EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-08/000043_owner-lightwav…bcom.webcom.com_Sun Aug 6 22:45:15 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-09-02 | 17KB

Received: by webcom.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA197984315; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 22:45:15 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com by webcom.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA197794287; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 22:44:49 -0700
Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com
    (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA289403805; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 01:36:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 01:36:45 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (Very Long) MS Fails Again - Let's get Warped
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


As much as I dislike IBM software, at least their Operating Systems
really ARE operating systems, and not just elaborate GUIs. Even NT
suffers from a few of the W95 problems mentioned below. If NewTek
has even a glimmer of intelligence, they'll compile a LW4.0 version
that can run under Warp. Warp can provide a cost and rendering
efficiency that NT cannot. Warp was written from the ground up to take
advantage of the new 486 and 586 chip technology, while MS still
bumbles along on routines written for out-dated hardware.

I didn't write the following information, but I have heard it from multiple
sources. The text was E-mailed to me. I feel it's just more proof that
Microsoft continues to follow the wrong policies in developing advanced
systems.

> =========================================================================
>
>   Can Windows 95 live up to the hype that Microsoft has generated for it?
>   These questions, which are based upon published information about
>   the final beta product in the "Windows 95 Resource Kit"
>   and "Windows 95 Reviewer's Guide," might help you decide.
>
>   About Reliability
>   =================
>
>   Q: What happens to 32-bit applications when a Win16 application crashes
>      under Windows 95.
>   A: They can stop executing.  Because Microsoft built Windows 95
>      using the same System Virtual Machine (VM) model found in Windows 3.1,
>      the operating system is at the mercy of legacy 16-bit applications.
>      If a Win16 program hangs, it can tie up critical 16-bit code modules
>      located in the System VM.  All other processing is halted.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 IS NOT A RELIABLE PLATFORM FOR MISSION
>      CRITICAL LINE-OF-BUSINESS APPLICATIONS.
>
>   Q: Does Windows 95 protect the contents of its system cache
>      against intrusion by Win32 programs?
>   A: No.  As with the aforementioned system structures, Windows 95 also
>      fails to protect the contents of its system cache - disk cache,
>      network cache, and CD-ROM cache.  As a result, an errant Win32
>      application can write to memory in use by the cache. The potential
>      results: inaccurate data, corrupted file system entries, etc.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE: DATA INTEGRITY IS A QUESTIONS MARK WITH WINDOWS 95.
>
>   Q: How is Microsoft dealing with the issue of Virtual Device Driver
>      (VxD) instability?
>   A: They aren't.  In fact, Windows 95 itself makes heavy use of VxDs
>      to supplement and, in many cases, replace DOS functionality.  VxDs
>      are extremely powerful programs that can literally go anywhere
>      and do anything in the operating system.  They have free reign
>      to address system memory directly, manipulate hardware, and even
>      replace portions of Windows 95 itself at runtime.  This give the
>      creative VxD programmer unlimited flexibility when designing
>      applications that need to modify Windows 95's operation. Microsoft
>      has itself often promoted the VxD interface as a mechanism for gaining
>      good performance with time-critical Windows applications.
>      Unfortunately, the power of the VxD can also be a curse.  As more
>      developers begin to exploit this interface - an interface that has
>      only limited controls and almost zero inter-process isolation - a
>      programming free-for-all may result where multiple third party
>      VxDs modify the system in similar ways with unpredictable results.
>      The failure of a single VxD can undermine the stability of the
>      entire Windows 95  environment.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE: VxDs ARE POTENTIAL DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN IN
>      CORPORATIONS WORLDWIDE.
>
>   Q: Is it true that Windows 95 doesn't fully protect its own operating
>      system code against Win32 application failures?
>   A: Yes.  Win32 applications can write to regions of the extreme lower
>      and upper address spaces in the System VM that are critical to the
>      environment's operation.  As a result, an errant memory operation
>      can undermine system stability and potentially crash the entire
>      operating system.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 MAY BE ONE ERRANT MEMORY OPERATION AWAY
>      FROM TOTAL FAILURE.
>
>   Q: When running DOS applications, does Windows 95 fully virtualize the
>      PC's hardware to protect against buggy  applications?
>   A: No.  Windows 95 fails to virtualize critical hardware components like
>      the interrupt flag. This, in turn, can lead to a system crash if an
>      errant DOS program becomes unresponsive while interrupts are
>      disabled.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  LEGACY APPS ARE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF WINDOWS 95 MEMORY
