home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hemi!jerry
- From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
- Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
- References: <1htal8INNcfc@uwm.edu>
- Sender: nobody@ctr.columbia.edu
- Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:49:16 GMT
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
- Message-ID: <1992Dec31.154916.16022@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
- X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
- Lines: 83
-
- Gregory R Block (bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu) wrote:
- :
- : >Yes, but is it so difficult for you to accept that there may be people
- : >out there for whom virtual memory is a heck of a lot more important than
- : >optimal real-time response? Why is it that you believe that real-time
- : >response is somehow a more desirable OS feature than virtual memory?
- :
- : The only people who DON'T want optimal real-time response are those
- : running non-interactive applications. For ANY interactife
- : application, you WANT the best real-time response you can get.
- : Anything less will shaft you.
- :
-
- Don't you think that for some people, VM, MP, DIG, etc., may be worth a few
- extra CPU cycles? If real-time response is always the most important thing,
- why do all these other OS's bother with all these other things?
-
- :
- : >The point I was making is that Windows has device independence. This allows
- :
- : The point _I_ was making is that it MUST. Because there are 1200
- : different standards, Windows would become unsuitable as a good
- : solution if it didn't JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER
- : MAKES INCOMPATIBLE GRAPHICS BOARDS.
- :
-
- You're ducking the fact that it's an advantage. The benefit is that it works
- with all types of video, cheap SVGA to super-fast coprocessed video. You say
- that there are many incompatible graphics standards on the PC? Take a look
- at the Amiga! You've got three different chipsets from Commodore, and several
- high-end graphics cards which are compatible only with themselves. Wouldn't
- it be nice to have the Resolver work with all Amiga software?
-
- :
- : Same thing with the sound cards--since there IS no one standard, it
- : becomes that much more important.
- :
-
- And that much more advantageous!
-
- :
- : And that device-independent sound
- : is some of the worst stuff.
- :
-
- Why do say that?
-
- :
- : Seriously. Ever see a lemming scream
- : seconds after he should have?
- :
-
- No.
-
- :
- : >There are two reasons. First, DOS is necessary because people still want to
- : >run DOS commands and applications. Second, Microsoft would much rather sell
- : >two products per PC than one.
- :
- : If people want to run dos applications and cmds, then give them a
- : Virtaul DOS like in OS/2 and NT.
- :
-
- Windows does give you virtual DOS. But the two products are unbundled because
- MS can make more money that way.
-
- :
- : I say that the dependence on DOS runs much deeper. In fact, I say the
- : dependence runs down to the CORE of windows itself.
- :
-
- Absolutely incorrect. You have no basis for saying this. Windows certainly
- contains code which allows it to co-reside with the original copy of DOS which
- loaded it, but while it runs, DOS is dormant, and practically no DOS code is
- being used.
-
- : Greg
- --
- +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
- | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
- | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
- | ... In rhythm! | jerry@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
- +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
-