Windows Debate
45 messages in this thread
A few days ago, someone took a swipe at Microsoft Windows, implying that
programming the Amiga would be a "liberating" experience after programming
Windows. Being both an Amiga fanatic and a Windows programmer, I'm ready
and willing to talk about the similarities and differences between
AmigaDOS/Intuition and Microsoft Windows.
So call me the devil's advocate. I programmed the PC for many years before
Windows and the Amiga came along, so segment registers don't scare me much.
(I don't like them, and would strange the guy who left them in the '386 and
'486, but that's another story…)
Thing is, in a flaming network debate over whether Windows or Intuition was
"better", I think the Amiga would lose, or at least come out struggling and
bloodied. So come on, I dare ya, knock this chip off my shoulder – tell me
why Windows is so bad…
John,
Haven't done any Windows programming, so I can't take you up on your
offer of stimulating debate. I do agree with your statement that segment
registers aren't particularly scary once one is accustomed to them
(although they are definitely a pain and should be outlawed).
However, I will take a side-shot attempt at debate <grin> – Performance.
While I haven't seen very many applications developed specifically for
Windows, the few that I've seen were pretty slow. On top of that,
attempting to run non-Windows applications in virtual mode is absolutely
painful. Running on my 386/20 (4 meg) system, the game I am developing is
significantly slower when running under Windows than it is running on my
Amiga in 68K mode. And this was with no other Windows applications
launched (other than the internal Windows tasks). In comparison, the same
game, running under DesqView (again, in multitasking mode) is slightly
faster than the Amiga version running on an '020. Granted, I think Windows
does a slightly better job of running applications specifically developed
for it, the overhead is still such that it's main purpose in life is to
sell bigger and faster machines and gobs of memory.
…BobR
White Wolf Productions
I'd agree, many of today's Windows programs are kind of sluggish. I've also
seen a few that zip right along, even on a 8 mhz 286. It depends on how
the program is written (as is true of any OS) and how you've got the
priorities set. Are you running a 256 color driver for Windows? How are
the priorities set in your game? Is your game designed for Windows, or are
you running it in a DOS window?
John,
The game is most definitely not designed for Windows. It's a "standard"
DOS application. Doesn't cooperate with Windows at all – in fact, it
doesn't know… about it. (sorry about the … – term program going
berserk). It's running as a Non-Windows app. But Windows still claims to
be able to multitask (somewhat) this type of program. It's not running in
a Window – it needs to be running in Full-Screen mode. Only way one can
get any semblence of graphics performance on a PeeCee is to bang the
hardware directly. I understand that these constraints make it very
difficult for Windows to multitask this type of program, but I point out
that DesqView manages to do the same thing (and no, this program isn't
DesqView aware, either) with far less overhead.
I didn't put a lot of effort into "tuning" Windows, as it shouldn't be
needed. I wasn't running any other programs at the same time. I can
accept some slowdown, but the amount of slowdown I saw was incredible.
…BobR
White Wolf Productions
Have we started to wonder if the 'huge program base' argument for using the
MS-DOS machines is still valid, whhen everyone wants software which will
multi-task in a windowed environment? It seems like everyone has to start
over on writing the software base, or people have to put up with slow
performance on fast hardware.. and only give up about 8megs of hd space to
achieve what my A1000 could do512k 4 years ago.
Arnie,
Yes people want multitasked windowed environments, but they also want
upward compatibility of all the data and programs they already have. The
folks just getting into computers who feel that being able to steal
software is an important buy point ( and there are many out there like
that) will go for the PC everytime. Others with just data sharing concens
will also opt for PC or Mac as it is what you see when you walk into 99.5%
of the businesses out there in the work-a-day world that does not include
video.
IBM is now heavily promoting multi-media as is Mac. Mac is ceasing sale of
its ROMs becuase of the success of Amax. CBM has abandoned the multi-media
angle of Amiga and gone after the "smart kid" market for Xmas. So the high
ground that the Amiga enjoyed is being given up by CBM without a fight.
