🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert at Netexpress commnets on an article I wrote that appeared
to criticize Windows.  Robert points out that there are substantial
benefits to be had by *writing* programs for Windows, notably that
an interprocess communications facility is avialable.  I do agree
with this.  From a programmer's view, windows is a good programming
environment.

I really wrote my article from the slant as any Joe off the street
would view windows.  Currenlty, windows-native software accounts
for less than 1% of the market of software available for
ibm-compatible computers.  To the end-user the performance of msdos
software under the windows system is a very relevent concern.
Because Windows must overlay file pointers whent it switches the
context from one application to another, disk operations are
necessarily slow.  I'd imagine that room for further fine-tuning
and speeding things up is there, however.

I think I will abide by my comparisons of Windows running DOS
applications and Unix/Simultask running DOS applications.  But.. of
course only comparing for the purpose of running DOS applications.
Simultask does do better because the Underlying Unix file system is
better.  Simultask also has the minor advantage of running on
cheaper hardware (8 MHz AT clone), not requiring a '386.

If windows catches on, my answer a year or two from now might be
very different, from the end-user's view.

As I said before, I endorse buying Windows if you've got a model 80
PS/2 or Compaq '386.  And.. as I said, you'll want to have 4
megabytes of memory around.  A final note: windows is picky about
display cards.  We have not been able to get it to work with any of
the clone VGA boards we have.  It also has trouble with some of the
clone EGA boards (STB for instance).  Yes, Microsoft is working to
make Windows more tolerable of odd hardware.

--Bill
  NEOUCOM
  wtm@neoucom.UUCP