I was on the QEMM/DESQview(x) team from 1991-1999 Type of quality buoy don’t see anymore. True multi tasking 10 years before MSFT. Cool to see this review
I can testify that it is very true about multitasking vs Windows. DesqView was able to leverage the 16650 UART found on some x486 motherboard and you were able to run many modems at the same time and dowdload files without errors.
I didnt use the X versions - nor ever heard about it, but the regular "Dos" version was central to my BBS back in the 90s. It was a true multitasking OS and not a multiswapping OS like Windows 3.x was.
This was fun to watch! Lots of nostalgic memories of all things Quarterdeck. My uncle, Gary Pope, was the co-founder of Quarterdeck and built DESQ and DESQview, growing the company over time. I too wish the source code existed somewhere. I’ve asked, believe me. I don’t think any code survived the sell to Symantec.
I'm very very familiar with DESQview and all its versions. It was said that Microsoft Windows 286/386 and 3.1 could not be virtualized but in fact, I did get all versions of Windows running reliably in a DESQview windowed session which I could switch out of at will. Since RAM memory was very segregated and limited, there were tricks of what could and could not be switched into High memory and where other windowed code was suspended and when RAM disks were used. Even though I've been in the IT industry for 33 years, I count that virtualization the greatest achievement in my career and I've done a lot of "how the hell did he do that" stuff. I loved DESQview also for it's reliable system macro feature, which saved my butt during a dbase database rebuild from broken database code. The macro ran for hours and produced a fully useable repaired database for a client. I'm still looking for a macro system as useable as DESQview but haven't found it yet. I once wrote the CEO of Quarterdeck (don't remember her name) a lengthy technical letter discussing the ground breaking product they had on their hands which could of easily (relative term) been the operating system of the world, instead of Windows. Later I also thought the same of IBM Warp which I also knew very well. Now I'm a Windows lackey, going with the flow and wishing DESQview would have taken over the world. It was a superbly stable product under the most demanding situations. The CEO sold out, left the dream behind and sold it to Symantec who trashed it and other Peter Norton products. Life isn't always the way you wish it to be. (I'm pretty sure I virtualized Windows under plain DESQview, even after a Quarterdeck tech said it's not possible. You didn't have to run programs in little windows either, you could but you could also hotkey full screen sessions of various programs. The trick in getting Windows working I don't remember but you wanted it to continue working as an ongoing process, not just switch out.)
The trick was probably to use Windows 3.0 and run it in Real Mode. So no Standard Mode and Enhanced Mode for you. And these where the important modes. Real Mode support was removed in Windows 3.1.
Jerry Pournell on his column in the BYTE magazine wrote extensively about DESQview. He wrote from the point of view of a normal user which was great as you could read about all the wonders and pitfalls of this software. Good times!
I have heard of DESQview, but not the /X version. Very cool! Back when my friends ran MSDOS and before win95, BBSing usually was ran with DESQview to have the ability to run the BBS with multiple users and use the system yourself at the same time. I guess you could have done it with win3.11, but was't prefered, which says alot :D
I also don't buy the argument that DESQviewX isn't an operating system because it sits on top of DOS. The same argument could be extended to say DOS isn't an OS because it builds on the routines provided by the BIOS. Also, Windows up until NT and XP also sat on top of DOS and relied on it for some functions. So I'd say DESQview is pretty amazing.
lol Win 95 was exactly that for real: a shell on top of DOS, whereas DesqView was a total replacemennt of DOS and there was a desktop manager of some sort your could run on top if you'd like.
@@Traumatree Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. Starting with Windows 3.0, Windows was essentially its own OS. It had its own hardware abstraction layer and abstracted the hardware from the Windows applications. Applications that wanted to use the hardware did so through the Windows API and this level of abstraction. The RAM was preemptively managed by Windows starting with Windows 95 and 32 bit Windows applications. These are all characteristics of an OS. The only thing that is true is that Windows starts on DOS, but then it largely gets DOS out of the way as soon as it is running. Strictly speaking, it is a hybrid to increase compatibility with DOS.
