiler job in foreground, 
  editor in background:				49 seconds
 
- OS/2 1.2, compiler job in background, 
  working editor in foreground:			53 s
 
- Windows 3.0, compiler job in foreground, 
  editor in background:				57 s
 
- Windows 3.0, compiler job in background, 
  working editor in foreground:
  - background priority 50 (standard value)	142 s	<----
  - background priority 100 			115 s	<----
 
You see, even the foreground compile under Windows is slower than the
background compile under OS/2 and the background compile is useless
under Windows 3.0.
 
Now guess why I switched to OS/2 (bought it in April at a Computerland
store in the US for $280 including tax - no big difference to DOS 4.0 +
Windows 3.0). 
 
Also, remember that Windows 3.0 uses real 386 capabilities for its
"multitasking" where OS/2 1.2 is still a plain 286 operating system.
 
Summary: 
-------- 
You will NEVER be able to do real useful multitasking with MS-DOS
applications since most of them are - for this purpose - ill-behaved.
They mostly poll their input sources, keyboard, mouse and perhaps
communication ports too. Of course, if one writes such an application
for OS/2 with polling (I did this when I started to program OS/2) he
will seriously degrade system performance. But you are forced to write
well-behaved OS/2 programs since no one will buy the other ones. But
under MS-DOS most (interactive) programs are still written in this
manner (except clean Windows applications).
 
That means the multitasker has to be aware of such programs and cannot
even run well-behaved programs (like the above compiler job) with good
performance in background.
 
Windows 3.0 is still a very good environment - for Windows applications
and if you don't need efficient scheduling but only task switching, lets
call it "multiprogramming". May be that's what the average users (office
users, for example) need - not many people can work with more than about
two INTERACTIVE programs at one time. But programmers need more often
background jobs - at least, they use it when they have the ability to do
so. 
 
Even with Windows 3.0 available it is worth to test if OS/2 is a better
solution for your needs (I am NOT employed by Microsoft/IBM/... :-) ...
 
 
Kai Uwe Rommel
Munich
[email protected]

Re: .7

>    The reviewer states that Windows 3.0 does _not_ have preemptive
>    multitasking. ...  Is this a handicap?  In what ways?

Both Windows and the Mac's MultiFinder do not have preemptive multitasking.
This is a handicap, but the degree of the handicap is a function of
the applications used.

Both Windows and MultiFinder are sitting on top of operating system
kernels that were not designed with multitasking in mind.  Both have the
problem that it may be dangerous to interrupt a program at an arbitrary
point, because it may be executing system code or modifying the system in
a way that would confuse the operating system terribly.  The solution
adopted by Windows and MultiFinder was to only perform a task switch
when the program was in a known good state: when the program made a
particular sort of system call.  Under windows, I believe, task
switching takes place when a program asks for I/O.  Under MultiFinder,
the task switch takes place when a program calls the system routine
that allows desk accessories to run.

If the applications that you are trying to multitask do the right things
(call the system at the appropriate times), the multitasking will seem
smooth and effective.  If the applications that you are trying to run
do not do the right things, the multitasking will be jerky to non-existent
(tasks will freeze for long periods of time).

Under both Windows and MultiFinder, the applications that most naturally
multitask well are highly interactive tasks like editors or spreadsheets
(those applications are constantly making the appropriate system calls
to allow task switching naturally).  The applications that don't
naturally multitask well are compute-intensive programs like compilers
or ray-tracing programs because they don't make the appropriate system
calls very often.  However, nothing prevents the author of those
programs from going out of the way to insert "gratuitous" system calls
to allow task switching.  But, it is more work for the programmer.

On occasion, I use the C++ compiler on the Mac here in TLE.  The C++
in question is a port of ATT's cfront by Apple.  The compiler doesn't
do the right things to enable task switching, and everything else
on the system freezes while the compiler is running (and this compiler
is even an Apple product!)

The true situation isn't that pc operating systems aren't multitasking:
even the earliest versions of MS/DOS and the Finder had some degree
of multitasking: printer spoolers, TSRs, and desk accessories are too
useful not to have.  It's just that the support wasn't designed in
well and required the programmer to jump through hoops when writing
one of those "special" concurrent programs.  Both Windows and MultiFinder
are a big improvement on what preceded them on their platforms, but at
best, they just clever kludges.  Either one of them would get their author
a failing grade in an operating systems class in college.

	Some more info about programming with MSW 3.0 -- The Software 
	Development Kit necessary to write *any* windows applications
	costs about $300 from MicroSoft.  And that's in addition to
	the cost of a special C compiler/linker.  Pretty pricey just
	to get on the air...

	-Art

    I went down to the Software Shop in Worcester today. Visited with
Moe for quite a while since he is in the middle of the "summer slump"
and  was  not very busy. He told me how impressed he was with Windows
3.0 and gave me a demo. 4 of 9 programs bombed with  internal  errors
or  other  obscure  problems. There were additional problems with not
enough memory to open the control panel on  his  Compaq  386/20  with
bunches of memory free (at least 3 meg).

    I  was  not  very impressed and feel the PC's heritage is causing
severe problems though the obsession of "bug-for-bug"  compatibility.
These kinds of weights dragging the PC down are a major problem for
that market.

    This  also  relates  to  another  note about slowdown programs. I
think this just encourages poor  programing  practices  and  prevents
significant improvements from being made cleanly from great fear that
something  that  was  not  supposed to be used may change and break a
program.

	-SES

    Steve, W 3.0 may have unimpressive performance by _Amiga_ standards,
    but what's important is that millions and millions (and millions) of PC
    owners (and potential PC owners) think that it's on a par with the
    invention of the wheel.  As has been said before, something doesn't
    exist until the IBM/Microsoft world says so.  Well, the world's first
    multitasking GUI for personal computers has just arrived.   
                                            
    Its visually striking, appears to multitask well, and is breaking all
    sales records.
    
    Also, I wouldn't bet that Moe had the software installed correctly;
    I've seen W 3.0 perform sluggishly on a 16 MHz 386SX with a ton of
    memory and a Quantum HD, but perform much faster on a bare 12 MHz 286. 
    Go figure.
    
    Ed - still predicting the demise of the Mac and Amiga (sigh) due to W 3.0
    

>    Ed - still predicting the demise of the Mac and Amiga (sigh) due to W 3.0

    C'mon Ed, you sound like you're losing faith! The Amiga would never
    have made it this far if it didn't have so much to offer. It's not
    without troubles, but where else you gonna get more bang for the buck?
    And what about all the faithful owners who have been through bleaker
    times? I can't see all of them changing just because the tough kids in
    the neighborhood are cruising around in a shiny new car. Think about
    it; who in their right mind pays $200 or so to get a windowing
    environment that's layered on top of a lame OS? When you buy an Amiga,
    you get a GUI designed-in; for no extra charge. Maybe Ami will never
    have a strong hold in the business world, but who cares? There's enough
    non-conformists in the world to keep Microsoft from conquering the
    world.

    Petey - still predicting CP/M to be the OS of the future

    
    No, I don't think that current Amiga owners will jump ship; I just
    believe that the rate of growth of new Amiga users will level off and
    then begin to decline.
    
    Here's the sad truth...  there's something like 50 million MS-DOS
    computers in the world versus 1-1.5 million Amigas.  You can already
    see the effects of this:  There was a time when developers would ALWAYS
    do the Amiga version of a game first.  Now they seem to do the MS-DOS
    version first and then port to the Amiga.  I predict that soon it
    won't even be worth the effort to do an Amiga port.  Needless to say,
    mainstream developers will continue to completely ignore Amiga.
    
    As far as bang for the buck goes, yes, the A3000 seems like a pretty
    good value.  But consider that one can buy an 8 MIPS 33 MHz 80386
    machine with graphics that the A3000 can only dream about (like 1024 x
    768 in 256 colors), 4 MB RAM, and a 160 MB ESDI drive for about $4500
    and the A3000 doesn't seem like such a deal anymore.  Windows 3.0 pulls
    together the fragmented MS-DOS environment under a common interface,
    albeit bolted on.
    
    I am not excited about the Amiga's future.
    
    Ed.

�    Here's the sad truth...  there's something like 50 million MS-DOS
�    computers in the world versus 1-1.5 million Amigas.  You can already

    There's probably also the same ratio of Chevrolets to Lamborginis ;^)

    Seriously, that is all the more reason for the Amiga to do well. People
    are just not going to settle for a single solution. Otherwise this
    battle of who's computer can beat up who's would have ended a long time
    ago. CBM may be slowing on the "one step ahead" technology for the
    moment, but I think the introduction of the A3000 says a lot for the
    future. People may piss and moan about it not being light years ahead
    of the competition (and the A2000), but thank heavens for backwards
    compatability, I always say.

�    won't even be worth the effort to do an Amiga port.  Needless to say,
�    mainstream developers will continue to completely ignore Amiga.

    I disagree. I feel the overall economy is going play a larger part in
    this than the market share, which with more than 1M machines is no
    slouch.
        
