Unlike DOS, Windows is a multi-tasking environment. Therefore, if you
have many programs running at once, each will run slower. (You can, if
you want, apportion the CPU time unequally among them.) However, as far
as I can tell, the total time it takes for all of them to do their
calculations isn't inherently slower with Windows than DOS.
Windows-based antenna simulation programs are no different than other
Windows applications.

When running in "DOS mode" (under Windows systems prior to XP -- it's
not available in XP), you are running in a true, single-tasking DOS
environment. This is the mode you have to boot separately into when
starting the computer. But if you choose the "DOS prompt" (or "command
prompt") while running Windows, you're really running in the full
Windows environment, and emulating DOS as just another Windows task.
Programs running in this mode can't run any faster than a normal, native
Windows program, since they're also subject to the time sharing of the
multi-tasking system. There might actually be some additional overhead
from the emulation process.

The first Windows version of EZNEC, v. 3.0, ran calculations about 20%
faster than the DOS version, possibly due to a compiler change. There
was certainly no major slowing down of the calculations due to the
different operating system. The current version of EZNEC, v. 4.0, runs
up to several *times* faster than that due to code changes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . .
On a side note with respect to some computors slowing down. Are the Windows
based computor programs
with respect to antenna modelling also subject to overload or slowing down
problems or are they some how
immune to the described problems?
. . .

Roy
Believe it or not I understand what you have posted so the info you have
provided will be good news to antenna modelers.
I really do not know how my personal antenna program works except I have a
small disc inserted that when I start the computor I have to press the F12
key when prompted and somehow it does not display the normal windows entry
but
goes straight into a DOS managed antenna modeler program. I suspect that the
disc somehow partitions the Dos emulator from the windows program and makes
it a seperate entity in a similar way that previous widows programs did
before they were bundled together.When I model closely coupled antenna
elements designs where one has to make it 80 segments a shot a slow down of
the coprocessor would be unacceptable
Regards
Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Unlike DOS, Windows is a multi-tasking environment. Therefore, if you
have many programs running at once, each will run slower. (You can, if
you want, apportion the CPU time unequally among them.) However, as far
as I can tell, the total time it takes for all of them to do their
calculations isn't inherently slower with Windows than DOS.
Windows-based antenna simulation programs are no different than other
Windows applications.

When running in "DOS mode" (under Windows systems prior to XP -- it's
not available in XP), you are running in a true, single-tasking DOS
environment. This is the mode you have to boot separately into when
starting the computer. But if you choose the "DOS prompt" (or "command
prompt") while running Windows, you're really running in the full
Windows environment, and emulating DOS as just another Windows task.
Programs running in this mode can't run any faster than a normal, native
Windows program, since they're also subject to the time sharing of the
multi-tasking system. There might actually be some additional overhead
from the emulation process.

The first Windows version of EZNEC, v. 3.0, ran calculations about 20%
faster than the DOS version, possibly due to a compiler change. There
was certainly no major slowing down of the calculations due to the
different operating system. The current version of EZNEC, v. 4.0, runs
up to several *times* faster than that due to code changes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . .
On a side note with respect to some computors slowing down. Are the
Windows
based computor programs
with respect to antenna modelling also subject to overload or slowing
down
problems or are they some how
immune to the described problems?
. . .

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:52:58 -0700, K7MEM wrote:

David G. Nagel wrote:



But, in the end, I don't have many complaints about XP and IE. I wish
IE had a popup blocker like Netscape. The popups do get through, but
I have never had a problem with throwing them away as soon as they
pop up. I do highly recommend Netscape. I have found that it renders
everything very closely to IE and FireFox. Some minor differences but
nothing great.

FYI, I have IE6, with Service Pack 2 (for XP Home Edition), and that
includes a Microsoft pop-up blocker. It works better than StopZilla's
blocker, and it's free.

Bob
k5qwg

Bob Miller wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:52:58 -0700, K7MEM wrote:


David G. Nagel wrote:



But, in the end, I don't have many complaints about XP and IE. I wish
IE had a popup blocker like Netscape. The popups do get through, but
I have never had a problem with throwing them away as soon as they
pop up. I do highly recommend Netscape. I have found that it renders
everything very closely to IE and FireFox. Some minor differences but
nothing great.


