On 07 Jan 97  17:19:53, Stephane Bessette scribed in letters of flame on the 
boiling sky:
 -=> Quoting John Augustine to All <=-
 
 JA> Windows has DISADVANTAGES (All of them are NOT Listed here):
 
 JA> 1. Windows is VERY INEFFICIENT ("Gobbles" up TOO MUCH MEMORY).
 SB> I have to disagree with you on that one.  Sure, a DOS
 SB> program may require a system with more memory when run under
 SB> Windows then simply under DOS.  But this is the short sighted
 SB> way of looking at things.  What you're not taking into
 SB> consideration is the fact that Windows allows you to use more
 SB> than one program at the same time.  If all you do is play
 SB> games, then you have no need of multitasking.  However, there
 SB> are many situations where the capacity of doing more than one
 SB> thing at a time is a great boon, if not a necessity.
What's more; another comparison, oooh... Linux w/ X-Windows. 16Mb+ for
sensible use.
SGI IRIX: 32Mb+. Er, no, that's V5.1+... 16Mb+ for any other versions.
Solaris: 32Mb+
HP-UX: 48Mb+ (if you're lucky)
The bigger the OS, the bigger the memory requirements. I've designed
one (in some detail) that needs *gigabytes* of RAM just to *start*.
(4Gb is the basic config; not much more is needed for apps though
'cos it's all componented)
 SB> For Windows developpers, or anyone that performs some
 SB> serious tasks, being able to multitask applications is amazingly
 SB> simple to learn, and soon becomes an invaluable capacity.
 
I think you'll find that should be 'multiprocess'. Multi*task*ing isn't
actually all that easy to get used to; the human brain doesn't work
that way. But a cron, and cronned background jobs/compilations in
the background &c are a necessity.
 JA> 2. Storage for Windows and all it's related Files requires a
 JA> TREMENDOUS amount of Hard Drive Disk Space.
??? 15Mb? Hardly.
OS/2 2.11: 30Mb.
Solaris: 200Mb (? about that anyway)
 JA> 3. Windows Based Software requires MUCH MORE Disk Space compared
 JA> to Dos Based Software.
Bloat. I'd agree with you there; but much of it is down to inefficiency
of compilers. Look at Windows 2: 1Mb required. Then they went to C, and
disk space requirements shot up to 20Mb in Windows 3. There wasn't *that*
much new functionality.
 JA> 4. Windows is a Haven for Viruses.  There are MANY "Places"
 JA> (Opportunities) for a Virus to "Strike" or "Infect".
No. DOS is the source of most of the problems; in fact the Windows/DOS
link is probably one of Windows' weakest links.
Compatibility doesn't seem to be Microsoft's strong point, exactly.
They've crippled Win95 to enable compatibility with Win3.1; but it's a
kludge, and slow. And Win3.0, 2.x apps don't work at all. (Not really,
not in practice).
OS/2, by comparison, or WinNT, retain compatibility with apps *right back
to version 1* *without kludging or crippling*. (Tiled selectors are hardly
a cripple.)
This smacks of very, very bad design in the Microsoft OS programming team.
(Note that WinNT wasn't written by this team!)
 SB> It's not as bad as you make it out to be.  Sure the OS
 SB> contains more files than DOS.  But these are there to provide
 SB> the additional capacities.
Exactly. Some people do go a little bit far in OS-bashing. Win95 may be
a badly-designed kludge, but it's not Satan. What is silly is that so
many people are using it despite it's flaws. Many of them just don't know
that any better possibilities exist. (And, well, can you say 'installed
software base'? Bloody annoying, too.)
 JA> 5. Power Interruption, while you are in Windows, is "VERY
 JA> UNPLEASANT".
 SB> The more sophisticated the system, the more fragile it
 SB> can become.  Some are more robust than others, but none can be
 SB> full proof.
Have you ever watched a VAX or Sun get knocked down? Takes ten minutes+
to get the Sun back into multiuser mode. (The VAX, of course, takes ages;
but that's because it loads everything bar the kitchen sink in just in
case you want to use it...)
 
 JA> 6. Windows Based Applications are a "PAIN" to remove when you
 JA> want to Discard the Application.
 JA> 7. It is a "Pain" to "Try" (Try before you Buy) a Windows Based
 JA> Shareware Program, because most of them have to be
 JA> "Installed".
 SB> These two basically tell the same thing.  I do agree that
 SB> the installation of Windows software can be difficult to undo
 SB> completely.  However, I find that the installation of windows
Er, sorry, but John was talking about *un*installation. And here I have
to agree. The poor directory structure design of Windows (all .INIs in
/WINDOWS, all .DLLs *must* go in  or /WINDOWS/SYSTEM,
everything else just gets dumped in /WINDOWS or /WINDOWS/SYSTEM at
seeming random) is a *major* failing where uninstallation is concerned.
I wished repeatedly for a DIRPATH.
Then I switched OSes and got one.
... No, you can't make a phone call... NO! NO! %&*/l1.@#~ NO CARRIER
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------