�    good value.  But consider that one can buy an 8 MIPS 33 MHz 80386
�    machine with graphics that the A3000 can only dream about (like 1024 x
�    768 in 256 colors), 4 MB RAM, and a 160 MB ESDI drive for about $4500
�    and the A3000 doesn't seem like such a deal anymore.  Windows 3.0 pulls
�    together the fragmented MS-DOS environment under a common interface,
�    albeit bolted on.

    And what kind of reasonably priced software is going to be available
    for this technological terror? How many of the 50M MS-DOG owners are
    going to have a machine like that? I'd blindly venture a guess that at
    least 70% of the installed user base is somewhere in the XT/AT realm.
    I've seen too many average PC owners struggle with software/hardware
    compatibilty with their "sure bet" clones running a below average OS,
    period. Give me an Amiga any day.
    
�    I am not excited about the Amiga's future.

    Ed, you're scaring me! I always thought you, of all people, would be a
    die-hard Amiga fanatic 'till the end.

    Petey Spouting Off

    The attractive upgrade program for Microsoft Windows 3.0, 
    its relatively low (for the IBM PC world) retail cost of $99,
    and lots of press coverage is causing alot of people to buy Windows
    to try it out.
    
    Only time will tell how many of them will tire of the GUI and go back to 
    the tools and interface they were more productive with.
    
    regards,
    dennis
    

	To put this all in perspective, you might want to spend
	some time reading USENET's comp.windows.ms -- the overall
	response to Windows 3.0 (at least from a programmer/developer's
	point of view) is really kind of lukewarm.

	Given the unpleasantness of writing applications in MSW, and
	given its inability to *transparently* multitask (esp where
	native DOS programs are concerned), I really doubt that it's
	going to kill the Amiga (or even the Mac).

	Remember when IBM announced their AS400 "VAX-killers" ... ?

	-Art

    
    I sincerely hope that I'm wrong in my predictions, since I have as much
    invested in my Amiga as anyone.  Well, OK, not Steve Peters or Steve
    Sullivan.
    
    I'm personally witnessing a buying frenzy of 386/25 and 386/33 machines
    in my group.  No one will even _consider_ a Mac or Amiga within my
    entire department.  It's depressing.
    
    Ed.

    I found this over in the IBM PC notes conference where they are discussing
    the relative merits of Microsoft Windows V3.0.  The rest of the note
    has interesting observations too.
    
    Maybe there's hope...
    
    regards,
    dennis
    p.s. DESQview is a DOS task switcher and QEMM is a memory manager used
    access memory beyond 640Kb.  Both are commercial products, not part of
    the base system.
    ======================================================================
    
              <<< NAC::DISK$WORK17:[NOTES$LIBRARY]IBMPC.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< IBM PCs and MS-DOS >-
================================================================================
Note 4924.8                 Anyone do Windows (3.0) ?                     8 of 9
HPSPWR::SIMON "Curiosier and curiosier..."           12 lines   4-JUL-1990 21:35
                              -< No multitasking >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the editors of PC Magazine, if you want multitasking, buy
    another machine.  My experience with a 16 MHz 386SX shows that even
    with only one program in the background (Kermit), all others are so
    jerky and unpredictable (you press a mouse button and it doesn't
    respond -- you need to try two-three times), that it on my PC it
    doesn't make any sence.  I use DESQview with QEMM 5.0.  Windows didn't
    produce much better results.
    
    I use "multi-tasking" for keeping other application ready when I
    need them, but the setup is such that they are not functional in the
    background, e.g., WordPerfect, Kermit, PC-SHELL and Sidekick are always
    available when I switch to them.

    picky, picky, picky.... :-)  compared to MS-DOS, WINDOWS 3.0 looks
    wonderful.
    
    I'd settle for a shipping AmigaDOS 2.0 for my A2000 and A1000.
    There's more to an OS than a pretty user interface, though I hope
    2.0 will default to blue instead of that awful gray background :-)
    
    re: cheap 386 clones
    I hope CBM and Motorola have noticed the price drops.  Hopefully, they
    will respond, instead of clinging to some strange "we're better"
    belief.  BETA was claimed to be better than VHS, look what happened
    to that market.  The trick is to figure out how to take advantage of
    the cheap prices in pc market to reduce the price differences.
    
    Dave

    And what are those "frenzied buyers" DOING with those wonderfull 33Mhz
    machines?  running Lotus? Wordperfect? ???  such a waste just like the
    guys in Porshes driving at 55!
    
    Jean
    

    re .21:
    486's are the Porsches now.  386 systems are now considered the minimum
    system to buy.  This is being driven by apps like Windows 3.0 which
    require a 386 system and extra memory to take full advantage of them.
     
    386's come in 16,20,25, or 33Mhz.  Not too surprising they'd go for
    25 and 33Mhz systems.
    
    The real fun comes when they realize this nice fast system isn't so
    fast after you load it down with a GUI.  And that most apps still
    are faced with barely enough memory to run in.
    (I was really thrilled when I got 561Kb out of 640Kb available for the
     Microsoft C compiler to work in.  Then it sunk in that this was on a 
     386 system with 5 meg of memory.  sigh...)
    
    dennis
    

    
    Re: .21
    
    They are running AutoCAD.
                                                           
    You can walk into any department store and buy a complete 16 MHz 386SX
    with a 40 MB hard drive and full VGA graphics/monitor for under $2000. 
    If you go mail order the price drops to about $1200.  This, mind you,
    is considered a very basic starter system.  For just a little more
    money, you can get into a 20-33 MHz 386 model.
    
    Complete 8 MHz XTs with keyboard, floppy, hard drive, monitor, and CGA
    graphics are selling for just a little bit more than the cost of an A500
    hard drive.
    
    
    
    

    Before I rant and rave (you knew that was coming):

    I was down at OmniTek yesterday and Dick just got his first A2060
    ARCnet board in from CBM though he was still waiting for the AS220
    software. He wants to connect one of the demo machines to the Novell
    network he's got connecting a bunch of (yawn) clones in the other room.
    He also had a stack of A1011 3�" drives and the same for AmigaVision.
    There was a 3-D animation demo running on the A3000; a coil spring
    racing in circles above a checkered plane (ray-traced?); awesome!
    Anyone seen this one and/or know of it's origin (sorry if it's old hat,
    but they only let me out of the institution once a month)?

    Let's step back a bit and recap what is going on. The obvious boneheads
    ;^) in Ed's group are clamoring numbers (MIPS/MHz/Mb) and using peer
    pressure to make Ed feel as if he's the only one in the world without
    some leading-edge technology machine running the industry favorite
    AutoCAD. Am I even remotely close Ed? Anyhoot, who gives a rats behind?
    These same guys probable have copies of AutoCAD, Lotus 1-2-2� and
    DBaseIV at home, all pirated from work or from each other. Okay, I
    won't even pretend to know the first thing about CAD applications, but
    I'd venture a guess that DynaCAD running on a 68020 or 68030 Amy would
    blow the doors off of one of these 386*SX* machines (which seem to be
    such a bargain) running AutoCAD. Judging from the comments Ed's made in
    the past (before he turned to the dark side of the force ;^) about the
    Amiga's graphics speed compared to the high-priced commercial CAD
    platforms, I'd wager a nickel or two on that bet.

�    They are running AutoCAD.

    Stolen from where?
                                                           
�    You can walk into any department store and buy a complete 16 MHz 386SX
�    with a 40 MB hard drive and full VGA graphics/monitor for under $2000. 

    And that's exactly what you're going to get, a department store quality,
    Korean made piece of junk. How about compatability and support?

�    If you go mail order the price drops to about $1200.  This, mind you,
�    is considered a very basic starter system.  For just a little more
�    money, you can get into a 20-33 MHz 386 model.

    Hogwash. If you can purchase such a system without going dizzy from
    sifting through countless ads in the Computer Shopper and weeding out the
    fine print, lotsa luck. And eveybody and their mother will configure a
    system for you. I'd say if you don't have a lot of technical savvy,
    it'll be frustrating at best. Or, to avoid the big investment, buy such
    a system and pirate the software; that way if it runs, great; if not,
    no cash outlay on your part (I know plenty of folks who do just that).
    Now, if you want to talk about buying a real I*M or a Compaq (something
    with a *real* company behind it), you've just upped the ante quite a
    bit.
    
�    Complete 8 MHz XTs with keyboard, floppy, hard drive, monitor, and CGA
�    graphics are selling for just a little bit more than the cost of an A500
�    hard drive.

    And this is supposed to be a bargain? I'm sorry, I'd rather pay the
    extra bucks for an Amiga and get ten-fold in return the versatility.

    Besides, even if you purchased one of these 2000 MIP VGA 386 machines,
    with 64 skizzidillion colors, what kind of applications are out there 
    (within the realm of the average owner) that are going to take full
    advantage of it? And what about display speed and animation capability?

    Petey (grrr)

    P.s. Mr. Moderator, feel free to blow away this reply as you see fit.
         Apologies, but I had to vent my frustrations somewhere...

    > Let's step back a bit and recap what is going on. The obvious boneheads
    > ;^) in Ed's group are clamoring numbers (MIPS/MHz/Mb) and using peer
    > pressure to make Ed feel as if he's the only one in the world without
    > some leading-edge technology machine running the industry favorite
    > AutoCAD. Am I even remotely close Ed? 