>      MANAGEMENT.
>
>   About Usability
>   ===============
>
>   Q: Does Windows 95 track objects dynamically?
>   A: No.  Windows 95 uses a series of static DOS pathnames and .INI files
>      to track the relationship between icons on the desktop and files
>      on disk.  For example, the shortcut mechanism of the Windows 95
>      interface relies on a stored copy of the original's path
>      information when locating and invoking it.  If the file is moved
>      within the directory structure, Windows 95 must search the  hard disk
>      for it based on file size and date stamp.  Although this technique
>      works most of the time, it is limited to searching a single
>      volume - if you move the file to another disk volume, the link is
>      broken completely.  And, because Windows 95 will search your
>      entire network if attached, it may take forever if it is connected
>      to, say, five gigabytes of storage.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  HELP DESK CALLS WILL BE ON THE RISE AS USERS EXPERIMENT
>      WITH SHORTCUTS AND LONG FILENAMES.
>
>   Q: Does Windows 95 make consistent use of drag & drop?
>   A: No.  Windows 95's drag & drop features are applicable to some
>      objects, like files and folders, but not to others.  You cannot,
>      for example, drag a dial-up networking connection to the Windows 95
>      Recycler; nor can you drag objects to the My Computer folder - both
>      are "special" objects in the Windows 95 interface and aren't
>      subject to the normal Windows 95 drag & drop rules.  This introduces
>      a level of inconsistency to the interface and a possible stumbling
>      block for new users trying to take advantage of drag & drop.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  THE WINDOWS 95 INTERFACE IS INCONSISTENT FROM
>      "FUNCTION TO FUNCTION."
>
>   Q: Is the Windows 95 interface consistent and object-oriented?
>   A: No.  For example, while you can invoke the right mouse button
>      pop-up menu on most objects, entries in the Start menu and its
>      submenus are not included.  This makes manipulating Start menu
>      entries an awkward process involving the Taskbar properties
>      dialog box and several layers of menus and windows.  Since the
>      right mouse button works in most other areas of the interface,
>      the Start button's deviation from this norm exposes Windows 95's
>      object-oriented support as incomplete.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 DOES NOT FULLY EXPLOIT O-O TECHNOLOGY
>
>
>   About Windows 95 and Multitasking
>   =================================
>
>   Q: Can Windows 95 preemptively multitask Win16 applications?
>   A: No.  Because Win16 applications were written for a cooperative
>      multitasking environment, they cannot handle the stress of
>      being  "preempted" during execution.  Therefore Windows 95 must
>      handle these applications in the same way that Windows 3.1 does:
>      by giving them exclusive control of the CPU for as long as they
>      are executing.  When, and only when, the application makes a
>      specific API call - one of the few such calls that constitute
>      safe points at which Windows can wrest control away from the
>      program - are other programs allowed to execute.  This is
>      "cooperative" multitasking, and has proven to be ineffectual
>      when running more than a handful of programs simultaneously or
>      when running CPU-intensive programs such as communications,
>      print and/or fax programs.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 ADDS LITTLE VALUE FOR THE LARGE BASE OF
>      LEGACY WIN16 APPLICATIONS.
>
>   Q: Are there any caveats to multitasking Win32 applications under
>      Windows 95?
>   A. Yes.  In its effort to maintain a high degree of backward
>      compatibility while simultaneously minimizing the RAM requirements
>      of the operating system, Microsoft has chosen to rely on its existing,
>      Windows 3.1-era USER (window management) and Graphics Device
>      Interface (GDI) modules rather than create new, 32-bit versions.
>      In order to utilize this older, 16-bit code in potentially
>      preemptive (with regard to Win32 applications), 32-bit
>      multitasking environment of Windows 95, Microsoft was forced to
>      serialize access to USER and GDI.  As a result, only a single Win32
>      or Win16 program can access these critical modules at any given time.
>      This hurts application performance on heavily loaded systems
>      as programs are forced to "line-up" and wait for a chance to
>      execute a USER or GDI routine.
>      All USER calls (for both 16 and 32-bit applications) are serialized
>      and handled by the 16-bit code, while the majority of GDI calls
>      are similarly handled (the other 50 percent are handled by newer
>      32-bit routines).
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95'S MULTITASKING IS BEST DESCRIBED AS
>      PREEMPTIVELY CHALLENGED.
>
>   Q: What happens to Windows 95's multitasking when you run a mixture of
>      application types?
>   A: It reverts to a cooperative multitasking model.  Windows 95's
>      continued reliance on the single system VM model of Windows 3.1
>      places the operating system's multitasking capabilities
>      at the mercy of the lowest common denominator: the 16 bit
>      Windows application.  Whenever a Win16 application is running,
>      the operating system's multitasking capabilities are
>      compromised by the need to allow such programs to execute
>      "undisturbed" for as long as they require.  As a result, when