@@OpenGL4ever I have to disagree with you here. Windows 3.x and Win95 were a shell on top of DOS and that's about it, but in Win95 is was better hidden than on Win 3.x. Windows 3./95 tried to do real multitask but was stuck with DOS who was still running in real mode underneath. To effectively multitask and have a HAL like you said, you need the kernel to have them when it loads on the computer. Anything else is like running a Type 2 hypervisor.
@@Traumatree Well, what you wrote is simply not true. I told you the reasons. Windows was much more than just a shell. It's not DOS that manages memory, but Windows. It's not DOS that takes care of the mouse pointer, but the Windows driver. DOS doesn't care that the fonts look the same on both the screen and the printer; GDI, a part of Windows, does that. DOS doesn't care about the sound output either, the sound abstraction layer in Windows does that. DOS doesn't take care of task switching either, Windows does that. And if a resource, e.g. a file, is accessed by a process and another wants to access it, then it is not the DOS Share program that is responsible for preventing it from doing so, but rather Windows has its own locking mechanism driver from WfW onwards. You know all that if you know your stuff. Most of the time it's the laypeople who think of Windows as just a shell for DOS because they don't understand the internals.
@@OpenGL4everHave you actually coded or supported Win 95 or Win 3.x? I did. If you did too, then you know what I said is true. Else, you don't know what you are talking about.
We used DESQview/X to process and display multiple data streams from hydrographic sonar systems.I personally loved it.
I ran a multi-line BBS on DESQview/X v1.1 back in 1989... still have the 3.5" installation disks for it. It was the most stable OS I have ever run.
That version is sought after! Please image them and archive them! In the whole internet, we only have version 2.0 and 2.1. All 1.x are missing.
I was on the QEMM/DESQview(x) team from 1991-1999
Type of quality buoy don’t see anymore. True multi tasking 10 years before MSFT.
Cool to see this review
I can testify that it is very true about multitasking vs Windows. DesqView was able to leverage the 16650 UART found on some x486 motherboard and you were able to run many modems at the same time and dowdload files without errors.
I didnt use the X versions - nor ever heard about it, but the regular "Dos" version was central to my BBS back in the 90s. It was a true multitasking OS and not a multiswapping OS like Windows 3.x was.
This was fun to watch! Lots of nostalgic memories of all things Quarterdeck. My uncle, Gary Pope, was the co-founder of Quarterdeck and built DESQ and DESQview, growing the company over time.
I too wish the source code existed somewhere. I’ve asked, believe me. I don’t think any code survived the sell to Symantec.
I'm very very familiar with DESQview and all its versions. It was said that Microsoft Windows 286/386 and 3.1 could not be virtualized but in fact, I did get all versions of Windows running reliably in a DESQview windowed session which I could switch out of at will. Since RAM memory was very segregated and limited, there were tricks of what could and could not be switched into High memory and where other windowed code was suspended and when RAM disks were used. Even though I've been in the IT industry for 33 years, I count that virtualization the greatest achievement in my career and I've done a lot of "how the hell did he do that" stuff.
I loved DESQview also for it's reliable system macro feature, which saved my butt during a dbase database rebuild from broken database code. The macro ran for hours and produced a fully useable repaired database for a client. I'm still looking for a macro system as useable as DESQview but haven't found it yet. I once wrote the CEO of Quarterdeck (don't remember her name) a lengthy technical letter discussing the ground breaking product they had on their hands which could of easily (relative term) been the operating system of the world, instead of Windows. Later I also thought the same of IBM Warp which I also knew very well. Now I'm a Windows lackey, going with the flow and wishing DESQview would have taken over the world. It was a superbly stable product under the most demanding situations. The CEO sold out, left the dream behind and sold it to Symantec who trashed it and other Peter Norton products. Life isn't always the way you wish it to be.
