 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This must actually be Windows 2. I see overlapping windows at :18 which
weren't implimented in Windows 1.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Halbert" <hal### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:4849370e$1@news.povray.org...
> This must actually be Windows 2. I see overlapping windows at :18 which
> weren't implimented in Windows 1.
>
> --
>
? I stand corrected by myself. It did have overlapping windows after all.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, I suppose you could rephase it that way. Either way, Windows 3.11
> was no "operating system". It was an MS-DOS application program.
Being launched by another system doesn't make an OS less of an OS.
(If that was the case then Windows XP, Linux nor basically anything
is an OS because they all are launched by the BIOS.)
Not that Windows 3 was a true OS by any serious definition of the meaning.
> >> If you write Windows, you go back to DOS.
> >
> > What does that even mean?
> I meant to write "quit Windows".
It still isn't any sign of Windows not being an OS. (And again, I'm not
saying it was. I'm just saying that the argument is flawed.)
> [I recall it used to be a Big Deal whether "extended memory" got enabled
> or not. I knew a guy who even had a whole book devoted to "taking your
> PC beyong 640KB". I don't know what the difference between "conventional
> memory" and "extended memory" is or was, but this "problem" seems to
> have entirely gone away now...]
We are talking about 16-bit vs 32-bit Intel systems here. The 16-bit
Intel processors couldn't handle over 1MB of memory. (Well, the 286 had
some paging support built into it, but I don't know if any computer ever
used it.)
Even today 32-bit Intel processors support running in 16-bit mode, with
all the same limitations. Back in the days of the 386 and 484 this
presented a problem: The processor would have supported a 32-bit mode,
but all the existing OSes and programs were 16-bit. How to get access to
the extra memory you could install in a 386, beyond that 1MB?
The solution was ugly, awkward and in the past now, as all modern OSes
support fully 32-bit mode (and the best ones even 64-bit mode).
> > But Windows 3 does support multitasking. Granted, it's not pre-emptive,
> > but it's still multitasking.
> AFAIK, it supports running several applications at once. Only one of
> them can actually "do" anything at a time
How exactly is that different from a regular pre-emptive multitaskin OS
running in a single processor?
The difference between cooperative and pre-emptive multitasking is not
whether two programs can physically "do" anything "at the same time"
(because they can't; it's a physical impossibility imposed by having
one single CPU).
The difference is that in cooperative multitasking programs have to
play nice and give CPU to others (through the OS), while in pre-emptive
multitasking the OS forces task switches (with the aid of the CPU).
The end result is basically the same (assuming all the programs "play nice"
in the cooperative system).
It was perfectly possible to run several programs at the same time in
Windows 3 and have them run simultaneously. Even the Windows version of
POV-Ray was originally made for Windows 3, and it didn't lock the computer
during renders.
>, but you can have several
> applications "started". (Demonstrated by, e.g., writing a short program
> that prints out numbers, and then switching to another window and seeing
> the first program stop printing until you switch back.)
Windows 3 didn't multitask DOS windows. That's not really relevant.
> >> IIRC, Win95 and Win98 (and WinME?) are slightly thicker layers over the
> >> top of MS-DOS
> >
> > That's debatable. While the boot process of Win95 and Win98 do indeed
> > run config.sys and autoexec.bat, as DOS did, it's a matter of definition
> > whether this is "booting to DOS" or simply "the booting process of Win9x
> > processes those two files at startup".
> Well, a PC that has Windows 95 also has MS-DOS, and you can freely
> switch between the two...
Well, my PC has Linux and Windows XP, and I can freely switch between
the two. That doesn't mean one is running on top of the other.
> >> and it was WinNT that finally replaced DOS with a *real*
> >> OS with actual *features* such as security, multitasking, hardware
> >> abstraction, etc.
> >
> > "Replaced DOS" in which context? WinNT was a completely separate
> > alternative, not an "upgrade". Why are you even comparing it to DOS?