Not really, Pete.  I have a large enough ego to survive not owning the latest
gadget.  In fact, I could have the best Clone that money can buy at a moment's
notice.  I don't particularly want a Clone, although I would love to have VGA
quality graphics.  And I'd be delighted to have AutoCAD.

My point is that market forces have conspired to position a technically
inferior computing platform (Clone) into a position of overwhelming strength.
Commodore bears part of the blame for this by shipping a product with glaring
defects (such as display quality) that have only begun to be corrected with the
A3000.

It is my belief that these same market forces will conspire to eventually
enable the Clone to do damn near everything the Amiga can do, at lower cost. I
believe that Windows 3.0 is an example of this trend.  (Also check out AutoDesk
Animator and PC Paintbrush, two very good programs that enable Clones to do
what was once the exclusive domain of the Amiga.)  I'd bet the farm that very
soon programs that are uniquely Amiga, like Turbo Silver, will be available
under DOS/W 3.0.
                                                        
    > I'd venture a guess that DynaCAD running on a 68020 or 68030 Amy would
    > blow the doors off of one of these 386*SX* machines (which seem to be
    > such a bargain) running AutoCAD. Judging from the comments Ed's made in
    > the past (before he turned to the dark side of the force ;^) about the
    > Amiga's graphics speed compared to the high-priced commercial CAD
    > platforms, I'd wager a nickel or two on that bet.

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?  One simply cannot buy a 68030 Amiga
for the $1200-$2000 that I quoted for a 386SX.  For the price of an A3000 we
are definitely into a very powerful 386 system.  Could the Amiga outdraw it?  I
don't know.  Every Amiga ever made can out draw an 8 MHz 286, but the latest
crop of Clones are easily 5-8 X faster than that old AT.

I _DO_ have high hopes for DynaCADD, so I'm not throwing in the towel yet.

    > Besides, even if you purchased one of these 2000 MIP VGA 386 machines,
    > with 64 skizzidillion colors, what kind of applications are out there 
    > (within the realm of the average owner) that are going to take full
    > advantage of it? And what about display speed and animation capability?

As you may know, I am a mechanical engineer and full time CAD weenie.  I
originally bought my 1985 Amiga because it promised to be such a great little
CAD engine.  Five years and umpteen zillion dollars later, my expectations are
unfulfilled.

You mustn't let my personal disappointments sour you on the Amiga; it is still
the ideal system for millions.  But at the same time you cannot smugly assume
that the competition has stood still for the past five years.

Ed.

    Ed,
    	there are some inexpensive 386SX systems out there, but they won't
    run AutoCAD. Even a "real" 386 can't run AutoCAD without a math
    co-processor and well over a Meg of memory. Add the memory and the
    co-processor and you've added several hundreds of dollars to your cost.
    You also need more than your bottom-rung hard drive. And if you are
    layering it over a GUI then you need another Meg or three of memory and
    an even larger disk. Even the cheapest mail-order 386SX clone with
    AutoCAD capability is going to cost over $2000 with all the associated
    hardware (except printer). A 286 based system would cost a few hundred
    less and a 386 system a few hundred more - assuming 16MHz all around.
    Neither the 386SX nor the 286 system would provide acceptable
    performance for a professional application. A 386 system might, even at
    16MHz.
    	OK, I'm prejudiced. I dislike Intel x86-based systems. Heck, I tend
    to scoff at anything that can't write a letter with less than half a
    Meg of memory. I hear about these guys - and they are mostly GUYS - who
    bought a mega-clone and all I can think of is a sheep with excessive
    bangs strutting around pretending to be a ram. Or perhaps they are
    little Nordic rodents heading for the beachs. Still, I must admit
    that if you put enough money, time and energy into a clone you can get
    it to out-perform nearly any 680x0-based system. Or buy a Ferrari.

    
    Whoa, where did I say that a 386SX was a good deal? If you go waaaay
    back to .0, you'll recall that I indicated that an SX (at least the one
    I tried) felt inadequate for running W 3.0.
    
    Actual users of 3.0 have indicated to me that you need at least 4 megs
    and a very fast hard drive _just_to_run_ 3.0 with decent performance. 
    Did you want to run some applications?  Sorry sir, you'll need another
    few megs of ram.
    
    My point is that with the high powered Clone hardware becoming so
    cheap, anyone can (and will) be running W 3.0.   This will drive the
    applications to become 3.0 compatible in a big hurry.  Many Apple (and
    maybe Amiga) developers will flock to where the large market is, which
    brings me back to my original premise... W 3.0 will hurt the Mac and
    Amiga.
    
    Ed.

    	I suspect Windows 3.0 has a ways to go to catch up to the Amiga
    multi-tasking capability. Does Windows 3.0 support pipes? Is there
    anything like AREXX? These things are increasingly important for the
    multi-media arena.
    
    	Most Amiga applications are well behaved for multi-tasking since
    there have been guidlines for programmers in place for a long time.
    Most PC applications are not well behaved for multi-tasking. Basically,
    everything for the PC has to be ported to Windows 3.0. This is going to
    take a while. Commodore is not standing still.
    
    	Even after all the porting, Windows 3.0 will not have preemptive
    multitasking. I think the Amiga will survive and continue to attract
    new business. It isn't going to "take over" the PC world, though.
    

    re.28:
    > Amiga multi-tasking still superior
    
    That doesn't matter.  Remember the Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 wars?
    No matter how bad the 64 was (required a monitor, no autoboot of disks,
    graphics, etc...) it still won using low price to get a large enough
    user base.  From my perspective, the PC vs Amiga situation is very
    similar.  Quality and powerful features will sell a few, but nearly as
    many as a low cost...
    
    dennis
    
    
    

argh, blech, cough, choke!

Sorry. I almost have to agree with Ed - W3.0 is NICE looking. But all other
observations are quite correct. Forget Amiga-like (i.e. real) multitasking,
forget fast response etc etc. 

I saw it on my friends 16mhz 386sx w/ 2meg RAM, fast 65meg HD.

I asked him for a good demo. He started up 3 or 4 games and was having a 
fun time getting it to switch between them - rather erratic operation -
lots of screen flashes and key bashing!

It did seem to do a good at providing a private environment for each "task"
(note the quotes!) He claimed to have some utility which claimed the machine
had 8 meg memory (virtually). He couldn't find it. 

I asked him to compile something heavy in the background but he was fresh
out of source code :-(

W3.0 seems to allow you to tune it's "scheduling" by specifying how many
foreground/background tasks are allowed to run and how much (%) cpu time they
could get.

I hate to say it but it did look nice. They made good use of color and have 
good looking icons.

All in all it was frightening to think of being trapped in a pretty, made-up
mask hiding MSDOS - I will always love my Amiga :-)

john

    Ed,
    	sorry to imply that YOU had implied that the x86 machines were
    better. They ARE competetive, though. They are competetive because they
    are percieved as offering similar or greater utility for similar or
    smaller cost. They do cost less - often much less - but not with
    anywhere near a similar level of utility. They can offer a similar
    level of utility, at a higher cost (cost = price + trade-offs). You may
    be right in that Amiga sales could be hurt by the crush of marketing
    fogging the reality of what is really available and for what cost.
    Amiga has given up two of its main advantages to the big x86 systems,
    fine graphics and multi-tasking. If they don't move quickly to cover
    themselves against VGA (and better) then they might as well close shop.
    And a flickering 640x400 is blatently NOT in the same class as VGA. I
    doubt if a true 960x720 (x16-bit color) would be enough to regain the
    crown of graphics champion, but it would help. I think the
    multi-tasking ruse of Windows 3 will sort itself out and end up helping
    the Amiga - if CBM can get the word out convincingly.
    
    	Dave

    
    What I'd really love to see (but don't hold your breath) is a
    competetive analysis of the multitasking capabilities of a 25 MHz 386
    running Windows and a 25 MHz Amiga.
    
    I'd would be great if on of the mainstream PC mags, like Byte or
    Personal Computing did such a shoot-out.
    
    They could run various speed benchmarks with and without various
    background tasks running.  It would be interesting to see how Windows
    performs with a real CPU intensive background program as opposed to
    some polite word processor sitting around waiting for input.
    
    Ed.

    As far as software that can run on Windows 3 etc goes, last month Bill
    Gates/Micrsoft bought the rights to Macrominds Director software and
    I believe the new 3D software from them. You can expect these to
    be running soon under Windows!
    
    Plus - Microsofts Powerpoint is a very good 'presentations' etc piece
    of software that is already available on Windows 3.0
    
    -Dom

    Ed,
    	sounds like a great idea. Not much good telling US about it; why
    not design such a test, a test including a variety of active
    attributes, and mail your suggestion off to a couple of those
    publications. I get the impression that you are eminently qualified to
    design such a test. You might even be able to convince one of them to
    let you participate in the test - being an obvious expert on the Amiga.
    Perhaps you should challenge Jerry Pournelle to a head-to-head
    comparison where you each provide half of the test parameters. 
    
    	Dave

    
    The big problem (other than the fact that I can't program to save my
    life) is that speed tests seem to be as much a function of compiler
    efficiency as anything else.  This one factor cannot easily be
    normalized across different platforms.
    
    I was thinking of a much more subjective test, ie; Brand X feels sticky
    while compiling N lines of code, while Amiga feels like silk etc...
    
    I'd just like to see some real impartiality in dealing with the Amiga
    in the mainstream press.  FWIW, Computer Shopper has been incredibly
    fair (perhaps even _too_ nice to the Amiga.  This is rare for an
    overwhelmingly PC oriented magazine.
    
    Ed

re .36

For a system benchmark, the compiler shouldn't make much difference unless
you're testing compilers. In that case - well, the LightSpeed C compiler
fanatics argument that compiles happen so fast that multitasking
doesn't matter is actually reasonable. If you're testing a system for use
as a C development platform, then the behavior of the C compilers matter.

If you're not testing it as a C development platform, then you need to settle
on some "background load" that will be pretty much independent of the software
that's used to generate the load. How about downloading a megabyte of stuff
in the background?

This actually sounds like a good idea, especially if it can be generalized.
An article titled - "Multitasking - who's is most transparent" that compares
AmigaDOS; OS/9-68K and ? on the Atari; OS/2, Windows 3.0 and at least one Unix
on the IBM PC, all configured to a "base level" of a bitmapped windowing system
of Amiga/Atari size and appropriate support hardware, with memory and processor
speed "balanced" so that all the hardware costs about the same.

	<mike

    Mike,
    
    I believe Ed is talking about the quality of the code which the compilers
    create.  For example, if you compiled the Dryhstone benchmark with Lattice
    Amiga C 1.0 and compared that with Microsoft C V999 (or whatever) you would
    get much diffirent results than if you had used Lattice Amiga C 5.0. 
    Microsoft may have done a much better job generating code that Lattice. 
    
    There may be some correspondence in the high level optimizations done by
    Lattice C on the Amiga and Lattice C on MSDOS, but they won't mean much by
    the time you get to the actual machine instructions...  Since Lattice does
    C on both machines they might be the ones to ask about this.
    
    On the other hand MSDOS compilers have been around longer and had more use,
    so I would expect them to produce more efficient code.  So, I guess you
    might say the results would be slanted in favor of the MSDOS machines.
    
    We still know who'd win :-).
    
    - steve

    
    consider... If I told you that the user level interface felt "icky" on
    a system with an installed base of 50 million, but felt truely
    wonderful on an system with an installed base of 2 million, would you
    suspect:
       a. I know something the great unwashed masses don't, i.e., how to
          pick a good system...
    or b. The user interface doesn't really matter that much in the real
          world.
    or c. I'm biased towards the computer I bought.
    
    :-) :-)
    
    What seems to matter is if the user interface gets in the way of
    getting real work done.  
    
    Dave

Steve,

I realize that was Ed's point. My point is that when you're looking at something
like "responsiveness of the system", the code generated by the compiler is
_part_ of the system. That one system's compilers generate much better
code is immaterial - that system will be much more responsive, and that's
all that you care about.

For instance, if I want a box to do X quickly on, then the question is which
system does X quickest. Whether it's because system X has faster hardware,
or a better compiler, or better algorithms for doing X doesn't matter.

Now, if you want the _reasons_ why one system is quicker than another, then
you get into things like the compilers not being equivalent. But that's a
different set of tests than what we're talking about.

	<mike

    Mike,
    
    Ah yes, I see what you mean.  I suppose this is especially true on the
    Amiga where 90% of the software available comes from Lattice or Manx.
    Although if you picked a whiz bang compiler on the MSDOS machine which
    was better than that generally used it would still be a factor.  I
    guess you should pick the most common commercially used development
    environments :-).
    
    By the way, are you the mike meyer who was voted into heading up
    BADGE last night?  I'm in the area so I showed up for the meeting just
    to see what was happening...
    
    - steve

What about the issue of ease of use.  We've had DECstations in 
our group for 1 year now.  We have yet to get them installed and 
running right.  There are so many problems with conflicts between 
software products for the PC.  You have to have the right CPU, 
graphics board, memory size, CPU speed, etc. just to get anything 
to work right.  To further complicate things, there is no unified 
user interface from product to product (especially with the DEC 
software, UGH!).  I know that Window is an attempt to correct 
this, but they still have a long, long way to go.

With the PC, it seems that every time you install a new software 
product, it screws up everything else you spent so much time 
working to get to run right, if at all.  With most Amiga 
applications, installation is a snap, and doesn't come on 8 
diskettes with complicated installation programs like the PC.

The MSDOS filename limitation of 8 characters with a 3 character 
extention is simply stone age in this age of plain English (or 
whatever your language) filenames on other systems.

PC's?  Still unimpressed.

Randy

Well, the point was to compare windowing systems, so you'd sort of have to
look at a unified user interface. In fact, windows started this discussion.

Ease of installation should definitely be mentioned, as a painfull installation
can be considered part of the "price" of a system. In fact, noting the number
of hours to install all the applications in question, and then adding that to
the cost of the system at $50/hour or some such might be reasonable.

And to Steve - yes, I'm the one that railroad hit. Now I need a speaker. Anyone
like to talk at BADGE next month?

	<mike

    	And here I thought it could be as simple as picking a handful of
    different tasks which could be run/timed individually and then
    run/timed in multi-tasking mode. A 1-Meg 2400-baud down-load and a
    (mumbledy)page text/graphic printout would seem easy to standardize. A
    compile and some sort of a CAD load(or re-draw) would be hard to do as
    a direct compare but a single-task/multi-task comparison would still be
    valid. A database sort or spreadsheet recalc could also show the
    penalty for multi-tasking. The assumption is, of course, that the Amiga
    would suffer less of a penalty for multi-tasking than a Windows system
    would. Hmmm, get nasty and test the DOS entries on the same system
    WITHOUT Windows.
    	xStones and MIPS and MHz are not the question here, the question is
    "How much work will these systems do in this situation?". We know that
    most 386 systems can beat most 68000 systems hands down in the MIPS 'n
    stuff department, but can they print a complex bit-mapped file while
    down-loading a large data file and still have time to devote to an
    interactive CAD session?

    Though  this  may  have  no  bearing  on the public perception of
MS/Windows 3.0, it may have a *deeper* meaning...

    I went to the local Baskin Robbins to get  some  ice  cream  this
evening  and  a  computer  store  was  next  door. There were several
machines on display and one was showing MS/Windows 3.0. It  was  also
the  only screen that seemed to be drawing (attracting) bugs in great
quantities!

	-SES

re: 386 vs 68K (or Intel vs Motorola)

Someone on usenet claimes that a 25 mhz 68030 is equivelent in processing 
power to a 33 mhz 80386. Now you tell me which system is cheaper.

john

    re: .45
    
    boo, hisss, they were just showing how much a nice looking user
    interface appeals to every man, woman, child, and yes, insect on the
    planet :-)
    
    re: .46
    that should be good for a few rounds of flames on the usenet.  And just
    when the monthly piracy "debate" was dying down...
    
     Dave

    
    Time to revive this dead horse again!
    
    In the latest issue of Compute! (you know, now that OMNI has bought out
    and merged all the Compute! divisions) there is a mini review of a new,
    windowed multitasking interface for PC XT/ATs from, of all places,
    Berkely Softworks, makers of GEOS for the C-64 and Apple II.
    
    The new product is, in fact, called GEOS and looks fantastic.  The
    screen shots (of VGA equipped systems) look better than W 3.0. 
    Actually, they pretty much copied Motif, which is fine with me.
    
    So whats the big deal about yet another windowed OS for PCs
    (yawosfpcs)?  The big deal here is that GEOS uses only 100K of RAM and
    will perform well on an XT or AT class machine, which is what the vast
    majority of PC owners are using. (W 3.0 requires many megs of ram and a
    386 or 386SX to run well.)
    
    As with their earlier products for 8 bit computers, GEOS provides very
    competent WYSIWYG word processing and painting programs.  There is also
    provision to run non-graphic DOS based software in it's own window, ala
    W 3.0.
    
    Berkely claims that the code has been written by the finest programmers
    in the business, with many sections being rewritten 10 or 12 times for
    optimum performance.
    
    The article did not go into how well GEOS multitasked or how much
    support there is from 3 rd parties.
    
    Ed

    	GEOS was written up in the September Computer Shopper in a survey
    of GUIs. They say that it IS Motif based. Also, it is preemptive
    multitasking/multithreaded. They have interprocess communications. They
    won't multitask DOS applications. The applications have to be written
    to run under GEOS. However, the initial release will include a word
    processor, a draw program, a file manager, and a number of desktop
    utilities, all capable of multitasking.
    
    	It looks pretty good. I suppose it will live or die based on how
    successful they are in getting key applications ported.
    
    	The GUI survey totally ignored Amiga :-{
                                                

    Has anyone tried either of these window systems on a Bridgeboard
    setup?

Maybe I should start a seperate note...

I read a short article on Mac System 7 last night, in Dr. Dobbs (I didn't
buy it, it was a "trial" issue :^).  Apparently, System 7 incorporates several
nifty features like scalable outline fonts, inter-application and inter-process
communication, and even greater ease of use.

Some nice features are the ability to configure menu's by dragging items into
a "menu" folder, improved icon functionality, "launching" desk-accessories
by "pointing and clicking".   There's even "alias" functionality in the form of 
a "server".  The article wasn't a review, just some general information.  I 
wonder if they'll use REXX as the basis for inter-application support? 

It needs a minimum of 2M and a hard drive, but it does support virtual memory
if you have a '030 or a '20 w/a/MMU.  Apple will be fast and furious with
the upgrades, because they want everyone to run 7.  Support for Sys 6 will
disappear very quickly, and later upgrades will be expensive.

As stated by one of the main Apple honcho's:  (When using a 2M system) "our 
goal is to allow users to print from within an application".  Now there are 
some real high hopes. 

Overall, the article seemed a little less than excited about the new system.
(Not suprising, coming from a very PC based magazine.)

I wonder how the Amiga Mac Emulators will handle System 7?  Probably pretty
well.

    re: pc GEOS
    
    There was an article on that in PC WEEK a while ago.  If I recall
    correctly, they were claiming that they could run with a Windows
    look and feel or a Motif look and feel.  Something about letting
    the user decide what was best for the user interface.
    
    But to put in other terms, would you trust the authors of a windowing
    system for C64s and Apples IIs to do a good windowing system for
    MS-DOS systems?  Instead of Microsoft?  :-)
    
    Dave

Re .51:

	Yes!

    re .-several:
    But you are missing the point.  Its STATUS that sells Windows 3.0.
    Its a business excuse to upgrade the PC hardware that you've always
    wanted to, but couldn't come up with a business justification that
    your boss wouldn't just grin at.  What is more fun, is to watch how many
    continue to run windows long after the hardware is upgraded...  
    
    You can't do that with GEOS...
    
    regards,
    dennis

        I read this amusing 'Letter to the Editor' in the November issue of
        Computer Shopper.  It is apparently a response to an earlier
        Shopper article that was quite favorable towards Windows 3.0.  I
        offer it, without permission, and without comment.


        Dear Editor:


        Here are 10 reasons to hate Windows 3.0:

	1) It's a memory hog.  Sure, you can run Windows with only 640K.  
        But if you want to load more than one program at once to do even 
        the most rudimentary multitasking, you will need at least 2 MB of 
        fast memory, though 4 MB is more realistic.  Oh, yes, you had 
        better have 6 MB to 8 MB of hard disk space free, too.  And if you 
        don't have a 386, forget about real multitasking.  As for anybody 
        working on a computer without a hard drive - well, you can guess 
        the rest.

	2) Slow Window redraw.  I don't know why a lot of writers are 
        praising the fast redraw.  On my 386 20 MHz clone (with an Orchid 
        Prodesigner + VGA card with 512K RAM), it sometimes takes up to 
        six seconds to redraw a color screen.  The older version of 
        Windows 386 was faster!  I'd hate to see Windows 3.0 on an XT or 
        AT at 12 MHz.

        3) Stupid help boxes.  Some people think online help is a good 
        idea.  Maybe it is if it's done right, but this ain't how it's 
        done.  You have to wade through numerous other help boxes to get 
        the info you seek, all arranged in questionable order, and usually 
        the answer isn't there anyway.  Using the manual would be faster, 
        except this is a Microsoft manual - good luck finding anything in 
        there, even a customer support number, which brings me to:

        4) The worst customer support in the world.  You might just as 
        well pick up an illegal copy of Windows, because you won't get any 
        help from Microsoft.  Don't believe me?  Try calling their support 
        number.  What you get will be a recording that will shunt you 
        through various departments (with a touchtone phone) and finally 
        land you on hold for half an hour or more - all at long distance 
        at your cost.  I called dozens of times over a three-week period 
        and never once spoke to a real human being.  You would have to be 
        nuts to buy any product from a company with this kind of (lack of) 
        support.

        5) MIDI music programs will not run under Windows.  That's right - 
        NONE!  This may not be a big deal if you're not a musician, but I 
        am, and I need these programs.  Windows 3.0 will not even 
        recognize a standard Roland MPU-401 compatible MIDI interface 
        plugged into my computer.  It is incredible that this product was 
        released without somebody catching this.  Nice beta testing, 
        Microsoft.

        6)  Windows 2.0 programs will not run under Windows 3.0.  Can you 
        imagine if DOS 5.0 came out and all your older programs wouldn't 
        run under it?  Well, that's what Microsoft did with Windows.  Oh, 
        sure, you can upgrade all your Windows-specific programs (what a 
        bonanza for software companies).  But what about all those great 
        public domain Windows programs?  Too bad they didn't provide a 
        trash icon - I'm gonna need it!

        7)  The usual clunky filing system.  Where did these guys learn to 
        write their GUI?  Heaven forbid you should just click on a disk 
        icon and up pops all your files and programs.  No, the Microsoft 
        way is for you to create your own program "groups" and items, 
        which may or may not reflect what is actually on your hard disk.  
        It cracks me up to think that some "industry analysts" predicted 
        Apple would be hurt by Windows 3.0.  Yuk, yuk!  Even the Atari ST, 
        with it's version of GEM, is far superior to the ridiculous 
        rigamarole that Windows 3.0 puts you through to run a program.

        8)  It will drive you to pump up your hardware.  Strangely enough, 
        this was listed as a "feature" in your "10 Reasons" article.  
        Personally, I don't need an excuse to upgrade my system - just 
        more money.  However, there are lots of people out there who can't 
        afford a computer with a fast 286 or 386 processor, minimum 2 MB 
        memory, VGA, fast large hard drive, mouse etc.

        9)  Incompatibility.  You name it: it will crash under Windows 
        3.0.  Besides the already-mentioned MIDI and Windows 2.0 programs, 
        I've also found that any kind of memory manager will not work, as 
        well as many utilities.  386 owners will be extremely annoyed to 
        find that the best 386 memory manager (Quarterdeck's QEMM-386) 
        will not run with Windows 3.0.  This is a real shame, since QEMM 
        frees up a lot of the DOS 640K memory, which would leave more room 
        for DOS programs running under Windows.  Ironically, Microsoft 
        mentions this incompatibility in their manual.  Their suggestion?  
        Quarterdeck should upgrade QEMM to run Windows!  Have they got 
        nerve or what?

	10)  Steep learning curve.  Learning DOS is a cinch compared to 
        the bizarre terms and many mouse clicks you will have to go 
        through to master Windows.  I sure hope that there aren't 
        companies out there paying people by the hour to learn this OS, or 
        we can just hand the keys to the U.S. over to Japan right now.  
        Even something as simple as changing printer drivers takes as many 
        as ten steps, clicking through various windows, and then closing 
        them all.  (Arghh!)  Whatever happened to easy?  Didn't these guys 
        learn anything from using the Macs they have at Microsoft?  Or is 
        it that they were running so scared of getting sued that they 
        deliberately crippled Windows, so as not to risk a lawsuit from 
        Apple.

        Whoops!  I've already listed 10 reasons, and I've still got more 
        gripes!  OK, I know it was only $49 for me to upgrade Windows.  
        Still, it was the worst $49 I ever threw away.  What really irks 
        me is to see all these glowing reviews from writers who obviously 
        never put Windows through it's sluggish paces.  Yes, Windows is 
        "cute" - but if I wanted cute I would have bought another Mac.

        I want a graphical OS for my IBM compatible that works and is easy 
        to use.  Is that so much to ask?  Apparently so, if the software 
        company is Microsoft.  My advice to your readers is to save their 
        money for Quarterdeck's DESQview.

If you want to learn about Windows 3.0, these people usually put on a
good presentation. Knowledgeable Amiga zealots can, of course, ask pointed 
questions. ;-)

Also notice the sales figure in this announcement!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spit Brook Technical Seminar (Nashua N.H)
December, 1990



Title:     Microsoft Wins with Windows V3.0
           An Overview and Demonstration of MS-Windows V3.0 
	  

Speakers:  Chauncey E. Wilson
           Charlie Frean
           Software Usability Engineering Competitive Software Seminar
               
Time:      Thursday, December 6, 1990
           2:00 - 3:30
      

Place: 	   Babbage Auditorium ZK1-3



                     - no registration required -

ABSTRACT 

    Microsoft began work on its MS-Windows user interface seven
    years ago, but sales of the Windows graphical user interface
    (GUI) languished until the May release of Windows V3.0.   
    In the first 5 months of sales, Microsoft shipped more than 
    1,000,000 copies and hit the top of the software hit parade.
    This competitive seminar will provide some background on the
    design of MS-Windows and demonstrate the following Windows
    features:

    	Hardware and software requirements for Windows V3.0
    	Window manager
    	Program and file management 
    	Hyperhelp
    	Bundled applications
    	Similarities to Motif
    	Major products running under Windows

    		Microsoft PowerPoint
    		Microsoft Excel
    		Word for Windows
                Microsoft Project

 Normally I wouldn't put a long piece of hype like this in here, but
 the Amiga Mags have offered rumors about MS Windows going on the Amiga.
 This article says some things that "could" be interpreted that way.

 Also, when you look beyond the hype, you see some standards emerging
 quickly - these will affect the Amiga's place in the market.

 And finally, notice the difference between Microsoft's customer research 
 process and what I have seen come from Commodore ( and DEC)...
 -Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        -< Microsoft 'Tiled' Windows >-
Article 19487 of comp.windows.ms:
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: [email protected] (George MOORE)
Subject: Windows 3.1 backgrounder
Date: 10 Oct 91 02:19:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

What follows is the Windows 3.1 backgrounder which is being 
distributed freely to members of the press.  It talks about
the new features in Windows 3.1, new robustness, TrueType, the 
better networking support, Windows for Pen Computing, multimedia 
support, etc, etc.

I have received permission to post this information here.  Please 
do not mail me with questions about this document -- I cannot say 
anything more than what is written here.  It should answer most of
your questions about what is coming up in Windows 3.1.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Microsoft Windows Environment Version 3.1
August 1991


Overview

With more than 4 million copies sold since the announcement of version 
3.0 in May 1990, the end user community has affirmed its support for 
the Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) environment.  Users have made Windows the 
best-selling retail software product of all time and the second most 
popular operating system ever (after MS-DOS).  More than 200,000 Windows 
users have attended Microsoft-sponsored conferences, workshops, shows 
and 20 third-party events this year.  And users have made Windows 
applications the fastest growing segment of the total software 
applications market, according to data from Software Publisher 
Association and other sources.

It is fitting, then, that Microsoft should look to users to understand 
how to advance Windows in its next release, version 3.1.  In the year 
since the announcement of version 3.0, Microsoft has conducted an 
unprecedented campaign to reach out and listen to the feedback and 
comments of the Windows installed base.  This feedback collection 
process has taken several forms:

o	A commissioned survey of 11,000 U.S. households revealed Windows 
	usage patterns, satisfaction levels, favorite and least favorite 
	features as well as data about the hardware configuration of 
	typical Windows users.  This data was particularly interesting 
	in that it was a "pure" user pool, not biased toward users who 
	are more likely to register their software, subscribe to a 
	particular magazine, etc.

o	Microsoft "Strike Teams" fanned out to gather data from corporate
	Windows 3.0 users.  Nearly 90 percent of the suggestions resulting 
	from these meetings have been implemented in Windows 3.1.

o	About two thousand Windows users called Microsoft Product Support 
	Services each day for more information about using Windows.  From 
	these calls, PSS has developed an extensive knowledgebase; a 
	representative from PSS served on the Windows 3.1 design committee.  
	The 10 most commonly asked questions have been addressed in 
	Windows 3.1.

o	An active CompuServe(R) support forum through the auspices of the
	Windows Presentation Manager Association (WPMA) resulted in 
	extensive suggestions and feedback.

User suggestions were the driving force behind the improvements and new 
features in version 3.1.  As an important evolutionary step in what is 
planned to be a long series of Windows-based operating systems from 
Microsoft, Windows version 3.1 will offer refinements to version 3.0 
that are designed to bring greater ease of use, functionality, and 
performance to Windows users while maintaining backward compatibility 
with Windows version 3.0 applications.  These refinements fall into the 
following categories:

	o	Improved usability and performance

	o	Application and system robustness

	o	TrueTypeTM scalable font technology

	o	Improved application integration

	o	Extensions for new computing platforms

This paper will describe the key added features of Windows version 3.1 
in greater detail.


Improved Usability and Performance

Among the results of the extensive feedback from users of Windows version 
3.0 are significant enhancements to the usability of the Windows 
environment.  Dozens of improvements will be immediately noticeable, 
while hundreds of others work behind the scenes to support the new 
features.  While many of them are minor, taken together, these improvements 
contribute to a smoother, more responsive user interaction with Windows.


Improved Installation

The Windows version 3.1 Install program will be able to detect even more 
hardware and software configurations than its version 3.0 predecessor.
The result is an improved ability for Windows to configure itself optimally 
for the machine on which it is being installed.  The Installer program 
detects a wide variety of TSRs (terminate-and-stay-resident programs), and 
hardware devices that are known to cause problems, taking action to notify 
the user or correct the problem without user involvement.

Windows version 3.1 will be easier for novice users to install with Express 
Install, and more customizable for advanced users, who can select groups 
of programs to install.  For PC coordinators, Windows version 3.1 
installation is improved with the batch install option, and better network 
setup features for installation in networked environments.


File Manager Improvements

The Windows version 3.1 File Manager has been completely redesigned for 
improved usability and performance.  The File Manager now supports 
multiple "panes" for easy browsing.  Users can now display the directory 
tree and a list of files side-by-side in a window.  The File Manager 
also allows the display of more file attributes than before and can even 
display file and folder names in a choice of fonts.

Another significant improvement is the new "quick format" capability, 
which allows users to format floppy disks in much less time than before.

The File Manager will support an easier, more intuitive "drag and drop" 
model for manipulating files.  For example, to print a file, the user 
drags the file's icon with the mouse and "drops" it onto the Print Manager,
which prints the document.  Users will also be able to take an icon 
and drop it on a running application or the application title bar; then 
the application will automatically open that file. 


Program Manager Improvements

Improvements to the Program Manager include "wrappable" icon titles that 
sit neatly under each icon in multiple lines, instead of a single long 
line that may overlap with other icon titles.  Users also will appreciate 
the new "startup group," which allows them to launch any group of 
applications automatically when the Windows environment is started.


Printing Improvements

The Windows version 3.1 Print Manager now has the ability to resume 
stalled print jobs automatically, without user intervention.  For 
example, if a printer runs out of paper, the print job will be resumed 
after the paper tray is restocked.

Another printing improvement introduced with Windows version 3.1 is the 
universal printer driver (UNIDRV).  This software offers a single, printer-
independent driver for which specific printer drivers can be built rapidly.
The universal printer driver makes it easier for printer manufacturers to 
write or update printer drivers because it encapsulates all the major 
features of a printer driver in a single piece of software.  Vendors simply 
provide a table of printer-specific parameters for each printer.  Instead 
of using dozens of large "monolithic" printer drivers, the Windows 
environment will need only a single driver and a small support table for 
each printer.  Nearly 250 printers will be supported in Windows 3.1, with 
the majority supported through UNIDRV.


Better Support for Networks

A number of improvements will make Windows version 3.1 easier to use on 
a computer that is attached to a network.  Network administrators will 
find that setup is easier under Windows version 3.1, especially for 
complex system configurations.  Network problems are also easier to trace 
and fix because network errors are displayed with more information regarding 
the type and source of the problem.

Another significant change is that users can specify "persistent" network 
connections, meaning that information about a remote disk drive or printer 
is maintained by the Windows environment after a network session is 
terminated.  Any "disconnected" drives will appear in the File Manager's
drive bar as "unavailable."  To re-establish connection, users will simply 
click on the drive's icon.


Improved Performance

Performance improvements have been achieved throughout Windows 3.1.  These 
include faster, more responsive user shell components (notably File 
Manager and Program Manager); increased display driver performance (for 
example, the VGA and 8514 drivers); better printing performance (overall 
speed is improved, but Windows will also give control back to the 
application quicker once the print command is invoked); and faster paging 
in 386 enhanced mode.  Version 3.1 will include FastDisk, a 32-bit driver 
that allows Windows to bypass DOS in the BIOS for its virtual memory 
paging file.


Application and System Robustness

Since its shipment in May of 1990, Windows version 3.0 has proven to be 
a remarkably stable product.  In fact, Microsoft has only implemented a 
single update release (version 3.0a) to accommodate minor bug fixes.  
Like any mature operating system, however, Windows works in cooperation 
with a vast number of hardware platforms, applications software and 
peripherals.  With the countless permutations of software and hardware, 
occasional conflicts are inevitable, and approximately one to two percent 
of Windows-related calls to Microsoft Product Support Services are 
regarding these "Unrecoverable Application Errors" (UAEs).  

Through its communication with Windows version 3.0 users and developers, 
Microsoft has developed a fine-tuned understanding of how applications 
generate and handle errors.  Most UAE questions have been resolved through 
helping users deinstall misbehaved TSRs, resolve questions on Windows 3.0
versions of drivers or software, or remove unnecessary lines in the 
Windows CONFIG.SYS files.  In Windows version 3.1, Microsoft's accumulated 
knowledge serves as the basis for the following design focal points:
1) Better diagnostics to pinpoint the cause of application errors; 2) Tools 
and information to help developers write error-free applications; 
3) Graceful handling of application errors if they do occur (so the faulting
application doesn't crash the system). Following are several examples of 
how these design goals are implemented in Windows version 3.1.

Error Diagnostics and Reporting
If an application program generates an error under Windows version 3.1, the 
user will receive an error dialog box with more specific information about 
the type of fault that occurred and which application generated the error 
(the Windows 3.0 dialog box says:  "Unrecoverable Application Error"). This 
allows problems to be traced and corrected much more quickly than before.

Additionally, Windows version 3.1 will ship with a diagnostic tool called 
"Dr. Watson" that will record and store information about an application 
error, should one occur.  This data will provide feedback on the error 
that can be used by a support technician to determine the solution for 
the error.

Developer Tools for Error Tolerance and Prevention
Microsoft's developer support program for Windows version 3.1 includes 
tools and information to help developers write more error-free Windows 
applications.  For instance, a new mechanism has been implemented within 
Windows version 3.1 that enables validation of the many parameters that 
applications use to communicate with the Windows environment.  If an 
application uses the wrong type of parameter, or if the parameter's value 
is outside the acceptable range, Windows will report an error.  Developers 
are thus notified of potential parameter problems before their product 
ships.

Several utilities are also being made available to Windows developers that 
help to detect and trace the source of problems.  For example, a new 
"stress test" utility creates a highly active and dynamic environment in 
which application bugs may be "shaken out" during all stages of development.

Error Recovery
Windows version 3.1 includes a number of improvements designed to handle 
UAEs more effectively.  Under version 3.1, if an application "hangs," users 
can press the CTRL+ALT+DEL reboot key sequence, and Windows will ask whether 
the application should be continued or closed.  If the user chooses to 
close the application, Windows will reset the environment to a stable state 
which will allow the user to continue working within the Windows 
environment.  There is no longer a need to exit and restart the Windows 
environment. 


TrueType Scalable Font Technology

Windows version 3.1 includes the new TrueType(TM) scalable font technology.
TrueType provides "outline" fonts, giving users instant access to fonts in 
any point size, and allowing high quality output on any monitor or printer 
supported by Windows itself.  TrueType was designed and developed to meet 
the requirements of type professionals and graphic designers.  TrueType 
offers the following benefits.

Complete Integration with the Operating System
TrueType is an integrated component of Windows version 3.1.  For users, 
this means that there is nothing to buy or install.  All the benefits of 
scalable font technology are built into the operating environment itself, 
and existing Windows applications can use them immediately.  Four TrueType 
scalable font families will ship with all copies of Windows version 3.1:
Arial (alternative to Helvetica), Times New Roman, Courier and Symbol.  
Every major font vendor (with the exception of Adobe) has committed to 
develop substantial TrueType font libraries for both the Macintosh(R) and 
Windows platforms.

Cross-Platform Compatibility
TrueType is also offered on the Apple(R) Macintosh and TrueType fonts can 
be ported between Windows and the Macintosh without conversion.  So 
documents using TrueType fonts may be exchanged between a Windows PC and 
the Macintosh without required changes in character set, font metrics or 
line endings.  TrueType is also available in Macintosh-compatible laser 
printers, in TrueImage printers, and has been licensed to numerous printer 
vendors for use in future products.

Dynamic Font Downloading
TrueType fonts are automatically converted to bitmap images and downloaded 
to laser printers so that what the user sees on the screen is the same as 
the printed page.  TrueType uses dynamic downloading, sending only the 
characters requested rather than the entire character set, resulting in 
faster, more efficient printing.

Open Technology
In order to make it easy for vendors to support TrueType fonts, each 
font's "metrics" are made available as public specifications and are 
available without royalties.  A font's metrics provide a complete 
mathematical description of the font's characteristics, which allows 
vendors of output devices to render the font exactly as it appears on 
the screen.  Public availability of TrueType font specifications will 
make it easier and less expensive for vendors to support TrueType fonts 
on their products.


Improved Application Integration

Windows environment version 3.1 provides the most sophisticated platform 
yet for application integration, making it easier for users to exchange 
data between documents and for programmers to build these capabilities 
into Windows applications.  Application integration is supported by the 
following features in version 3.1:

Object Linking and Embedding
An important technology for the 1990s, Object Linking and Embedding (OLE)
creates an environment in which applications can share information 
seamlessly.  With OLE, all data can be thought of as being a type of 
"object."  A spreadsheet chart, an illustration, a table, and even a 
paragraph of text are all examples of objects.  OLE provides the 
capability for applications to share these objects easily.

Windows environment version 3.1 supports OLE by providing standard 
libraries, interfaces and protocols that applications will use to 
exchange data objects.  As Windows developers begin implementing OLE 
capabilities within their programs, users will see a new generation 
of applications that work together cooperatively.

OLE capabilities have already been implemented within new versions of 
the Windows Write, Paint, and Cardfile accessories, all of which are 
provided with the Windows version 3.1 product.  A user can, for example,
create an illustration using the Paint program and "embed" the graphic in 
a Write document.  If the illustration must be updated, the user can click 
on its icon within the Write document, which automatically launches Paint 
to allow editing of the drawing.  Since the original graphics file is 
"linked" to the image embedded in the document, any change made to one 
will automatically update the other.  This eliminates the need to modify 
multiple copies of the image or modify the original image and re-import 
it into the document. 

Better Support for Dynamic Data Exchange
In the Windows environment, the standard way of sharing data between 
applications is through a mechanism known as dynamic data exchange (DDE).
Object Linking and Embedding (as well as other forms of data exchange) 
use DDE as their primary means of data exchange.  Windows environment 
version 3.1 provides developers with a new Dynamic Data Exchange Manager 
Library (DDEML) that offers a higher-level programming model and makes 
it easier for developers to implement DDE capabilities in a Windows 
application.

Better Support for DOS Applications
A number of changes improve support for existing DOS* applications within 
the Windows environment.  In particular, DOS application performance is 
enhanced when using Windows version 3.1 in conjunction with MS-DOS 
version 5, since MS-DOS 5 makes significantly more memory available to 
DOS applications.  In addition, Windows version 3.1 now supports DOS 
applications in VGA graphics mode in a window or running in the background.
Also, Windows version 3.1 will include more pre-written Program Information 
Files (PIF files "tell" Windows how to run specific DOS applications) for 
even greater DOS application support.  Finally, disk-paging will allow 
users to run more DOS applications than they can under Windows version 
3.0.


Extensions for New Computing Platforms

Windows version 3.1 will allow users to exploit significant new computing 
platforms such as pen-based computers and multimedia PCs.  

Windows for Pen Computing
Building on the Windows graphical user interface and coupled with advances 
in symbol recognition, pens will be the foundation for highly intuitive 
and "personal" user interfaces.  To exploit the potential of pen computing,
Microsoft has developed a series of extensions to Windows that include:
enhancements to the user interface to allow for pen input; a pen message 
interpreter allowing existing Windows (and DOS) applications to use the pen;
and a modular open handwriting recognition engine.  More than 30 hardware 
vendors will ship Microsoft Windows version 3.1 with extensions for pen-
based computing with their systems, starting in early 1992. 

Multimedia
Windows version 3.1 will work seamlessly with the Microsoft extensions 
for multimedia computing.  These extensions allow users to include new 
objects such as audio, animation and full-motion video and embed them in 
existing applications.  These features will also enable a whole new class 
of multimedia documents, such as encyclopedias enhanced with video and 
audio clips, or catalogs that display animated illustrations.  Personal 
computers integrating Windows and the multimedia extensions to Windows 
will begin shipping this fall.  Windows' extensible architecture makes 
it possible for multimedia computing to span low-cost systems for home 
and education and sophisticated multimedia authoring platforms for the 
high end of the market.

An important enabling technology for multimedia computing is the OLE 
protocol described above.  With OLE plus the Windows multimedia extensions,
 a user can embed a multimedia "object" such as a video or audio clip 
into an existing Windows application, just as he or she would a chart 
or text file.

Laptop Support
Many vendors of today's popular 286 and 386(TM)-based laptop computers 
ship Windows version 3.0.  Users of laptops will appreciate a feature 
in Windows version 3.1 called "mouse blur," which makes it easier to 
find the cursor on a laptop display.  In addition, Windows version 3.1 
supports the Advanced Power Management specification, which allows 
Windows to interact with native power management of a laptop PC for 
longer battery life.

With version 3.1, vendors of laptops and other small form-factor 
computers will have the option of licensing a special version of Windows 
in ROM.  This version of Windows 3.1 will be burned in to a ROM chip and 
will execute directly from ROM rather than from a hard disk.  A ROM 
version of Windows opens the doors to other types of computing as well,
including the emerging category of palm-top computers.


Beta Testing and Developer Support 

Windows environment version 3.1 is currently in beta testing.  The beta 
program will be one of the largest Microsoft has ever conducted, 
eventually involving as many as 10,000 participants.  Additionally, 
Microsoft is conducting technical seminars for Windows developers to 
discuss the details of the new APIs in Windows version 3.1.  A new 
Software Development Kit (SDK) and Driver Development Kit (DDK) will 
allow developers to more effectively implement the API features.
Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility Program currently includes 350 testers 
and Microsoft is actively recruiting additional participants to ensure 
the tightest possible compatibility of Windows with the vast array of 
hardware and peripherals on the market today.

Developer enthusiasm for Windows version 3.1 is high.  Nearly 2,000 
Windows developers attended a recent Seattle conference on Windows 
version 3.1.  In addition, a June 1991 survey of the top 70 PC 
independent software vendors (ISVs) found that 100 percent are 
planning to test for and take advantage of Windows version 3.1.