Once again the Amiga is a machine without a mission. Thus it will be the
machine of the technomaniac fringe and not well accepted with the average
non-technical user since it is not as easy as mac to operate (according to
my brother who abandoned AMiga for Mac after a bad experience with MSS – he
is also an ex-Navy lifer with no education beyond that which he could not
avoid in High School). It is also not possible to have 6 people ("experts"
as it were) hanging over your shoulder helping you with a problem in the
office if you have an Amiga 'cause so few people have experince with it.
Basically, until CBM defines a definite mission/use for the Amiga in the
user community mind, and hammers away at it until Lotus, WordPerfect, etc
have active development for the Amiga there will never be a 'popular'
market for our pet machine.
wmc
Commodore is aiming the *A500* at the "smart parent" market for
Xmas…those parents that want to get their kids something more than
Nintendo. There is no evidence CBM has given up their multi-media thrust
for the higher end machines….the machines that are really more suited to
that job.
Steve
In fact, all of the CBM press releases end with a "boiler plate" statement
that the company sells "three lines of computers — the multi-media Amiga
series, MSDOS compatibles, and the classic C64." (That's from memory, but
the statement is close to that).
?|^] Ray Lewis
Right. Altho I thought I noticed that the "multimedia Amiga" part of the
CBM press releases was fairly recent… it seems to me that up until a few
months ago, they always said "multitasking Amiga" instead.
At least I think so. I remember noticing that something was different. ?!
I'm convinced that CBM doesn't sell anything; it just hopes people will buy
the boxes. Its sales effort is STILL nearly non-existent, IMHO.
Ron
Ron:
There does seem to be an increase in real marketing at CBM. Certainly, the
second milion boxes flew out the door a lot faster than the first!
Right now, based only on what I see, not on any special knowledge, CBM
seems to be focusing its resources in three places:
a) Retail 500C sales for the Christmas market. Note the wave of magazine
and TV ads just now breaking. From what I hear (haven't had a chance to
see any yet) they seem to be pretty good. That should get a bunch of basic
boxes into homes. As kids get older, they will know what a REAL computer
is, and in a certain number of cases, will amaze Mom and Dad (who will
suddenly have their 386/486 "power" boxes shwon up by the kid's $500
wonder!).
b) Video/multi-media. CBM _itself_ put out an _extensive_ press release on
the Video Toaster. In addition, the Disney and AmigaVision software has
been well received. A mark IS being made in this area.
c) High-end education via UNIX. As we know, they already have a MAJOR
development site in place for this. I suspect that they are taking their
time bringing this to full market because they want to make sure they do it
RIGHT. I also suspect that the networking hard/soft/firm ware we are all
waiting desperately for will flood out of CBM as the UNIX system is
released, and that a major spin-off will be AmigaDOS compatible versions.
That's just a guess, 'cause I DO NOT have any special info.
Certainly the amount and quality of advertising has risen. Clearly the
amount of actual cooperation with potential major buyers has risen (you
can, I hear, get into the UNIX thing right now if you prove you have a
large, REAL, potential buy at stake, for example.)
S
?|^] Ray Lewis
Yes, the second million did come out a lot faster.
I haven't seen a single CBM commercial since last year, and no new ads in a
long time (except the long running V2 compatible ad). Yes, the 500's will
show off real well in some ways compared to the sintel boxes.
Desktop vidoe may do real well for Amiga, but IBM and Apple are trying very
hard to steal the thunder, and if CBM is not real careful you'll keep
hearing suggestions that dv/mm originated on the pc. And CBM doesn't seem
to be doing anything to respond to all this new IBM/MAC bs.
Unix; they are finally letting out a few boxes if you have a big enough
sale and you beg real hard. I actually hope it does well with one concern;
that all these Unix boxes also come bundled with already installed AmigaDos
as well; I don't honestly know if they do or not. I don't yet see any
reason to expect any flood of hardware or software from this, but who
knows.
Crossing my fingers, and toes, and arms, and legs, … AGAIN!
Ron
UNfortunately (I think – it is rather confusing. :^) The Mac ROM
availability will only hurt the people who make A-MAX. The pirated version
is far more prevalant, and it needs no roms, or A-MAX hardware either.