> ...whereas a PC running Windows NT4 does not, usually, have MS-DOS at
> all. Many people asked "where's the 'exit to DOS' button gone?" The
> answer being "MS-DOS is a completely several OS and you would have to
> reboot to exit WinNT to get to it".
I'm not really getting your point. If I installed linux on a PC
I wouldn't have had any "exit to DOS" button either. So what?
> > As for hardware abstraction, what was the basic difference between
> > the hardware management in NT and the one in Win98? Remember that Win98
> > already had DirectX (if I'm not mistaken even DirectX 9.0c will work on
> > Win98). You can't get much more abstract than that with respect to hardware
> > in Windows.
> Does Win9x run in protected mode? [This isn't rhetorical - I can't
> actually remember.]
Yes. (Sure, it didn't use all the "protection" offered by the CPU as
efficiently as it could.)
> Certainly WinNT introduced security. Win9x can be made to show a login
> prompt, but you can just cancel it if you don't feel like logging in.
> You then have unlimited access to every file on the local machine.
Win9x was never even designed to be a multiuser OS. It's not all that
strange, really.
> Certainly on the Amiga scene, "installing" a program usually meant
> putting the floppy into the drive and clicking an icon. A tiny few
> programs required you to actually copy a font file to your system disk
> or something, and usually had extensive and meticulous instructions
> explaining exactly how to do this, in language even a 5 year old could
> follow. Either that or the application got ignored in favour of
> better-documented alternative apps...
Since you so much fancy that, I find it really strange that you are
so prejudiced against the Apple Macintosh. It's exactly like that, but
on steroids.
You constantly complain about current Windows/Linux systems for their
complexity and write utopistic memories about your beloved AmigaOS, but
when someone mentions the modern equivalent of the Amiga/AmigaOS, namely
the Apple Macintosh, you immediately start complaining about those exact
same things which were so great in the Amiga. (Closed hardware, OS tied
to hardware, niche market, whatnot. Just change "Mac" with "Amiga" and
the complaints are still exactly as "valid".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> A thousand times faster? I have yet to see anybody with 56 Mbit/sec
> broadband. ;-)
It was a figure of speech. And it wasn't all that far-fetched either.
Some people *do* have even faster connections than that, and at a rational
price. A friend of mine could download over 10 MB/s (mega*bytes*, not bits).
Ok, maybe not with ADSL. OTOH, 24 Mbit/s ADSL is completely normal
(for example I could upgrade to that right now if I wanted to).
> >> 10 years ago, so much was possible with so little hardware. Kinda makes
> >> you feel sad...
> >
> > Except that you couldn't download and watch 8GB of anime encoded
> > with H.264 (or even divx, for that matter). :P
> Er... well even today, downloading *8GB* is rather challenging.
Not really, if you have a fast connection and good seeders.
> But yes, not so long ago, writing a program that "achieves realtime MP3
> decoding" was seen as a major achievement, and *encoding* could take
> days. I was shocked to discover the other day that my copy of WinAmp is
> using about 0.25% CPU to decode a Vorbis file in realtime. [Recall that
> Vorbis is more CPU-intensive than MP3.]
More shocking to me is that even many-years-old computers can *encode*
MPEG-4 *in real-time*, especially knowing a bit about what that requires.
> I find it staggering how my Amiga took over 2 *hours* to render
> SKYVASE.POV (uh, why?), yet PCs toay can do it in mere seconds. At a
> much higher resolution. With AA.
There's an example scene which comes with POV-Ray which is even more
telling: scenes/advanced/piece3/piece3.pov. It says:
// Due to the large number of objects, you will probably have to
// have a lot of memory to render this scene.
// Rendering time using a 25Mhz 386 w/Cyrix fpu is approximately 60 hours.
With a top-of-the-line modern PC you can render that exact scene in
almost real-time (using the rt-rendering feature of pov3.7).
> And yet, at the same time, it *still* takes forever for certain
> applications to start up. WTF?
