-=> Quoting John Augustine to Stephane Bessette <=-
 SB>    This is how Dos feels to me, as compared to a multitasking
 SB>environment.  I know that most DOS programs allow you to 'Quit to
 SB>DOS', so you could start a new program there, but there are limitations
 SB>to that approach:  the second program has to be small, for instance.
 SB>Also, this makes it a bit clumsy to transfer information from one
 SB>application to another, or impossible from one file to another if the
 SB>editor does not let you load multiple files.
 SB>
 JA> I guess that the Windows Platform has those Provisions provide in a
 JA> form which makes it easy for those who Develope Windows Software, to
 JA> utilitize those "Functions".  This is Not the case in Dos, as you
 JA> already know.
        I'm not certain if this is what you're talking about, but here
it goes anyway:  Windows does contain some code to handle multitasking,
such as releasing the control of the CPU to the operating system.  This
is needed since Windows 3.1 is a cooperative multitasker:  applications
themselves decide when other applications can run.  This is in contrast
to preemptive multitasking, for OS/2 and now Win95, where the OS is the
one in charge of allocating CPU time.  Preemptive multitasking is much
superior to cooperative multitasking, in case you were wondering.
        Also, there's a toolkit available for Windows 3.1, which contains
a set of functions (API) that let you access system functions.  But this
is true for other platforms also:  OS/2, Win95, Macintosh, ...
 JA> In (MS) Dos, you can use the EXEC Function from within one (Parent)
 JA> Program, to Load and Execute another (Child) Program (or Just Load and
 JA> Not Execute, or Load an "Overlay").  You have to "Trasfer" Information
 JA> to that Function such as the Path and Name of the Program that you
 JA> want to Load and Execute (or Just Load).
 JA> When you Exit that Program, you are returned to the First Program. 
 JA> I forgot to mention that you also have to Save the SP (Stack Pointer
 JA> and Stack Segment) along with any other Registers you need to Preserve.
        You're talking code, whereas I was originally talking from the
point of view of the user, not that of the programmer.
 JA> I considered the C Language when I Switched from my Commodore
 JA> 64 Computer after years of 6502 Assembly.  86 Assembly was So Much
 JA> Easier for me to Grasp.  Now, if I did not have a background in
 JA> Assembly, I Probably would be using C right now. I do some Basic, but
 JA> not very much.
        C/C++ give you quite a lot of control over the computer, although
not as much as with assembly.  However, C/C++ is a higher level language
than assembly, which means that you may not have as much control over
the machine, but you make that up by being able to turn out code faster,
since you can deal with higher level structures in C/C++ than in assembly.
Also, although assembly generally yields faster programs, that is at the
cost of longer development cycles.
 SB>was play games and BBSing.  But when I started downloading lots of
 SB>files, I got tired of waiting 1-2 hours for the transfers to
 SB>complete before being able to do anything else.
 SB>
 JA> Well, I guess you got a Good Point there.  I never had to Download
 JA> that much at one time.  Mercy, what are you Downloading?
        At the time, I was downloading games, as well as some utilities.
Now I'm downloading journals and other texts on programming, but mostly
spend my time looking for new information on various topics.  I've
changed in the last 10 years, and so have my interests.
 SB>    Then I got Windows 3.1.  This was a big improvement over
 SB>DOS;  now I could at least read/write a text file while a file
 JA> I wonder if you heard of anyone who "Upgraded" to Windows 95
 JA> and later put Back Windows 3.1?
 JA> The reason I asked, I talked (Not in Conferences) to a number
 JA> of people who did that.
        From the reports I've read, Win95 continues in the tradition of
MicroSoft:  the product has some problems, but they'll be fixed in the
next version, which will come out soon (next summer).  And then the
problems in that version will be fixed in the following version, and
so on.  I've been burned with Windows 3.1 and MS-Office, and that made
me reject everything from MicroSoft.  I'm under the impression that
the only decent product they have released is Excel.  The others are
just bloated to the point where their usage either requires a very
powerful machine, or a lot of patience.
 JA> Some of the Advantages of Windows
 JA> are Very Useful as you Pointed out.  I really wish that there was
 JA> Software for both Platforms.  From all the responses I have received,
 JA> it seems that Dos lovers like me are a Miniority.  Consequently, Dos
 JA> based Software is hard to find anymore.
        Windows, and most multitasking platforms for that matter, let
you run DOS software at the same time.  Also, it may be possible to
transfer information between two DOS applications by using some of the
functionality of the OS.  For example, under OS/2, I can click on the
system icon (upper left corner) of a windowed DOS application, select
the menu option mark, use the mouse to 'mark' a portion of text, press
enter, switch to another DOS application, open up the system menu again,
and select paste this time:  the information has been transferred from
one DOS session to another.  And it didn't take a rocket scientist to
accomplish that feast, just an operating system that works for you as
opposed to against you.
        Stephane [TEAM OS/2]
--- Blue Wave/OS2 v2.20
---------------