I hate theft, catagorically. But I also really have a negative attitude
about Apple. Life's just so hard. :^)
BBS->Williams.Ben[AA7AS]
"The folks just getting into computers who feel that being able to steal
software is an important buy point ( and there are many out there like
that) will go for the PC everytime."
Yes, but I'm afraid that viewpoint extends to other machines, too. PC's
are popular because people can "get" software from work. Apples are likely
the same way. And you often see messages on BBSs saying to "buy an Amiga,
because you can 'get' hundreds of games for it". Yet I've never met anyone
who could actually _afford_ those "hundreds of games" ;-).
Still, I wonder how much effect this attitude really does have? I'm sure
you've known as many first-time PC buyers as I have… but the ones I've
known were usually new enough to not even _know_ about available (legal or
otherwise) software at purchase time. Thoughts?
"CBM has abandoned the multi-media angle of Amiga and gone after the "smart
kid" market for Xmas. So the high ground that the Amiga enjoyed is being
given up by CBM without a fight. Once again the Amiga is a machine without
a mission."
I disagree, sort of. If CBM only concentrated on the "multimedia" ads,
then they'd be ignoring many consumers who have never heard of
"multimedia". A manufacturer has to be diverse in his marketing approach.
Cast a net made with only multimedia-sized holes, and you miss a lot of
fish ;-).
<cont'd in reply>
<cont'd>
"Basically, until CBM defines a definite mission/use for the Amiga in the
user community mind, and hammers away at it until Lotus, WordPerfect, etc
have active development for the Amiga there will never be a 'popular'
market for our pet machine."
Define "popular". A few years back, many people would've dreamed of "2
million Amigas sold" as being sufficient :-).
When you bought your Amiga, you _knew_ it was for the "technomaniac fringe"
(as you put it)… so why worry _now_ whether it gets Lotus 1-2-3 etc on it
or not?? If you needed 1-2-3, you would've gotten a PC in the first place,
yah? People who need to feel like part of a crowd, can get C64s and PCs.
So what do you want? 40 million sold like PCs? Ain't gonna happen. The
biggest reason PCs sold so well, was because there were lots of cheap
clones out there… Macs and Amigas don't have that huge advantage.
Porting PC software to the Amiga, really just points out the PC software is
more desireable, don't you think? I'd rather see _better_ software on the
Amiga, instead. best – kev
I just read a magazine called VIZONS which claims to be THE TOTAL
MULTIMEDIA MAGAZINE (first issue). No mention of AMIGA. This is definately
another MAC/IBM rag. CBM needs to get more active in the trade rags.
HarryM.
I agree, you shouldn't have to fine-tune things… but it might improve
performance. I think these options are deep in the PIF editor. They let
you tune the relative number of time slices that the program gets, when it
runs in exclusive mode, whether Windows should try to detect busy-wait
loops, things like that.
To play devil's advocate, Windows *did* run your program, right ?
Well, actually Windows did "walk" my program – it was definitely too slow
to call it "running". 🙂
I know about going into the PIF editor to change some of the parameters,
but the defaults did look reasonable to me. I've experimented with running
this game on 3 different MS-DOS multitasking kludges: Windows, Desqview,
and SimulTask386 running on a SVR3 unix system. The simultask was a little
flakey (primarily 'cause I didn't have the mouse configured quite right),
but didn't show nearly the type of slowdown that Windows does. Desqview
adds so little detectable overhead that the performance is not noticably
worse than when running it on the same machine without any multi-tasking
system. Of course, it does slow down when running under Desqview if I have
a "make" running in the background, but even then it's much faster overall
than when running under Windows with nothing else significant running.
What can I say? The public (and the trade press) seems willing to buy
anything that Bill Gates says is good for them.
…BobR
White Wolf Productions
John –
In the case of both Intuition and Windows, I'm just an armchair philosopher
(studied both setups and sample source code for quite some time now, but
have never done actual programming under either one).
So I have my own (perhaps mistaken, but certainly not pre-biased) ideas on
which parts of each are cleaner, easier to program, more
device-independent, more intuitive, and so on.