Back then programs allocated and initialized something like 200 kB of
memory and had to read about that much data from files. Nowadays it's
the same, but changing the kB to MB.
> [Most exasperating is the length of time TF2 takes to start. But given
> that it's loading several GB of texture data from disk, I'll let that
> one go.]
It's not only loading (and probably decompressing) the textures and
models, it's probably transferring them to your graphics card. This is
not one of the fastest possible operations even today (although faster
than reading from disk).
> PS. Seriously. Why the hell is SKYVASE.POV so slow? It contains, like, a
> handful of quadratic primitives and a simple texture. There's no
> reflection or refraction, IIRC there's only 1 point-light source... why
> is it so slow?
Because calculating intersections with hundreds of thousands of rays
is cpu-intensive?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> A thousand times faster? I have yet to see anybody with 56 Mbit/sec
>> broadband. ;-)
>
> It was a figure of speech. And it wasn't all that far-fetched either.
> Some people *do* have even faster connections than that, and at a rational
> price. A friend of mine could download over 10 MB/s (mega*bytes*, not bits).
Well hell, when I was at Uni 10 years ago [OMG, I'M OLD!!] we had a 100
Mbit/sec connection to the Internet. Back in the days of 12 kbps modems.
Do you know what "envy" looks like? Cos I did! ;-)
> Ok, maybe not with ADSL. OTOH, 24 Mbit/s ADSL is completely normal
> (for example I could upgrade to that right now if I wanted to).
I thought the maximum speed possible with ADSLv1 is only 8 Mbit/sec? [No
idea what it is for ADSLv2 - nobody offers that in the UK yet.]
a mere 5 Mbit/sec. [Mind you, that is *both ways*. And if it breaks,
somebody is on 24-hour callout. And you get a dedicated IP address. And
so forth...]
>> Er... well even today, downloading *8GB* is rather challenging.
>
> Not really, if you have a fast connection and good seeders.
As this discussion we've having neatly illustrates, "fast" is a relative
term. ;-)
> There's an example scene which comes with POV-Ray which is even more
> telling: scenes/advanced/piece3/piece3.pov. It says:
>
> // Due to the large number of objects, you will probably have to
> // have a lot of memory to render this scene.
> // Rendering time using a 25Mhz 386 w/Cyrix fpu is approximately 60 hours.
>
> With a top-of-the-line modern PC you can render that exact scene in
> almost real-time (using the rt-rendering feature of pov3.7).
Weeeeee... And "they" said that real-time ray tracing would never
happen! Obviously it's just a matter of computer power. ;-)
[Hmm, "Cyrix"? Whatever happened to them anyway?]
>> And yet, at the same time, it *still* takes forever for certain
>> applications to start up. WTF?
>
> Back then programs allocated and initialized something like 200 kB of
> memory and had to read about that much data from files. Nowadays it's
> the same, but changing the kB to MB.
I'd ask why this is the case - but I imagine we won't come to any useful
answer...
>> [Most exasperating is the length of time TF2 takes to start. But given
>> that it's loading several GB of texture data from disk, I'll let that
>> one go.]
>
> It's not only loading (and probably decompressing) the textures and
> models, it's probably transferring them to your graphics card. This is
> not one of the fastest possible operations even today (although faster
> than reading from disk).
Possibly. I don't know - my graphics card only has, what, 512 MB of RAM?
[Off the top of my head. I might be wrong on that.] How much data can
you possibly stuff into it? ;-)
I suppose it could quite possibly be generating MIP-maps at the same
time. And checking the game files for corruption/hacking. (VALVe's
anti-cheat system and all that...)
>> PS. Seriously. Why the hell is SKYVASE.POV so slow? It contains, like, a
>> handful of quadratic primitives and a simple texture. There's no
>> reflection or refraction, IIRC there's only 1 point-light source... why
>> is it so slow?
>
> Because calculating intersections with hundreds of thousands of rays
> is cpu-intensive?