FYI, I have IE6, with Service Pack 2 (for XP Home Edition), and that
includes a Microsoft pop-up blocker. It works better than StopZilla's
blocker, and it's free.

Bob
k5qwg

I also have IE6, but I run XP Pro with Service Pack 2. I have not found
that the Microsoft pop-up blocker is better. I hit a site, a couple of
months ago. Before I connected, my counter was around 900 popups blocked.
The next time I looked at it, it was 9,000 popups blocked. I didn't even
notice a glitch. This was with Netscape. With IE, I would not have been
so lucky.

IE has a lot of good points and is the most used browser. I develop my
web pages using Netscape, but wouldn't publish any of them if I didn't
first test them with IE. I run a monitor on my web site and IE has a
80 percent share of all browsers, but it is also the most targeted.
Netscape is only running at 10-12 percent share, with all the rest
filling in the last 8 percent.

Netscape is also free.

--
Martin E. Meserve - K7MEM
http://www.k7mem.com

Thank You

Now if only some of the other folks would listen

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:50:02 -0500, "Hal Rosser"
wrote:

| I lost confidence in netscape when aol took it over.
| Try mozilla firefox (it is free)
| or
| Avant browser (also free)
| --- also download the free firewall (zoneAlarm) from zone labs
| and-- free antivirus software (AVG)
| and you can replace microsoft office with OpenOffice .org
| and if you can find some scrap wire, we can talk about a free antenna
| :-)
|
|
|The Avant browser is really a good one - maybe even better than Mozilla
|Firefox
|- Mosaic, though may not suite your needs.
|but by all means - anything but IE

As I said elsewhere, I use Firebird, predecessor to Firefox.

Unfortunately, some web sites almost demand IE. The attitude is that
since 99% of the users are using IE, that's the thing to code for. (I
know this because I've had this discussion with my son, who is the IT
guru for a nationwide corporation)

This will change! Where I work, we have been told to abandon Internet
Exploder. I already had years ago as part of UALMPAP (usa as little
Microsoft product as possible)

Between Students and Employees, that is probably only about 100,000
people. Since it is happening elsewhere too, it *will make at least some
dent.

I have IRA's at both Schwab and Vanguard. Some of their "features"
simply will not work in anything but IE. Threats to move my money to
the other guy if they don't fix this fall on deaf ears.

Of course, you only threatened. If you actually moved the money, and
gave them that as a reason, they might start to pay attention

Same with my credit union. For example the login page "moves" three
times while loading in Firefox. If I start typing my login info too
soon, the boxes move and login fails. Tech support couldn't care
less.

As long as you still use them, they won't care.

But these are the same guys who, although 80% of the users have a
dial-up connection, assume that everyone has a personal T1 line to
their server and can download their bloated pages instantly.

A few years ago, I started seeing a lot of websites that had incredibly
superflous Junk on their intro pages. An example is once I needed a ne
pair of skates, and I needed them quick. I wnet to the makers web pages,
and the first thing it tells me is that I need to download a plug-in in
order to see their site. So I download it. Then it tells me I have to
restart my computer, which is a little bit of a pain. Then it bombs my
computer, then after rebooting and waiting for scandisk to check and
repair it, I finally get to the site again, I get to see the critical
software advance that I couldn't access their site without. It was a
freakin' movie of a goalie sliding across the ice! I called them and
told them that I wasn't going to buy any more of their skates and told
them why. 400 bucks lost for them, actually more like 800 bucks, since I
was often buying skates for my kid at that time.

BTW, they ended up changing the site eventually.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Art,

There was nothing wrong with your posting. It's just in the wrong
newsgroup. I don't know how to make any more simple.

All the best, and good luck with your "cumputor",
Dave


wrote:
Dave, we all have been hit one time or another with a computor problem. One
time many on this newsgroup got hit with a hiddious virus that upset many so
I think you are a bit out of step on this one ,even tho you see your main
duty as being a Net Cop.
The fact of the matter is that the main core of premier antenna help
contributors all posted on this subject which shows that not only do these
members have special expertise with antennas but also have the expertise
relative to the computor connection with respect to antennas and the like,
and are willing to share with less ability minded people like myself.
Remember the main core of contributors to this group are no lesser an Elmer
to that which you pump yourself to be to give you the verbal justification
, but I assure you that if a thread unrelated to the primary interests of
this group
appeared on a regular basis the initiator would either be ignored or quickly
put into his place.
I note that a recent poster stated he was a ham by fraudulent means but
apparently you view his thread as more legitamate than mine which is so
intertwined and connected to the direction that antennas are moving today
and where I am sure you must have posted many times on this particular
newsgroup where such programs can be executed ( I assume I have overlooked
your antenna contributions) on a $5 Walmart calculator as to make the
computor irrelavent to this group.
Since you state that many readers are upset or unhappy with the lack of true
antenna
content of this newsgroup now would be the time for an Elmer so proficient
as you with respect to what is "right" and what is "wrong" to start a new
antenna newsgroup to satisfy the needs of like minded people who are more
interested in political correctness than in technical content, of the latter
none of which was evident in your posting that only added to the length to
the thread without a modicom of antenna content. I think you would have a
real hard time in attracting the
groups membership that has such a deep knoweledge and expertise that they
are willing to share where the content of their postings must satisfy total
political correctness and subject to your absolute rules of what can be
written or replied to.
However, if all antenna questions were directed to you for a response you
would not have the problem that you ascribe to this newsgroup and amateur
radio most certainly would be the beneficiory in your mind of having an
alternative.

Let me just assume this is just a consequence of you having a bad day so I
can push it all aside
and wish you and your family a happy holiday.
Regards
Art


"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
...

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Bushong wrote:


wrote:


I am finding that WindowsXP is allowing 20 cookies (plus other stuff
) a day
[...]



HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REC . RADIO . AMATEUR . ANTENNA


Yo! NetCop! Wassup?

- Mike KB3EIA


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your followup posting, and here is Wassup.

I'm not a "NetCop", but instead, an "Elmer". I teach new hams not to
stick a fork into the light socket, not to transmit on a dual-band radio
on band "B" when you are listening on band "A", and other embarrassing
things. I also teach new newsgroup posters that posting an article, and
then nearly 30 followups, to an antenna newsgroup, is wrong. It is
wrong because people who subscribe to the rec.radio.amateur.antenna
newsgroup have a reasonable expectation that postings here will have
something to do with ham radio antennas, or at least ham radio, or maybe
radio, or at least antennas, or maybe even CB microphones. Not cookies.

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm not.

73,
Dave
KZ1O

Dave Bushong wrote in part:
Mike Coslo wrote:

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm not.


Then I hope you wiil be filtering me along with the Cialis ads and the
wierd Sexually oriented posts! I probably have nothing of worth to offer
you.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Bushong wrote:

Art,

There was nothing wrong with your posting. It's just in the wrong
newsgroup. I don't know how to make any more simple.

All the best, and good luck with your "cumputor",
Dave


Well, Gee, Dave!

I don't see you telling the "FS 8 pill linear", the "I PASS MY TEST
ALSO THE EASY WAY", the "Strange question about SWR on HV lines" posters
that *they* are off topic.

So here you have a regular poster making a post, and another (several)
answering him with helpful non-trolling, non confrontational advice, and
this is a big problem for you?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dave Bushong wrote in part:
Mike Coslo wrote:

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm
not.


Then I hope you wiil be filtering me along with the Cialis ads and the
wierd Sexually oriented posts! I probably have nothing of worth to offer
you.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Let's see. I regular poster asks a question in a newsgroup where a) he is
known and b) he knows the other regular poster -- kinda helpful in judging
answers.

I suppose you COULD have posted it in alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum but I see no
problem posting it here.

BTW, Firefox is great. grin

Paul AB0SI