>      multitasking a mixture of applications - Win16 and Win32 - true
>      preemptive operation is impossible since, at any given time, a
>      16-bit  application may require exclusive control of the CPU.
>      Worse still, since the Win16 application is typically
>      executing a portion of the 16-bit USER or GDI code - access
>      to which must be serialized among processes -all other processes,
>      including Win32 applications, are blocked from executing.  The net
>      result is what would be best described as "semi-preemptive"
>      multitasking.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WHEN WIN16 APPLICATIONS ENTER THE MIX, WINDOWS 95 TAKES
>      ON AN ALTERNATE PERSONALITY WINDOWS 3.1
>
>   Q: Does Windows 95's multitasking resolve any of Windows 3.1's
>      multimedia-related deficiencies?
>   A: Not really.  Windows 95's inconsistent multitasking performance -
>      a byproduct of the single System VM model - compromises
>      its performance as a serious multimedia production platform.
>      Complex .AVI clips break up noticeably when a significant I/O strain
>      is placed on a Windows 95 system.  Even simple operations, like
>      opening an application program, can have a negative impact on
>      multimedia playback.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  YOU STILL CAN'T PLAY MULTIMEDIA AND DO HEAVY I/O
>      SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>
>   About Windows 95's relationship to DOS
>   ======================================
>
>   Q: Does Windows 95 really do away with DOS?
>   A: No.  Windows 95, though touted as a completely new, 32-bit operating
>      system, is in fact still based on DOS technology that dates
>      back to the early 1980s.  Under Windows 95, even
>      Win32 applications rely on at least a few data structures within
>      the real mode DOS environment (most notably, they all maintain real
>      mode PSPs).  Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, Windows 95
>      is highly sensitive to the configuration of a PC's real mode DOS
>      environment.  If, for example, the available conventional memory
>      in the System VM - the DOS virtual machine where all 16-bit
>      Windows applications and some Windows 95 codes executes - dips below
>      a certain level, Windows 95 will report "out of memory" messages
>      when you try to open additional Win16 or Win32 programs.  This is
>      unrelated to the well known System Resources phenomena, and the
>      only real solutions are to either replace as many real mode device
>      drivers as possible with VxDs or to invest in a third party memory
>      manager to optimize the pre-Windows 95 DOS environment.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  WINDOWS 95 CAN BE VIEWED AS DOS/WINDOWS with a new
>      INTERFACE AND SOME NEW VxDs.
>
>   Q: What is Single MS-DOS Application mode and how does it affect other
>      running applications?
>   A: Microsoft touts Single MS-DOS Application (SMA) mode as its ultimate
>      solution to any and all DOS compatibility complaints. SMA is
>      essentially real mode DOS, except that instead of booting DOS and
>      then loading Windows, the order has been reversed: you first boot
>      Windows 95, then "unload" it as the machine is reset into the real
>      mode of SMA. This indeed eliminates virtually all remaining
>      DOS application incompatibilities since the PC is no longer
>      running in V86 protected mode - it has been reset to real mode,
>      loaded with a copy of DOS, and left at a command prompt. What
>      Microsoft doesn't like to admit, however, is that to invoke an
>      SMA-dependent application is to essentially shut-down Windows 95 -
>      all running applications are closed, network connections are
>      severed, and VxD support for peripherals like CD-ROM drives
>      disappears. To maintain these functions you need to add real mode
>      DOS device drivers to your system and then configure them via the
>      SMA dialog box.  And since Windows 95 is no longer running,
>      any users who are connected to shared resources on the system are
>      disconnected when it enters into SMA mode.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  SMA IS REALLY ONLY A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR HOME USERS AND
>      OTHER NON-NETWORKED ENVIRONMENTS
>
>   Q: How does Windows 95 handle real mode DOS device drivers?
>   A: Windows 95's dependency on the real mode DOS environment
>      undermines the product's ability to support DOS applications.
>      Because Windows 95 relies on an "image" of the pre-Windows 95
>      boot-up environment when creating the System VM, and because
>      subsequent DOS virtual machines are similarly based on this
>      boot-up image, Windows 95 users are forced to load any required
>      real mode device drivers as part of the original boot-up
>      CONFIG.SYS file.  The ramifications of this limitation are
>      significant:  each and every DOS session under Windows 95
>      contains a running copy of, and surrenders valuable conventional
>      or upper memory to, real mode device drivers.  This is true even
>      if the drivers are not required or desired in a particular
>      DOS session.
>
>      BOTTOM LINE:  THERE'S NO WAY TO LOAD A REAL MODE DRIVER INTO A
>      SPECIFIC DOS SESSION -- IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION.
>
>    - ASHISH GUPTA  PSP MARKETING STRATEGIES
>   *********************************************************************
>

Dan Esmond
Animagic
Austin, TX
--
[e-mail] sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]