🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <3312e56b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> - min...@ix.netcom.com
(Victor A.Danilchenko) writes:
>	<G> A tad testy, eh? have you TRIED using Win95?

	I've got PC-DOS 7.0, WfWg3.11, Win95, WinNT4, and OS/2 4.0 all installed, and
am quite familiar with all.  I don't know about the original poster, but you
certainly aren't going to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about WRT
OS's.  Wanna talk Unix?  Novell?  Lantastic add-ons?  Doesn't much matter to
me.

>Compared to DOS,
>it is far superior -- in ALL respects!

	Wrong-o.  Here's just ONE, to demonstrate your "ALL respects" is 100%
incorrect: memory overhead.  Win95 does NOT provide more real-mode
conventional memory to such programs as, say, Privateer ][, than flat DOS.

>It is not the best OS around,
>but remember -- it was not designed to be a heavy-duty OS; you should
>get NT if that is what you desire.

	Wrong-o again.  It just happens that as a desktop "heavy-duty OS", NT is not
so much overkill as slid-off-to-the-side-kill.  Unix provides much more
stability.  Novell provides much better administration abilities.  OS/2
provides much more configurability, and compatibility.

>For home use and games (yes,
>games!) Win95 ROCKS! Sure, it is not perfectly stable -- but it is FAR
>more stable that Dos, and easier to configure, AND easier to program
>-- AND it takes care of the hardware so that game developers can
>concentrate on writing the GAME, not hardware drivers (which means,
>BTW, that every game gets hardware accelleration for free).

	Wrong-o a third time.  When was the last time DOS crashed on your PC running
a part of the OS?  Ie. not using a 3rd party program.  Okay, maybe you were
MemMaker'ing, or something.  To that, I can simply rebutt with reminding you
of Win95's wonderful hardware detection scheme.  Simply saying "if I crash,
reboot me", isn't the same as you know, being stable.  DOS, itself, is, in
fact, the most stable OS I've ever seen.  It's FAR easier to take down a Unix
box just playing with relinking the kernel, and stuff like that, than it is to
take down a DOS box.
	As for "crash protection" over 3rd party apps, well, I'd have to point out
out as mostly wrong.  It's quite subjective.  Some DOS programs are buggier
than others.  Same for Win32 apps.  Hell, same for OS/2 apps, and Novell NLM's
-- wait, haven't seen a faulty NLM is ages.  Never mind that point then. 
Win95 has _some_ ability to trap _some_ errors.  But the fact of the matter is
that the overhead of the trapping mechanism (Win95 itself) introduced so many
other opportunities for instability, that it still fails more often than DOS.
	Interesting that there's things like UniVBE.  I'm actually not suprised a
Windows flunky doesn't catch on, but have you noticed that even for SOUND
support, there seems to be something like two DOS sound install routines
anymore?  Could it be that vendors are re-using their sound code?  <Gasp!> 
And don't even bother to go on about DirectX.  On average, a major revision
every six months?!?  How stable _IS_ this moving target?  So often one app
nukes another version of DirectX, and it's -poof- OS re-install time in order
to get the first app working again.  Weeeee.  Man I love centralization.

>	Overall, your statement is pretty weak... 'Proof by blatant
>assertion' is a time honored, yet completely powerless, tactic. All
>you have proven is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

	Wrong-o still more.  The original poster wasn't out to prove anything, and
was simply stating the _facts_.  You remember facts, don't you?  They're what
came before _marketting_.  Unfortunately, your inability to dance around the
facts and dazzle us with your marketting demonstrates YOUR lack of fundamental
computing design concepts, as well as a lack of product knowledge WRT anything
other than what _you_ happen to like _right now_.

>	Oh, and BTW -- NT does support almost all the gaming stuff
>already, so if you do not like Win95, feel free to get NT --
>otherwise, you will not be able to play most of the new games out
>there.

	Oh, and BTW, WRONG-O still again.  NT doesn't support DirectX in ANY version.
 Furthermore, the DOS support is apallingly close to useless WRT games.  As
for if someone will, or will not be able to play new games, well, that's what
this is all about, see?  Just because something "_is_", doesn't mean "_is
right_".  Facts are, lots of games are coming out Win32/ActiveX, and facts
are, it's not a good idea.

>	P.S. Microsoft is not FORCING anyone to use their OS -- before
>Win95, many companies were writing games for DOS only; why should you
>rally against MS for doing the same thing, but with a BETTER OS as the
>basis? Nothing says they have to support other platforms!

	P.S.  _WRONG-O_!  MS is forcing us to run MS products through marketting all
other development out of existance.  Before Win95, writing games "DOS only"
meant it would most likely also run on OS/2, and often variants of Unix. 
Further, it could be served through Novell boxes.  Now, "Win95 only" means,
um, "Win95 only".  Hey, there's diversity.

	Finally, because I'm rather certain you aren't going to grasp even one point
I make here, and are going to wonder what all of this "information", and
experiential evidence stuff is, and not recognize this as an actual Usenet
posting, I'm going to have to call you a name, so you'll have SOMETHING to get
out of all this.  You're a nipple-head.

+========================================================================+
| Life is like an onion; layer upon layer upon layer, it leaves a bad    |
|   taste in your mouth, and it makes you want to cry.    -Pink		 |
+==================== Web Site Under Construction ========== Team OS/2 ==+