In any case, I'm curious to hear your opinions on exactly where and how
Intuition "would lose" or come out "struggling" in comparison to Windows.
And for that matter, anywhere the Amiga would come out ahead (an angle that
devil's advocates must take on also ;-). thx! – kev
I'll take a little swipe at it. Let's take a simple demo program like the
nervous lines program that comes with Lattice C. One of my first projects
under Windows 3.0 was to port this program. It became painfully obvious
that Windows is NOT a preemptive multitasking operating environment. I w
ported the program without having my code knowingly give up the processor.
Of course Windows locked up, the hour glass remained on the display and my
program ran wonderfully, but I couldn't move windows, close windows, type
characters from the keyboard. Basically, I could do nothing but watch the
nervous lines program run. I couldn't even stop the nervous lines program.
I ended up having to set up a timer to send me messages once in a while so
I could run and allow other programs to run as well. I'm sorry, but this
type of cooperative multitasking SUX!!!!! You may say whatever you want
about the other features of Windows 3.0, but those features can easily be
added to the Amiga. The fact that the basic philosophy behind windows is
pseudo-cooperative multitasking leaves Windows 3.0 far behind the Amiga's
operating system on a user's as well as programmer's basis. One other
example comes to mind, try running the analog clock program and then double
click on a directory window. The clock stops until the disk activity
completes. An Amiga user will quickly pick up on the "Stop Action" feel of
windows and grow to hate it. Of course if you come from a DOS world,
Windows 3.0 gives you a small taste of what Amiga owners have had for
years. Well, I think I have flamed enough for one sitting. Just remember,
an once of image is worth a pound of performance.
Tim
Can't help but agree with you on this point. I'm sure there will be many
programs that suddenly grab the machine at some point, and don't give it
back until that operation is finished. Unless the programmer has another
task running in another window while they're working on it, they'll never
notice – but the users will.
DOS people will be very exciting about non-preemptive multitasking. Five
years ago, when the Amigaphiles were jumping up and down about it, DOS
users insisted that they didn't need it. Mostly because Microsoft told
them they didn't need it, I think. 🙂 It will take a few months at least
before the Windows love-fest ends, and columnists and users begin to
understand the seemingly esoteric distinction between preemptive and
non-preemptive multitasking.
On the other hand, your example program breaks the rules of Windows.
You're supposed to hand off control, or other programs are locked out. Did
you change your program to do so? I know this is a niggling point, but you
can also write Amiga programs that take over the machine and prevent other
tasks from running…
When the crying and screaming gets loud enough, don't you think Microsoft
will drop in true preemptive multitasking?
"DOS people will be very excited about non-preemptive multitasking. Five
years ago, when the Amigaphiles were jumping up and down about it, DOS
users insisted that they didn't need it."
It's taken a long time for multitasking to be accepted as "worthwhile" at
all. Heck, in 1980, you could get PM multitasking OS's for Cromenco
(Cromix), GIMIX and SWTPC (OS-9), and probably some others. Around 1982 you
could get Oasys for Z80s, and MP/M for Intel cpus.
SEVEN years ago (1983) you could buy a preemptive multitasking OS for the
CoCo; and while those users were also "jumping up and down about it", the
general reaction from the C64 and Atari (and even most of the CoCo) owners
was that "they didn't need it" ;-). Deja vu? Nobody's perfect.
"When the crying and screaming gets loud enough, don't you think Microsoft
will drop in true preemptive multitasking?"
Sure. It just takes time and effort to move things over. Multitasking is
now "obviously" a desireable feature. And while the step from co-op
multitasking to preemptive can be tough, it is also a natural progression,
I think. BTW, don't forget the next step: multiuser support. OS9ers love
it; yet others claim they "don't need it". And so things go 'round again.
<sigh>
It never stops. Coprocessors, multitasking, sound, you name it…
everything is an "I don't need it" item until they become cheap or popular
items <grin>.
