🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25 Feb 1997 19:59:48 GMT, Spamle...@mnsi.net (Paul S. Gazo)
wrote:

>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.

	Well, I can boast the same (without OS/2)... not that this is
about boasting.

>>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.

	Ummm... well, I suspect that this is a fact obvious to anyone who
realizes that GUI requires some memory and processor overhead -- and
Win95 offers much more than just GUI. BTW, if you are speaking about
CONVENTIONAL memory (which I am not sure about, due to you mixup in
terms) -- Win95 wins hands-down. Ever tried to run a CD-based DOS game
that requires 580 KB of conventional memory? Windows can offer all
640, whereas with DOS, you will have to fight for every byte to get
your CD drivers and disk cache to leave enough memory available -- and
forget about network!

>>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.

	Hmmm... I did some pretty heavy-duty software development under
NT, and I never saw it crash. maybe it is just me, but I see NT as a
very stable OS, an OS with excellent networking (did you know you can
run Novell on it, with all the wonderful administrative abilities it
gives you?!.)... I cannot speak for OS/2, though -- never touched it;
but perhaps there is a reason why it is in the rut -- and I am not
sure if the reason is just bad marketing.

>>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.

	Well, I would remind you that DOS, being a VERY simple OS, has
little to crash within OS -- YET, I had it crash on me plenty of
times, usually EMM386, when I was coding or playing.

>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.

	I think we are talking about different DOSes... In my experience
DOS is quite unstable -- even when not doing anything fancy.

>	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.

	True, bugginess depends on the program -- but within Win95, when a
program crashes, you do not usually have to reboot the entire system
-- unlike DOS, where every crash is a system crash.

>	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.

I never had DirectX corrupted by a crashing game. The experiences you
speak of sound rather... unreal.

>>	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_.

	<LOL> Facts, eh? You seem to have a rather peculiar notion of
facts... I am perfectly aware of the role of marketing in Windows's
success -- but Win95 is STILL a good OS -- there are better, but I
have said that already.
	I have been a GUI fan for quite a while, so Win95 is not 'what I
happen to like right now'.
	Lastly, I believe you do not understand that computing design
revolves around marketing! It is not the best mousetrap that wins, but
the one that people ask for -- and Windows success shows that they are
doing something right.

>>	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.

1)	NT DOES support DirectX -- just not the full set of commands yet
	(security issues). They will prolly merge Win95 and NT DirectX
	support in the next NT version.
2)	I am pretty sure you did NOT mean 'ActiveX' there...

>>	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.

A version of Unix that runs DOS games to any decent extent? This I
gotta see... BTW, try running some recent DOS games under OS/2 (Ultima
7, for example) -- I believe you will have little success.

>	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.

Oh, oh, ad hominem!!! How cute...
Look ma, that boy there called me a nipple-head! ;)

BTW, I am a graduate student of CS at University of Massachusetts, so
I have some passing familiarity with computer/OS/software/etc. design.
Just a tad. A smidge even...
		Victor A. Danilchenko
			min...@ix.netcom.com (home)
			dani...@evermore.cs.umass.edu (college)
			http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche