CompuServe Thread

#Autodesk Confirms NT 3ds

7 messages in this thread
#157408From: krazy imagesMar 6, 1995 5:42 PM
Marc, Actually you got my SGI optimization issue in a strange really weird way. I was only establishing a parallelism between how SGI apps are bad and slow enough that they have to depend on superfast processors and arrays to be productive, even if they do wonders in the meantime. In the same way, Windoze 3.0 was so poorly wrote, no matter what "new" things it brought to the _Intel_ arena, that a 386 was barely capable of running it. But people got crazy about how "new and cool" were the things Windows 3.0 was able to do, they buy it and the "GUI revolution" (?) created a need for faster. In a sense, you are right, Windoze 3.0 started the revolution. "We give you not efficient code and slow performance to make you buy new and faster processors" is the motto of that revolution and since then, it has been carved in stone in many walls of many companies that wrote, write and will wrote software for Windows (and other platforms). Seem that you are old enough to remember Windows 1.02! Wow! I am impressed! Maybe you are old enough to remember what other operating systems were arround, specially one that really started a true revolution in how we use or we want to use computers today (althought to be honest, that revolution started at PARC, not at Apple). Personally, my first version of Windows was Windows/286. I think I still have the original disks somewhere. And I got it because I needed it for my first full page truecolor scanner, back when scanners prices were of $3,000 minimum for greyscale models (I was 18 when I got that one). I didn't use it too much because most of the time I were very busy learning Topas, Lumena and my old humble used Targa. And yes, I was too young, I have to admit it. I never said the contrary BTW.(I even posted a photo of mine in the forum, so anyone can guess my actual age). But hey, some people start in the business at 25, some, like me I guess, got an Apple II and started at 16. Windows 3.0 or 3.1 or WFWG 3.11 or whatever could be the invention of the millenium (maybe until Windows 95 or Bob come, right?) for you and many other people, but really, it is not. Windows 3.0 put 386s to the max, I agree, but not only because it brought so many "new" things, but also, and mainly, because the design and coding was not so brilliant as you seem to think. I hope Gus is reading this and could jump in with some comments about Windows 3.0 "structure". I only understand about what computers could do, not how they do it (so slow). Everyone's entitled to their opinon, yes. Even when they are wrong, I can't agree more. Yours truly, ana /krazy images
#157508From: Alex KaramanoglouMar 7, 1995 7:40 AM
Hi Ana, Are you still in Miami? I haven't talked to you in a while. Listen, I'd like to see your stuff sometime if you don't mind… Let me know… Alex Karamanoglou Network Graphics & Animations Miami, FL
#157584From: Ron Ruvalcava Jr.Mar 7, 1995 2:48 PM
Ana, Let's try a TRS-80 and an Atari 800 w/ a Koala pad, programing in basic at 11. Remember the days!!! -Ron R. Jr. =%^)
#157619From: Tim c BrananMar 7, 1995 5:13 PM
That sounds about right, except it was an Apple II 😉
#157977From: Marc BarbourMar 9, 1995 10:13 AM
krazy, >> In the same way, Windoze 3.0 was so poorly wrote, no matter what >> "new" things it brought to the _Intel_ arena, that a 386 was >> barely capable of running it. I agree that Win30 was not the most robust code ever written, but it wasn't *that* bad. Remember than Win30 was *released* when the 386 was a very new processor and hardly anyone knew its full capabilities. That MS could put out an OS shell that worked with VMs in and of itself was a pretty amazing thing (since VMs didn't even exist when Windows was designed!) >> In a sense, you are right, Windoze 3.0 started the revolution. "We >> give you not efficient code and slow performance to make you buy >> new and faster processors" is the motto of that revolution and >> since then, it has been carved in stone in many walls of many >> companies that wrote, write and will wrote software for Windows >> (and other platforms). Actually most companies at that time optimized the crap out of their code (as I remember it). Even Win30 was optimized to such an extent that most API calls were written in assembly language instead of C. Unfortunately even the fastest code in the world won't make up for design problems. >> Seem that you are old enough to remember Windows 1.02! Hey, hey, hey! It was only 9 years ago! I got 1.02 at the same time I got 1.03. The only difference (if I remember right) was that 1.02 was some sort of foreign language version. Both came with the first PC that I bought. >> (althought to be honest, that revolution started at PARC, not at >> Apple) Well, no it didn't really. The GUI interface *design* was born at PARC but Apple was the first to steal Xerox's ideas. As far as I know Xerox never implemented the GUI design they came up with (could be wrong about that though.) >> (maybe until Windows 95 or Bob come, right?) Don't even mention Bob! <shudder> >> and mainly, because the design and coding was not so brilliant as >> you seem to think. At the time it was pretty damned brilliant IMHO. It mainly "suffered" from design flaws like every other OS (shell, whatever) that's ever been written. >> I hope Gus is reading this and could jump in with some comments >> about Windows 3.0 "structure". Who's Gus? >> Everyone's entitled to their opinon, yes. Even when they are wrong, >> I can't agree more. Touche'. Regards, Marc
#158039From: Gus GrubbaMar 9, 1995 3:34 PM
>> Who's Gus? That's me! >> Remember than Win30 was *released* when the 386 was a very new processor >> and hardly anyone knew its full capabilities… Not really. Win30 came out in 90. I had a 486/33 for over a year by then. In fact, when I got my first 386 in 87, I was already running different VM's using a [never heard off] program called VM/386 put out by a company called IGC. >> The GUI interface *design* was born at PARC but Apple was the first >> to steal Xerox's ideas. As far as I know Xerox never implemented the GUI >> design they came up with (could be wrong about that though.) That's right. They did mess around with it in the later incarnation of Digital Research's GEM. That's how they first introduced Ventura.
#158636From: Marc BarbourMar 13, 1995 9:49 AM
Gus, >> Not really. Win30 came out in 90. Not really. Win30 came out in 89. Sort of proves my point really. When Win30 came out it used damn near every capability of the 386 even though the processor wasn't really that prevalent (i.e. we only had a few 386s but a ton 'o 286s). But the Pentium has been out for something like four years now and there still isn't an OS that takes advantage of the Pentium like Win30 took advantage of the 386 (although NT comes close since it was compiled with Pentiums in mind). That may not be saying much though because the Pentium instruction set varies little from the 386 instruction set.<g> >> I was already running different VM's using a [never heard off] >> program called VM/386 put out by a company called IGC. Oh I know there were other OSs that supported VM's (I think we were using Quarterdeck's DeskView) but nothing really caught on until Win30 came out. Marc