(I'm pretty sure I virtualized Windows under plain DESQview, even after a Quarterdeck tech said it's not possible. You didn't have to run programs in little windows either, you could but you could also hotkey full screen sessions of various programs. The trick in getting Windows working I don't remember but you wanted it to continue working as an ongoing process, not just switch out.)
The trick was probably to use Windows 3.0 and run it in Real Mode. So no Standard Mode and Enhanced Mode for you. And these where the important modes. Real Mode support was removed in Windows 3.1.
@@OpenGL4ever It's been so many years to remember back that you might be right about real mode?? 🤷
Jerry Pournell on his column in the BYTE magazine wrote extensively about DESQview. He wrote from the point of view of a normal user which was great as you could read about all the wonders and pitfalls of this software. Good times!
My #1 is Novell/DR DOS 7. I ran Desqview on it flawlessly for years before reluctantly moving to Windows NT.
But Dr Dos wasn't as stable as DesqView who could run circles around it.
I have heard of DESQview, but not the /X version. Very cool! Back when my friends ran MSDOS and before win95, BBSing usually was ran with DESQview to have the ability to run the BBS with multiple users and use the system yourself at the same time. I guess you could have done it with win3.11, but was't prefered, which says alot :D
Might install this on my PS/1. Using an 80186 pc as an X terminal after it served as a text terminal in the 90es would be awesome.
Nice to find sth about DESQview/X, but maybe X window system server and client were mixed up?
I used Desqview with DR-DOS.
I also don't buy the argument that DESQviewX isn't an operating system because it sits on top of DOS. The same argument could be extended to say DOS isn't an OS because it builds on the routines provided by the BIOS. Also, Windows up until NT and XP also sat on top of DOS and relied on it for some functions. So I'd say DESQview is pretty amazing.
lol Win 95 was exactly that for real: a shell on top of DOS, whereas DesqView was a total replacemennt of DOS and there was a desktop manager of some sort your could run on top if you'd like.
@@Traumatree Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. Starting with Windows 3.0, Windows was essentially its own OS. It had its own hardware abstraction layer and abstracted the hardware from the Windows applications. Applications that wanted to use the hardware did so through the Windows API and this level of abstraction. The RAM was preemptively managed by Windows starting with Windows 95 and 32 bit Windows applications. These are all characteristics of an OS.
The only thing that is true is that Windows starts on DOS, but then it largely gets DOS out of the way as soon as it is running. Strictly speaking, it is a hybrid to increase compatibility with DOS.
@@OpenGL4ever I have to disagree with you here. Windows 3.x and Win95 were a shell on top of DOS and that's about it, but in Win95 is was better hidden than on Win 3.x. Windows 3./95 tried to do real multitask but was stuck with DOS who was still running in real mode underneath. To effectively multitask and have a HAL like you said, you need the kernel to have them when it loads on the computer. Anything else is like running a Type 2 hypervisor.
@@Traumatree Well, what you wrote is simply not true. I told you the reasons. Windows was much more than just a shell.
It's not DOS that manages memory, but Windows. It's not DOS that takes care of the mouse pointer, but the Windows driver. DOS doesn't care that the fonts look the same on both the screen and the printer; GDI, a part of Windows, does that. DOS doesn't care about the sound output either, the sound abstraction layer in Windows does that. DOS doesn't take care of task switching either, Windows does that. And if a resource, e.g. a file, is accessed by a process and another wants to access it, then it is not the DOS Share program that is responsible for preventing it from doing so, but rather Windows has its own locking mechanism driver from WfW onwards.
You know all that if you know your stuff. Most of the time it's the laypeople who think of Windows as just a shell for DOS because they don't understand the internals.
@@OpenGL4everHave you actually coded or supported Win 95 or Win 3.x? I did. If you did too, then you know what I said is true. Else, you don't know what you are talking about.
Nice. CPM80 anyone? TurboDOS? :)
Will DESQview/X run on FreeDos? Where can I find it?
Sorry. Smarmy voice... can't deal.