To answer the question of whether Microsoft will ever include preemptive
multitasking in Windows, I would have to say definitely NO. If you look at
the parasitic structure of a Windows application and how the softare
engineer has to bend over backward to design in small bursts of processing
when it makes no sense to do so, I think you will find that premptive
multitasking makes no sense. The current base of windows programs would
have to be structurally redesigned to take advantage of the premptive
multitasking. To answer the question of whether I fixed the lines program
to relinquish control, yes I did by using 1 of the 16 available timers. Of
course I can only run 16 lines demos, because of the hard coded limit of
timers in Windows. Well, I guess the Amiga wins there. I have had over 30
line drawing demos running on the Amiga. A feat unmatched by Windows. I
firmly believe that Windows is a step towards OS/2. Microsoft is marketing
Windows to raise the public's interest in windowed multitasking systems and
to make a lot of money. As PC platforms come down in price and Microsoft
sales of Windows decreases, the price of OS/2 will be cut and Microsoft
will promote OS/2 preemptive multitasking capabilities over that of Windows
to create a new demand for OS/2. Programs running under Windows can be
easily ported to the Presentation Manager without losing much of windowing
code. I believe this is Microsoft's grand marketing plan and that Windows
will eventually die and give life to OS/2.
Tim
Tim,
I believe the type of multitasking you are looking for exists in OS/2 but
not DOS. Windows is still an application, not an OS exec task, so it, by
definition can only prvide the appearance of multi-tasking. What I'm trying
to say is that it does not have full knowledge of and access to all the
system resources. Therefore it cannot manage all those resources in a
preemptive/priority swithching manner.
OS/2 does this but in a very doggy fashion that is also expensive in memory
as well as processor demands. Now if ADOS added memory protection and
demand paging (which they could do on the 68030 machines) with the current
Ados as a base I believe as an OS it would blow OS/2 Windows or anything
els in PeeCee land to H*$$ and back in much less msmory! But it would be a
fruitless exercise unless CBM can get major players in the DOS world to
develop for the Amiga so that Joe Blow can still use his Lotus spread
sheets and turbo pascal programs etc.. Oh yeah – he'd have to have his
aquarium screen blanker too!!
wmc
It's so much fun to take my 3000 to work and pit it against a 386sx running
windows 3.0! Without 4 meg of memory the Pee Cee wumps the hard drive
playing virtual memory games (i presume) every time some keybaord or mouse
event occurs to cause a task switch. WHen I can try OS2ee on a PC with
some memory, we'll see how it does. I'm not holding my breath. HarryM.
Good thing – you'd turn blue and pass out while waiting for the task to
come up after invoking it – OS/2 is a TERRIBLE dog!!!! And all that segment
register stuff….. yecchh!
wmc
John,
I haven't tried to program Microsoft Windows, but I'll tell you, from a
user's perspective, the Amiga is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to use. Case in
point:
At work we upgraded from PageMaker 3.0 with run-time 286 Windows to
PageMaker 3.01 (for Windows 3.0) and a full version of Windows 3.0. It
wouldn't print. Why? We called Aldus, and they said it was Windows. We
called MicroSoft, and they couldn't get it to print, but we discovered the
problem was in downloading soft fonts to a network spooler – LANtastic, to
be specific. LANtastic isn't included on the list of Microsoft Windows
networks. So we called Lantastic, received a Fax 20 pages long configuring
Windows. We then upgraded the soft fonts, Bitstream, to Bitstream 3.0 for
Windows and reinstalled EVERYTHING. Twice. So I looked over the WIN.INI
file, and found a line that said "sfdlbat=D:\FONTS\SFLPT1.BAT" No such BAT
file existed, and I called MicroSoft again, and they said they didn't know
exactly what the BATCH file did, but that it didn't matter. They could get
their machines to work with a different type of softfonts, and told me to
increase my printer timeouts to 100 and 200 (I'd already tried with 300
and 600, but the tech wouldn't believe me) He also said that I should try
calling Hewlett Packard, because they wrote the printer driver. By this
time, I'd installed it on my own machine for testing. When it still didn't
work, I called Bitstream, and they could answer my questions, and we
managed to get it to print, eventually, and it worked on my machine (I
needed to use a smaller character set than ANSI Windows and I needed to set
up the printer to ignore Tabs and swallow 8 bits without interpretation).
So, I installed it on the original machine, and guess what? It DIDN'T
work. So I disconnected the printer from the network since it was local
anyway, and changed the port from LPT1.PRN (which works on my machine–per
instructions from LANtastic) to just LPT1 and it worked, so just for the
heck of it, I reinstalled the printer on the
[ MORE ]
You picked some hard areas for *comparison* – considering that the Amiga
doesn't have a network that's shipping, easy to install, or peer-to-peer,
much less server-based. Windows does have provisions for networking
support, while the Amiga doesn't. We don't have any outline-based scaled
font support, either.
And we don't have the equivalent of a WIN.INI file. Sure, Preferences
covers some of the bases, and 2.0 improved this support, but I'll wait and
see how it's every incorporated.
I do sympathize. I've been doing some work for a Windows product, and part
of my responsibility was an area of the program that did the printing.
Suddenly, printing stopped working. After many hours of debugging, I
discovered that Windows printer drivers aren't required to support every
possible GDI method of printing. Someone re-installed Windows and a new HP
Laserjet driver, and the new driver didn't have the same capabilities as
the old, "breaking" my code.
Yesterday, I spent 45 minutes talking a customer through an installation
process. Our TSSnet installation requires you to add four lines to your
startup-sequence. Of course, the Amiga has *no* way to automate this. The
customer generally ignored our manual, then buried these four lines into a
three- or four-level deep set of script files all branching from his
startup-sequence. It turns out his scripts weren't reaching the point of
our installation commands… of course, he wanted to blame our software.
It took a half dozen more calls to clear this up… This process isn't
necessarily any cleaner on the Amiga, is it?
John,
The problem wasn't LANtastic. The problem was that whoever they called,
they said, "It's not us, it's THEM." Aldus blamed MicroSoft. MicroSoft
blamed Aldus, Artisoft (makers of LANtastic), Hewlett Packard and
Bitstream. Bitstream solved my problem, even giving me advice on problems
with the network. Aldus should have known about the potential problems
with Bitstream's fontware since they sell PageMaker with which includes a
free starter kit. What do you mean the Amiga doesn't have outline-based
scaled font support? What do you call the Compugraphic fonts in ProPage,
chopped liver? Windows doesn't offer outline-based scaled font support. It
only offers bitmapped fonts.
>>Our TSSnet installation requires you to add four lines to your
startup-sequence. Of course, the Amiga has *no* way to automate this.<<
Huh? Why can't you just write an installation program that edits the
startup-sequence? DOS programmers have been doing that for YEARS when they
edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Yes, the process is cleaner on the Amiga. The startup-sequence is a script
file which performs commands. It's easy to figure out what they do.
WIN.INI is NOT. It is a configuration file which controls how other
processes run. WIN.INI is not fully documented, and I read every single
manual, the Windows Manual (not a small task), all the text files for
Windows (they fill a three-ring binder), the network notes, the Bitstream
Manuals. None of them could help.
Installing and using applications with Windows is very difficult.
Installing programs like Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and Paradox for DOS is a
tedium, but it's easier by a magnitude than Windows. Installing software
on my Amiga is about as difficult, sometimes, as installing for DOS. But
it's not as tedius.
Fourty-five minutes? Gee, I only spent 40 HOURS trying to get Windows to
work. With the Amiga, there's only the startup-sequence and occasionally,
Libraries. With Windows, there's: WIN.INI CONFIG.SYS AUTOEXEC.BAT
[ MORE ]
We don't have an installable, replacement for bit-mapped fonts like Windows
has. Pro Page's solution works only within Pro Page. Windows does have
some lousy stroke fonts, but I wouldn't defend those. 🙂
We can't write a program that edits a startup-sequence. How could we? How
can we know when the person's hard disk has been mounted, whether or not
certain ASSIGNs have been made, etc. There's nothing we can count on.
