Bruce Toback writes...

> Odd. I know the API spec isn't secret (at least, not the public part),
> but when I ask you or Denys, the two most knowledgeable (or at least most
> vocal) Microphiles on the list, where to get a reference manual for it, I
> get no response. Where do I find it? What manual do I order? Can
> *anybody* answer that question? I want an official Microsoft document,
> not some third-party book.

For the beginner to intermediate developer, the book "Programming Windows
95" by Charles Petzold (ISBN 1-55615-676-6, Lists for US$49.95) is a
valuable resource and has all of what one would normally need for the Win32
API.  Since the API is extremely large, specialized calls might be found in
one of the specialized companion editions.

These are rather easy to find as well - at the Microsoft Press website -
http://mspress.microsoft.com and is completely searchable.  The above comes
with a companion CD with an online reference to the API as well as samples,
etc.

> Nor are people tied to gasoline or diesel engines for their cars. But try
> to find an alternative-fuel car, despite the obvious advantages that many
> of them have. We're stuck with century-old technology in our cars, just
> like 90% of computer users are stuck with 20-year-old technology in their
> computers. They have a right to be, of course, but it'd be nice if the
> engineers told the truth. Or doesn't good engineering require telling the
> truth any more?

I agree that good engineering and the truth are better than garbage and
"caca"ware (a new term I just thought of, what can I say - spending time in
El Paso tends to bring some of the Spanish language out)... but I cannot see
where Microsoft has done anything dishonest.  If what MS has done is
dishonest, then IBM has been dishonest, so has every other major computer
and OS vendor, including HP, ie: with their initial rollout of the 3000 in
the 70s, and with the rollout of MPE/iX in the mid 80s.  People seem to
forget, just how late these products were.  People also forget the gnashing
of teeth during their "birthing" - waiting for them - and now, we praise the
platform and sing MPE's praises...  Sometimes, good things come to those who
wait :-)

> >[Microsoft] market[s]
> >extremely well, which is more than I can say for a few other companies.
>
> This is true. Microsoft can get away with saying that their fertilizer
> smells like roses because they can be confident that 90% of their
> customers will never get to smell a rose. IBM used the same technique
> until the early '80s. It works. Are you saying that it's OK to sell an
> inferior product as long as you do it with superior marketing?

I'm not saying that Windows is inferior - quite the contrary.  Compared to
MS-DOS and Windows 3.x, Windows 95 is absolutely superior.  It's superior to
OS/2, and in some areas, superior to MacOS.  (In some areas, MacOS is
superior to Windows too, by the way - and both are superior to older
versions of Windows, DOS and OS/2).  MPE is superior to MVS and OS/400 (of
course, I'm sure some will disagree) - and it's definately superior to Unix
with its transaction processing and speed... again, I can say it, but I
don't have to sell it.

A great product rarely sells itself - it takes good marketing behind it to
get it into the public's eye.  Microsoft knows how to market, and does it
very well.  IBM ran on pure marketing before "seeing the light" and it got
them into trouble.  DEC had the same trouble... and some companies couldn't
market their way out of a paper bag too (and look at them).

> >there are people who dislike
> >(being nice here) Microsoft - and that's their right -
> >so go use Linux, OS/2
> >or MacOS.
>
> Dang! I just threw away my OS/2 stuff a couple of days ago. But I do use
> Linux and the other one you mentioned.

I too use Linux (Red Hat brand :-).  So as I said, no one's stuck using
Windows if they don't want to.

> >For those who find that Windows 95 does the job, you will find
> >that Windows 98 will decrease those GPFs - even eliminate them in most
> >cases,
>
> GPFs? In Windows '95? Say it's not so! Funny how we don't hear how
> unstable the current release is until the next release is ready to ship.

GPFs will never go away.  They exist in MacOS (under a different name, of
course), and in Unix.  Hell, even MPE has a system abort and I defy anyone
on this list to say they haven't experienced one under 5.0 or 5.5.  Will
they happen in 6.0?  Sure they will --- but it's the frequency in which they
happen that needs to be looked at.  I can say with certainty that the
frequency of GPFs went down dramatically with Windows 95, and many many more
will go down with Windows 98.

Hope ya all had as Merry a Christmas as I did...

Joe

Joe Geiser - CSI Business Solutions, LLC
** Your Client-Server and Internetworking Specialists
140 Bristol-Oxford Valley Road, Suite 102
Langhorne, PA  19047-3083, USA
Phone: +1 215.945.8100   Fax: +1 215.943-8408
[log in to unmask]            http://www.csillc.com