🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1990Jul28.163656.12359@water.waterloo.edu> nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes:

>The subject says it all. I have a '386 running at 20 Mhz and 4 Megs of ram.
>I read most of the reviews on Windows '386, but so far I haven't seen a 
>comparative study involving Windows and DesqView, the way PC Mag did a year o
>r so ago.

Also a good one about the same time in InfoWorld, though written from
an end-users point of view.  They also covered the minor players, such
as OmniView.

Followups I'd like to see:  how good is DesqView's claim to support
Windows programs?  And I note that both DesqView and Windows ads are
giving a little more play to their support of 286 machines; is this
for real?  Or is it hype and I should wait until I can afford that 386
upgrade?

-- 

ergo@netcom.uucp			Isaac Rabinovitch
atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo		Silicon Valley, CA
uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo

	"I hate quotations.  Tell me what you know!"
			-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I have a Zenith 386 with 4 megs of RAM, and I use both Windows 3.0 and
DesqView.  I am a programmer, but have been doing more analytical work
(ie., Wordperfect 5.1 writing).  This is my situation.  [I suppose I should
also say I am posting this message using Windows' terminal program :-) ]

As to which is better I would have to say....it depends.  If you use
at least a couple windows applications like Word or Excel or Pagemaker,
Windows will be the environment you'll want to use.  It is easy to 
use, reasonably fast, and you can still run DOS applications easily.  If
you ever got frustrated with previous versions of windows (as I did),
you owe it to yourself to try 3.0.  It is an amazing improvement (although
the 386 architecture certainly makes Window's task easier with the virtual
8086 mode).  BTW, please don't start any 286/386 argument threads.  I know
there are probably ways the 386 makes life harder, but that isn't really
the subject here. Many of the built-in parts of windows are very good.
In particular, the terminal, the notepad, and word processor are all
very useable.  For doing quick file modifications I would use the notepad
as readily as Brief or vi.

As for Desqview.  I use DV when I want to use several character based
applications simultaneously, like dBASE, WP 5.1 and a DOS window to
run my applications in.  I like to set DV to show output in 43 line mode
so I can see several applications at once, and can easily flip back and
forth using the mouse.  I see DV as the hacker's choice, because it is
character based, and it makes it easy to switch quickly from one task
to another.  You can do tasks in the background, but you will pay a
performance penalty if you do.  I know my Zenith is slow for a 386 (my
roommate here has an AST 386sx machine that blows the doors off my
*REAL* 386 Zenith) but a background window will typically run with a 
Norton SI of 6.6.  The first window I run (in conventional memory) will run
nominally at SI 15.3.  Once that first window is loaded (taking most of the
available conventional memory) most windows operate at SI 6.6.  I assume
that it is slower to run programs from (E)EMS, but I don't really know.

I don't know how others work, but when I am compiling I am generally
working intently on a piece of code, and I want to see the effects of
my changes as quickly as possible.  (I often slip back to my standard
development environment: SideKick plus.  I have never found another
environment where I can go as quickly back and forth between my program
and the editor.  Besides, with the QEMM memory manager, SideKick
appears and disappears as quickly as original SideKick used to.) But I
digress.  DV is a neat environment to work with, and it doesn't require
much of a philosophical change in the user.  You will run all your
normal programs in the same way you always have.  You'll just have more
things available to you.

These are just my $.02 worth.  I have BATch files that change my
environment between SideKick, Windows, DesqView and NFS.  I've been
using the Windows more lately (because it really is neat!) and I
split time between SideKick and Desqview.

Comments ?

Kelly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Grant        grantk@manta.nosc.mil   (619) 225-8401
Computer Sciences Corp          ^^^^^^^^ Important: manta.UUCP won't get to me
4045 Hancock Street      "If you are given lemons.....see if you can trade for
San Diego, CA 92110       chocolate" - me

These are my personal views of these products.  These may or may not
be CSC's or NOSC's views.
-- 
Kelly Grant        grantk@manta.nosc.mil   (619) 225-8401
Computer Sciences Corp          ^^^^^^^^ Important: manta.UUCP won't get to me
4045 Hancock Street      "If you are given lemons.....see if you can trade for
San Diego, CA 92110       chocolate" - me

A previous message talked about how fast desqview tasks perform in the
foreground v. the background.  Actually, you can arrange any division
you want, and you can alter this on the fly.  You can also give the
foreground task almost 100% of the CPU.

I think Windows 3 has a similar capability, but I expect it has a
higher overhead.

I am having a VERY weird problem in TurboC.  My code looks
something like this:


typedef struct{
   . . .
   char   *str;
int    type;
}FIELD;


int proc(FIELD *fld)
{
   . . .
   if(!valid_str(fld->str))
      return ERROR;
   . . .
}

Here's the weird part.  Using Turbo Debugger I have found that my
program crashes right after this statement.  I perform a watch on
fld, fld->str, fld->type.  Before the call to valid_str() all of the
variables are fine.  Upon return from valid_str(), however, the
pointer, fld, is screwed up which of course in turn screws up
fld->str and fld->type.   I assume that fld is being overwritten
somehow but I can't figure out how.  Valid_str() does nothing to
manipulate fld and the only function that valid_str() calls is
atoi() (yes, I do include stdlib.h).  If anyone has any pointers
for me I'd sure appreciate hearing them.

-- Cory
(crn@byuvm.bitnet)

In article <90212.153933CRN@BYUVM.BITNET> CRN@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>I am having a VERY weird problem in TurboC.  My code looks
>something like this:
>
>
>typedef struct{
>   . . .
>   char   *str;
>int    type;
>}FIELD;
>
>
>int proc(FIELD *fld)
>{
>   . . .
>   if(!valid_str(fld->str))
>      return ERROR;
>   . . .
>}
>
>Here's the weird part.  Using Turbo Debugger I have found that my
>program crashes right after this statement.  I perform a watch on
>fld, fld->str, fld->type.  Before the call to valid_str() all of the
>variables are fine.  Upon return from valid_str(), however, the
>pointer, fld, is screwed up which of course in turn screws up
>fld->str and fld->type.   I assume that fld is being overwritten
>somehow but I can't figure out how.  Valid_str() does nothing to
>manipulate fld and the only function that valid_str() calls is
>atoi() (yes, I do include stdlib.h).  If anyone has any pointers
>for me I'd sure appreciate hearing them.
>

It is very difficult with the little bit of code shown here.

People, if you want help on a problem, more detail of ALL relevant code would
help. In this case, the code for valid_str() and the part that calls proc()
would definitely help pinpoint the problem.

Quite often, in cases where pointers get munged, it is because something else
(possibly totally unrelated) is overwriting array or other memory bounds.
Another possibility is that memory that was "malloc'ed" was inadvertently
"free'd", causing a subsequent malloc to allocate the same memory.

The best way to debug is to set a watch variable on the affected pointer and
step through ALL functions, keeping an eye on the "watched" variable.



Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             (408)437-5254