Most Amiga users reboot on an application's disk, I believe. Most haven't
the smarts to perfectly customize their startup-sequence. If you know of an
automatic, fool-proof way to add commands to any startup-sequence, please
tell me about it.
At least Windows comes with help… how do you compare the docs that come
with Windows to the docs that come with the Amiga?
You can do it by including a requestor that has the user locate the
applicable sequence for you or click on a default setting like DH0:S or
DF0:S etc.
You miss my point. There's no way you can automate the process of
inserting a set of commands in someone's startup-sequence. It's difficult
enough to explain to someone how to add something there… it comes down
to insuring that the user knows what's there, and knows how to add
something to it. Frankly, the situation is no better on the PC, but it is
better on the Mac. It's too easy to rely on ASSIGNs on the Amiga, as as
soon as you do, you're confronted by this installation problem.
The downloadable fonts for Windows are not by MicroSoft, but by third-party
developers like Bitstream. Bitstream solutions only work with Windows or
certain programs that they wrote an installation program for. Any
third-party developer on the Amiga could do the same if they really wanted
to. (create downloadable fonts for programs to use, and I assume a
downloader, as well). The current programs, however, do not support the
use of downloadable fonts very well.
You CAN write a program that edits the startup-sequence. You can parse to
check to see if the information you want is there, it is possible to check
and see what devices are mounted.
Nevertheless, it isn't fool-proof, but then the programs that edit the
AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS and WIN.INI aren't foolproof either.
I haven't looked through the Docs that come with the A3000 (That's what's
current) so I can't give an honest comparison. However, the Docs that come
with Windows do not describe the WIN.INI file very well.
— Jane H. (Writing, it's easier read than done.)
If a program asks for bitmap fonts through Windows calls, as all Windows
programs must do, then Bitstream's add-on support and Adobe's add-on
support works just fine in any program, unmodified. Unfortunately, on the
Amiga, the method by which you ask for fonts is "backwards" in this
respect. You ask for a list of fonts from the system, and then you're
supposed to choose from them… as opposed to asking for something, and
letting the system (or an add-on font system) for a certain font, size and
weight. So it's not possible to make an ATM for the Amiga, until they
change Intuition.
As we've agreed, any given program can strike up a relationship with any
font company, as Gold Disk and Soft Logik have done.
On the Mac, you drop something in your system drawer and it's installed.
Easy as pie.
John,
I must say, it would be nice if Intuition could differentiate between
screen fonts, bitmapped fonts, Color Fonts, Anim Fonts, etc. so it would be
more "intuitive" when you use programs like DPaintIII.
I'm sure you are more familiar with what CBM is talking about changing than
I am. All I can do is cross my fingers and hope. I'd still like to see
people like Lotus, Borland, and Informix developing for the Amiga.
Sometimes it seems like all Bill Gates has to do is sneeze and people think
it's wonderful and companies start developing for whatever he delivers,
regardless of how much of an installed base exists. But the press and
trade journals seem to support MicroSoft so strongly as THE industry
leader, that any developer who wants to make a living has to tag along.
He has what looks to be a monopoly in the Business Computing market.
MicroSoft DOS, Windows, _and_ OS/2. And all MS did for the Amiga was write
a wimpy, bug-infested interpretted BASIC. If Bill Gates suddenly went to
the press and said that the Amiga is a great machine, and they were
releasing Excel and Word on the Amiga, suddenly everyone would want to
develop for the Amiga. Sad, but, I believe, true.
— Jane H. (Writing, it's easier read than done.)
[ continuation ]
PROGMAN.INI SYSTEM.INI. ALL affecting how the system and programs will
run.
BTW. I wouldn't brag about Windows massive help system. Have you ever
tried actully using it? I have. It's cumbersome and the manual works
better. I've watched the users try working with it, and it's always the
same. They select help, see the help requester, say something to the
effect of "Oh, geeze." or "how does this thing work?" and then back out.
— Jane H. (Writing, it's easier read than done.)
[ continuation ]
network, and it now works like a charm on LPT1 on the production machine.
I do this for a living, for a decent sized company that could afford the
two hours I spent on the long-distance phone support. I'd hate to think
what would happen to the average consumer.