Yes, but why is SKYVASE.POV in particular so much slower than other
scenes of apparently similar complexity?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, I suppose you could rephase it that way. Either way, Windows 3.11
>> was no "operating system". It was an MS-DOS application program.
>
> Being launched by another system doesn't make an OS less of an OS.
> (If that was the case then Windows XP, Linux nor basically anything
> is an OS because they all are launched by the BIOS.)
>
> Not that Windows 3 was a true OS by any serious definition of the meaning.
The point is that Windows 3.11 was really just a *program* that reads
mouse input and makes a graphical display. It basically does almost
nothing else. I could, hypothetically, sit down and throw something
together in TurboPascal that does the same thing.
>> [I recall it used to be a Big Deal whether "extended memory" got enabled
>> or not. I knew a guy who even had a whole book devoted to "taking your
>> PC beyong 640KB". I don't know what the difference between "conventional
>> memory" and "extended memory" is or was, but this "problem" seems to
>> have entirely gone away now...]
>
> We are talking about 16-bit vs 32-bit Intel systems here. The 16-bit
> Intel processors couldn't handle over 1MB of memory. (Well, the 286 had
> some paging support built into it, but I don't know if any computer ever
> used it.)
>
> Even today 32-bit Intel processors support running in 16-bit mode, with
> all the same limitations. Back in the days of the 386 and 484 this
> presented a problem: The processor would have supported a 32-bit mode,
> but all the existing OSes and programs were 16-bit. How to get access to
> the extra memory you could install in a 386, beyond that 1MB?
>
> The solution was ugly, awkward and in the past now, as all modern OSes
> support fully 32-bit mode (and the best ones even 64-bit mode).
I see... So all that HIMEM.SYS crap was just a hack to convince outdated
software to use new hardware capabilities? No wonder it never worked well...
>>> But Windows 3 does support multitasking. Granted, it's not pre-emptive,
>>> but it's still multitasking.
>
>> AFAIK, it supports running several applications at once. Only one of
>> them can actually "do" anything at a time
>
> How exactly is that different from a regular pre-emptive multitaskin OS
> running in a single processor?
In a real multitasking OS, several programs can "do stuff" at once.
[Obviously the hardware is being time-sliced, but that's not visible to
the end user.]
> It was perfectly possible to run several programs at the same time in
> Windows 3 and have them run simultaneously. Even the Windows version of
> POV-Ray was originally made for Windows 3, and it didn't lock the computer
> during renders.
Really? That's news to me. I was told that only the program that owns
the active window can actually use the CPU.
[Clearly the "experts" I paid a lot of money to be taught by got their
facts wrong - I must admit I haven't personally verified this
scientifically. When a teacher tells you something works a certain way,
you usually believe them.]
>> Well, a PC that has Windows 95 also has MS-DOS, and you can freely
>> switch between the two...
>
> Well, my PC has Linux and Windows XP, and I can freely switch between
> the two. That doesn't mean one is running on top of the other.
1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
2. It is possible to use XP without Linux. It is possible to use Linux
without XP. It is not possible to use Windows 3.11 without MS-DOS.
>> ...whereas a PC running Windows NT4 does not, usually, have MS-DOS at
>> all. Many people asked "where's the 'exit to DOS' button gone?" The
>> answer being "MS-DOS is a completely several OS and you would have to
>> reboot to exit WinNT to get to it".
>
> I'm not really getting your point. If I installed linux on a PC
> I wouldn't have had any "exit to DOS" button either. So what?
Windows 3.11 *requires* MS-DOS in order to function. Windows NT does
not. (And obviously neither does Linux.)
>> Does Win9x run in protected mode? [This isn't rhetorical - I can't
>> actually remember.]
>
> Yes. (Sure, it didn't use all the "protection" offered by the CPU as
> efficiently as it could.)
I wasn't sure whether it was still real-mode or not. Certainly the NT
kernel seems a lot more stable. ;-)
>> Certainly WinNT introduced security. Win9x can be made to show a login
>> prompt, but you can just cancel it if you don't feel like logging in.
>> You then have unlimited access to every file on the local machine.
>
> Win9x was never even designed to be a multiuser OS. It's not all that
> strange, really.
Well quite.
Back when Win9x first appeared, "networks" were still these new-fangled
things that not many people had. So why would you bother putting
security into a system that you need physical access to anyway? [The
Amiga also lacks any semblence of security - for the same reason.]
>> Certainly on the Amiga scene, "installing" a program usually meant
>> putting the floppy into the drive and clicking an icon.
>
> Since you so much fancy that, I find it really strange that you are
> so prejudiced against the Apple Macintosh. It's exactly like that, but
> on steroids.
>
> You constantly complain about current Windows/Linux systems for their
> complexity and write utopistic memories about your beloved AmigaOS, but
> when someone mentions the modern equivalent of the Amiga/AmigaOS, namely
> the Apple Macintosh, you immediately start complaining about those exact
> same things which were so great in the Amiga. (Closed hardware, OS tied
> to hardware, niche market, whatnot. Just change "Mac" with "Amiga" and
> the complaints are still exactly as "valid".)
I don't recall ever complaining about the hardware being closed, or the
OS being tied to it. [Though obviously it *is* a bit of a pitty that
Macs come in a fixed set of configurations and cannot be changed.]
Certainly a Mac is something I'd like to try one day. However, there are
problems. The most obvious ones:
1. A Mac is a very expensive piece of hardware [assuming you can find
somebody who sells them].
2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
3. I would have to buy replacements for all [or at least some] of the
stuff I just threw away.
4. Some software can only be found on Windoze.
Apple are quick to claim that it's "easy" to get a Mac to talk to other
Windows PCs. But given that I have two Windows PCs and they don't want
to talk to each other, what are the chances of them talking to a
complete alien? ;-)
If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac. I played this game
with Linux; I had both Windoze and Linux installed, but since 98% of the
software I want to use is on Windoze, I just never actually rebooted to
get to Linux. Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
completely.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The point is that Windows 3.11 was really just a *program* that reads
> mouse input and makes a graphical display.
Well, all operating systems are just programs that read mouse input
and whatever. Are you trying to say that an OS is *not* a program?-)
> It basically does almost nothing else.
It does a lot more else. It had a rather extensive graphical API, for one.
> I could, hypothetically, sit down and throw something
> together in TurboPascal that does the same thing.
You mean that TurboPascal cannot be used to write an OS?
> I see... So all that HIMEM.SYS crap was just a hack to convince outdated
> software to use new hardware capabilities? No wonder it never worked well...
Nope. It was a way for newly-written 16-bit software to use more than
1MB of memory.
> >>> But Windows 3 does support multitasking. Granted, it's not pre-emptive,
> >>> but it's still multitasking.
> >
> >> AFAIK, it supports running several applications at once. Only one of
> >> them can actually "do" anything at a time
> >
> > How exactly is that different from a regular pre-emptive multitaskin OS
> > running in a single processor?
> In a real multitasking OS, several programs can "do stuff" at once.
And so they can in a cooperative multitasking OS. I don't really see
the difference.
> [Obviously the hardware is being time-sliced, but that's not visible to
> the end user.]
Nor it is in a cooperative multitasking OS either (as long as programs
behave properly).
> > It was perfectly possible to run several programs at the same time in
> > Windows 3 and have them run simultaneously. Even the Windows version of
> > POV-Ray was originally made for Windows 3, and it didn't lock the computer
> > during renders.
> Really? That's news to me. I was told that only the program that owns
> the active window can actually use the CPU.
You were told wrong.
> >> Well, a PC that has Windows 95 also has MS-DOS, and you can freely
> >> switch between the two...
> >
> > Well, my PC has Linux and Windows XP, and I can freely switch between
> > the two. That doesn't mean one is running on top of the other.
> 1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
And the difference with Win9x/DOS is...?
> 2. It is possible to use XP without Linux. It is possible to use Linux
> without XP. It is not possible to use Windows 3.11 without MS-DOS.
We were talking about Windows 95 in this context, not Windows 3.
> >> ...whereas a PC running Windows NT4 does not, usually, have MS-DOS at
> >> all. Many people asked "where's the 'exit to DOS' button gone?" The
> >> answer being "MS-DOS is a completely several OS and you would have to
> >> reboot to exit WinNT to get to it".
> >
> > I'm not really getting your point. If I installed linux on a PC
> > I wouldn't have had any "exit to DOS" button either. So what?
> Windows 3.11 *requires* MS-DOS in order to function. Windows NT does
> not. (And obviously neither does Linux.)
So? As I said, it was a completely separate alternative. I still don't
see how it "replaced" anything.
> I wasn't sure whether it was still real-mode or not. Certainly the NT
> kernel seems a lot more stable. ;-)
Was the *kernel* of Win95 notoriously unstable? (Of course that comes
down to the definition of "kernel".)
> I don't recall ever complaining about the hardware being closed, or the
> OS being tied to it. [Though obviously it *is* a bit of a pitty that
> Macs come in a fixed set of configurations and cannot be changed.]
How many times have you changed the configuration of a PC (other than
eg. adding an additional hard drive or RAM, both of which you can
perfectly well do to a Mac)?
> 1. A Mac is a very expensive piece of hardware [assuming you can find
> somebody who sells them].
You still have this misconception and you just don't want to let go
of it.
Sure, Apple doesn't offer almost anything in the below-crappy and
laughably cheap range, but their prices seem very competitive to me
when compared to PCs with *equivalent* specs. Whenever you see a
suspiciously cheap PC which seems to have high specs, there's always
something which brings the price down and cripples the system in one
way or another. Apple seldom does that.
> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
How does that make any sense?
Besides, you can install Windows XP (and AFAIK even Vista) in current
Macs. It's not a problem.
> 3. I would have to buy replacements for all [or at least some] of the
> stuff I just threw away.
Or you could just use your old computer when you need it. Why would
you throw it away? I don't get it.
> 4. Some software can only be found on Windoze.
And you can use it in your old computer. (Or, if you really want, you
can run it in your Mac too.) So what?
> Apple are quick to claim that it's "easy" to get a Mac to talk to other
> Windows PCs. But given that I have two Windows PCs and they don't want
> to talk to each other, what are the chances of them talking to a
> complete alien? ;-)
The chances are pretty good when you install the software which Apple
gives you.
> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
Like what?
> I played this game
> with Linux; I had both Windoze and Linux installed, but since 98% of the
> software I want to use is on Windoze
Exactly what software is that?
Personally, the *only* software I need which is only available for
Windows is computer games. I boot to Windows only to play (and I do
that relatively rarely).
> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
> completely.
Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
only person in the world to do that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>>> Actually Windows 3.1 could run in much less, and Win95 could run with
>>> 4 MB (I have direct experience of this).
>
>> Right. So it's the AOL client that's requiring all this then? [I just
>> remembered: IT'S AOL!!] Nothing new there then! ;-)
>
> Well, just launching IE and surfing the internet (even back then)
> probably required more than those 4 MB.
Don't know if you were joking, but Win '95 + IE worked fine on 4MB RAM.
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:04:15 -0400, Warp wrote:
> When you wanted to start
> windows you wrote "win".
Except for one person I know who renamed it to "lose.com". You can guess
his opinion.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:27:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> (Demonstrated by, e.g., writing a short program that prints out numbers,
> and then switching to another window and seeing the first program stop
> printing until you switch back.)
This was not the behaviour in Win3x. Win3x used nonpreemptive
multitasking, but it still was more than task switching (which is what
you describe).
Desqview also provided multitasking capabilities on top of DOS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
