🚀 go-pugleaf

I have been using both OS/2 Warp and Win95 and can say that each has its 
own strengths and weaknesses.  Know that both of them provide an option 
to go to a true DOS prompt.  With Win '95 you press F4 during bootup and 
it loads the 'previously installed version of DOS' in my case 6.0.  OS/2 
handles it a bit differently in that you select to boot either OS/2 or 
DOS(which in my case resides on a separate partition) from a menu which 
will boot OS/2 by default after 30 seconds.  It seems that both 
OS's perform equally well when running 16-bit non protected mode apps in 
that they performed without crashing at all.  Getting games to run under 
OS/2 is simply a matter of understanding memory requirements and how to 
use this knowledge to configure the application to run.  Win '95 is a 
little easier to configure but seems to be quite a bit slower than OS/2 when 
running apps in a DOS session.  It is when you get into 32-bit protected 
mode stuff that things start getting quirky.  Of the few 32 bit products I have tried to run under 
each OS neither shined as the winner.  For a frame of reference, I will 
use Dynamix' Metaltech Earthsiege.  This game did get a little further 
under Win '95 than under OS/2 but the end result was essentially the 
same-CRASH!!.  OS/2 emerges better in the area of crash recovery.  When 
you get a misbehaved app  blowing up under OS/2 its as easy as killing 
the session.  Several times using Win '95 I was forced to cold boot the 
machine to recover.  




In <D77DB...@cdf.toronto.edu> a260...@cdf.toronto.edu (Galasso Emilio N) writes:

>In article <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
>Jeffrey Lee Woodall <jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>>
>>Bullshit.  OS/2 sucks for games, period.  
You obviously didn't give it enough time.

I have tried Warp, and DOS 
>>games do not want to run.  So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere 
>>near as well as Windows 95.  Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has 
>>also been doing the same thing.


>One problem with OS/2 is that it does take a lot of getting used to.  You
>really have to learn how to "tweak" your system by learning, and basically
>understanding, some of of the options in the DOS properties.  Out of the many
>games that I have tried, I've yet to encounter one that worked under Win95
>that wouldn't work under OS/2... though I'm sure they exist, because even I
>feel the DOS compatibility is somewhat better in Win95 -- though Win95 does
>have far closer ties to DOS than OS/2 does.

>>
>>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Actually OS/2 offers what is called a 'Virtual Machine Boot' which is 
created using a DOS bootable diskette.  What essentially happens is and 
image of the bootable diskette is used when you start the app it is tied 
to.  When you go to load the app it loads MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS as well as 
CONFIG.SYS and Autoexec.bat provided they existed on the image of the 
boot disk.  This is essentially like booting a full native DOS session 
from within OS/2.

>Ok, now it sounds like you installed it... moved a few icons around, tried
>to launch a game, and said it sucked.  One of OS/2's strongest DOS-           
>compatibility features was the fact that you could configure each DOS session
>individually... each processing their own autoexec.bat and config.sys.  This
>is definately not an original Win95 concept!  In fact, this feature was not
>available until the later Win95 betas if I'm not mistaken.  Doesn't really
>matter though, it has it now, and it's a useful feature.  However, OS/2 has
>it as well... in fact, it offers far more control over a DOS session than
>the current Windows 95 betas offer.


>>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>>right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.


>I sort of agree with you here.  I just came from the OS/2 platform, and I must
>say that I'm liking Windows 95 more and more.  It definately runs Windows (go
>figure) and DOS apps much faster, and that's why I have switched over.  I
>chose speed over better multitasking.  OS/2, in my opinion, was a much better,
>stronger, multitasker.  I don't know if I would say that Windows 95 is 5 times
>faster though...
> 
>Games run exceptionally well under Windows 95... but I never really had any
>trouble running games under OS/2 either.  I do find they run faster under
>Windows 95 (Doom and Dark Forces feel just as smooth as under DOS in my
>opinion... though their loading times are increased by quite a bit).  On the
>other hand, background file transfers are easily affected by games under
>Windows 95 whereas OS/2 mananged to keep the transfers going strong... though
>games did run a little "choppier".  Nonetheless, I don't know of any decent
>32-bit Win95 terminal programs so it's probably not fair to compare 
>multitasking a 16-bit Windows term program to a native 32-bit OS/2 term
>program (Procomm and Livewire in this case).

>I think OS/2 will still have its place, but I can't see the average user
>"liking" OS/2 over Windows 95.  I think OS/2 needed more improvements over
>what Warp delivered.  Windows 95 is far prettier, and in my opinion "feels"
>better... the fact is, people WILL judge a book by its cover, and OS/2 is
>definately not dazzling to look at.

>I should also add that I am far more likely to run a game under Windows 95
>(without dropping to straight DOS) than I ever was while running OS/2.
>Nonetheless, I usually run games in a straight DOS session no matter what
>OS I'm using...
> 

> 

>-- 

>Emilio Galasso
>a260...@cdf.toronto.edu
>University of Toronto, Computer Science.