When I first saw windows I thought, "Gee, this is nice, and I like being
able to easily set up logical groups." Now, I know better. Windows is
flakey, finicky, the developers can't figure out whether or not the
problems a user may have is with their software or with windows, and the
WIN.INI file is never fully documented for the user. I don't know maybe
it's documented in one of the half-dozen developer's manuals.
I HATE WINDOWS. I HATE WINDOWS. I HATE WINDOWS, and I love intuition, by
comparison. Yet… At work, I plan to further explore the use of Windows.
Once properly installed and customized for a user by a technician, it's
much easier on the user than MS-DOS. It has a lot of potential. But I
give it five years before all the basic problems are worked out.
— Jane H. (Writing, it's easier read than done.)
Jane,
Microsoftw Tech Documentation department should all be trotted out and
shot! They write the worst documentation in the world.
wmc
Right away I noticed that the CPU just spins its wheels while waiting
for Disk I/O, instead of scheduling another task. If you're not going to
use those cycles, you might as well quit pretending you have them, and run
Software Carousel, Dr. Switch, or some other multiprogrammer. If you run
five programs, even I/O bound, it runs one fifth the speed. That's
deplorable.
Windows is a classic example of how compatability is valued over
performance. It has to be able to run MS-DOS programs, and that leads to
needless performance penalties that you never even think about when you
have a real operating system.
If they take out the MS-DOS and IBM-PC support, and require that it run
modern (1980s) style apps on modern (1980s) style hardware, maybe they'll
have something. 🙂
Sometimes I feel so sorry for IBM. I'm willing to forgive them for the
sin of not releasing the AT with it's own OS. Look what happened to them.
They tried to improve the hardware in '87 by introducing Micro Channel and
they got flamed for it. Sure, they had other reasons for doing it, but it
was still superior. But the press slammed them and the cloners starting
working the EISA kludge.
Then they try to make a real OS, although they gave it a really stupid
stupid name. But the "OS/2" isn't any stupider of a name that "PS/2"!
Anyway, Microsoft stabbed 'em in the back by introducing something more
"compatable" with the "standard", even if it doesn't perform as well…
If IBM gets squashed when they try to improve the situation, why should
Amiga get away with it?
Well said! Having to stay compatible with as many current apps as
possible, is a killer on any machine/OS that wants to move onward.
I remember the original BYTE article on the IBM PC… they were excited
because (supposedly) IBM was going to also sell MP/M (a multitasking CP/M,
I believe) for it.
Too bad they didn't… this might be a far more interesting world now.
Maybe not. Programmers like to go around OSs for speed, and they had very
good prompting to do that back then, what with the hardware at the time
;-).
Same thing happened between AmigaDOS 1.3 and 2.0… CBM promised that
nothing would break, and they restrained themselves from improving things
that would break that future code compatibility. Later, when they changed
plans for one reason or another, suddenly 2.0 *would* break things, and few
earth-shattering improvements were added to 2.0.
I agree, Windows isn't a real OS. To me, it is half-way between the Amiga
and the Mac. It has some of the flexibility of the Mac. After all,
Windows can run on many different display types from many manufacturers,
while the Amiga can't. They isolate the program and the programmer from
the raw manipulation of bits on the screen, while the Amiga doesn't.
Windows isn't as pretty and integrated as the Mac. It has ersatz
multitasking, like the Amiga.
"Windows is a classic example of how compatibility is values over
performance…"
WHAT A MOUTHFUL!!! To go one step further its COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING
DATA FILES! Now if someone could create the main functions with data file
compatibility (both in and out) for spreadsheets, databases,
wordprocessing and DTP programs, really make the Bridgeboard a serious DOS
in an ADOS window (and beat the pants of the the OS/2 compatibility box)
then go out and get CBM to sell the MULTIPLE PERSONALITY COMPUTER FOR ALL
YOUR OFFICE NEEDS… AND YOUR AFTER HOURS FUN … I bet Amigas would sell
like hot dogs at a ball game!!
wmc