Conclusion

Windows version 3.1 is an important next step in Microsoft's core 
Windows strategy, an evolutionary strategy that spans 286 laptops to 
high-end workstations or servers.  Today, Windows runs on MS-DOS, the 
operating system that spawned the PC industry and is currently in use 
by tens of millions of people.  Today's Windows runs the thousands of 
existing MS-DOS and Windows-based applications.  Extended versions of 
Windows -- for example, for multimedia or pen -- allow users to run all 
of these applications as well, plus unique new applications developed 
with pen or multimedia in mind.

Microsoft will ship a high-end version of Windows called Windows NT 
(for "new technology") in 1992.  Windows NT will run the same DOS-based 
and Windows-based applications as Windows 3.1., while also supporting 
advanced security, multithreading, multiprocessor systems, and RISC 
chips that promise even higher performance.  

Microsoft's vision of computing in the 1990s and beyond is that 
computers will empower individuals and organizations.  With its scalable 
implementations, the investment of Microsoft and the commitment of 
third parties, Windows will be the foundation for realizing this vision.

				#########

Microsoft, the Microsoft logo, MS, and MS-DOS are registered trademarks 
and Windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
Apple and Macintosh are registered trademarks and TrueType is a 
trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
Arial and Times New Roman are registered trademarks of Monotype 
Corporation PLC.
CompuServe is a registered trademark of CompuServe, Inc.
Helvetica is a registered trademark of Linotype AG and/or its 
subsidiaries.
386 is a trademark of Intel Corporation.

(C) 1991 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.  Printed in the 
United States of America.  This backgrounder is for informational 
purposes only.  Microsoft makes no warranties express or implied, in 
this summary.


*  As used herein, "DOS" refers to MS-DOS and PC-DOS operating systems.

    
    what, no REXX support?
    
    I liked the part about the "mouse blur" feature for laptops.
    
    Since they claim Windows is the 2nd most popular operating system
    with 4 million copies sold - does that mean there are fewer than
    4 million Macs out there?   With the Amiga reaching the 3 million
    mark, is it catching up to the Mac?
    
    Dave
        

Two seperate issues.

I recently saw something quoting total number of machines worldwide for
each company (it may even have been *here* - if so, could somebody provide
the pointer?).

IBM was first, with a nice lead. Apple was second, with 7.4 million machines.
CBM was third, with 7.1 million machines. Given that, I'm almost willing to
believe that there are fewer than 4 million Macs, but not quite.

You see, the thing made a *lot* more sense if you assumed that the IBM
PC was the only machine in the world. I.e. - "new platform supprt" means
"new OSs running on the IBM PC", and "operating system" means "operating 
system running on the IBM PC".

Second, 4 million sold does *not* translate to 4 million customers for
windows Apps. This summer, there were numerous quotes about Windows outselling
*all* windows Apps by a factor of 3 or 4 to 1. That may not be true for
current sales, but with windows selling for $69, I can see a lot of people
buying it "to give it a try", then putting it away after watching it on their
12Mhz '286 box...

	<mike

	I wonder how often Microsoft is going to make everybody upgrade all of
their applications? The addition of Object Linking and Embedding is significant
enough that every application will have to upgrade to support it. Then the user
has to upgrade most of his/her applications to benefit from it. Then they will 
have to upgrade again when NT is ready. Then if the pattern continues to hold, 
NT 2.0 will follow with major new functionality a year later. That gets pretty 
expensive when you have to upgrade several $500 applications every year or so.

	I think CBM has handled OS upgrades much better than Microsoft or Apple.

   Re: .59

>I recently saw something quoting total number of machines worldwide for
>each company (it may even have been *here* - if so, could somebody provide
>the pointer?).

    The info was posted in 4714.7.

>IBM was first, with a nice lead. Apple was second, with 7.4 million machines.
>CBM was third, with 7.1 million machines. Given that, I'm almost willing to
>believe that there are fewer than 4 million Macs, but not quite.

    The numbers were in percentages, NOT millions of machines. I'm sure that
    CBM has shipped upwards of 12-14 million machines in its history, given
    that the C=64 sold 10-11 million units, the C=128 was around 2 million if
    I remember correctly, and we're nearing the 3 million mark in Amiga sales.
    That doesn't count their PC clones, and machines like the VIC-20, Plus/4
    (did they sell any of these? :-) , etc.

    I'm not sure what those percentages reflect: machines in use for the year
    of the survey or total sold for the company's history. I'd suspect the 
    former.

    -Dom
    

Re: .60

>Then they will have to upgrade again when NT is ready. Then if the pattern
>continues to hold, NT 2.0 will follow with major new functionality a year
>later.

Most people running MS/DOS will not have a fast enough processor, enough
physical memory, or a large enough hard disk to run NT.

I predict that NT will not penetrate more than 5% of the MS/DOS market
for the first two years after its release.

From what I've heard, NT fits somewhere between OS/2 and UNIX as far as
size goes.

    	Hardware upgrades are  part of the pattern, too. XT -> AT for more
    demanding applications, AT -> 386 for Windows 3.0, then 386 -> 486
    for NT. Of course, you can chose to hold your ground and let the world
    pass you by. Meanwhile CBM gave a good trade in deal on A1000's and has
    an upgrade path for A500's. Granted, you have to progress as technology
    marches on, but it feels like CBM has much more respect for our
    investment in hardware and software than the PC technology leaders.
    

    Um, thats 4 million Windows users out of an installed PC compatible 
    base of 70 million - less than 10% of the user base...
    They still have a long ways to go...
    
    Prices for Windows usable PCs (386/20 and up) and monitors has been 
    dropping alot recently in the US, so hardware/cost is catching up with
    windowing systems.
    
    The real problem is that the underlying hardware wasn't designed for a
    multitasking environment.  
    
    It should be interesting to see what happens.
    
    I really like equal emphasis put on CLI and Workbench on the Amiga.
    Windowing systems are good for some applications, but I still prefer
    multiple multi-tasking CLI's for most operations.
                           
    dennis  

	Yes, the hardware prices drop rapidly. It appears that a constant over
time is that you can buy a PC from direct channels that meets the minimum
requirements for the latest OS for about $1500. The problem is, how many times 
do you have to spend the $1500 if you want to stay in the mainstream of PC 
applications? 

	BTW, you can buy a Windows Shell for about $100. That should give you
a reasonable CLI environment in Windows.

	The thing that is really a pain about Windows is owning some 
applications that run under Windows and some that run under DOS. Let's see...
I can edit and download at the same time, but if I want to compile, I have to
terminate everything else. Thus, the need to upgrade everything all at
once.

	I am becoming convinced that despite the low cost of PC clones, the
total cost of owning an Amiga is a lot less. I'll probably upgrade my A500
to 2.0 and be set for quite a while. I won't be able to keep my PC current.
It just costs too much...

    
    Actually, there are indications that the never-ending need to upgrade
    PCs may be ramping off.  Clearly, 8088 and 80286 PCs are inadequate for
    decent Windows performance.  However, anything in the 25-40 MHz 80386
    class machine is proving to be about all that's really needed to
    acheive the best possible Windows performance.
    
    This is because the performance bottleneck is getting to be the 8 MHz
    AT buss and non-coprocessed video cards, and (of course) the relatively
    slow access times of hard disks.
    
    Anyone who dumps a lot of money into a high end 80486 would be better
    off putting the money towards a slower 80386 with a coprocessed video
    card, a caching disk controller, and a ton of memory.
    
    There's an article in the latest Computer Shopper that implies that an
    80386 may be all the computer you'll be needing for a very long time
    (assuming that you're in the PC clone universe).
    
    Ed

    ]
    	From what I've heard, the next generation of 486 machines will
    integrate the graphics and disk controller on the motherboard on a high
    bandwidth bus. It's true that a 486 gets bottlenecked for all but
    compute bound things today. Since those two items are hardly "options"
    these days, it certainly makes sense to bring them in off the AT bus.
    The PC designers are too bright to miss that opertunity.
    
    	I'm still impressed that Commodore can support 5 generations of
    processors in one box and run most of its software on any revision of
    its OS. I know MAC owners who keep multiple versions of the OS around
    because some of their applications run on REV n and others run on
    REV n+1.

    
     	> I know MAC owners who keep multiple versions of the OS around
        > because some of their applications run on REV n and others run on
        > REV n+1
    
    I once commented to a Mac weenie here that Apple seemed pretty good at
    keeping old software running on new OS releases.  He replied that Apple
    was in fact notorious for changing all the rules between releases; what
    they _were_ good at was terrorizing all the major software vendors into
    issuing timely upgrades.
    
    Windows?  I dunno, we'll see how much stuff breaks when they go to 3.1,
    which should be RSN.  Certainly the jump from 2.* to 3.0 was a complete
    rewrite, wreaking havoc with the few Windows apps that were available.
    
    Having been on both sides of the fence, I have to agree that Commodore
    has maintained an unprecedented degree of backwards compatibility.
    
    Ed.