🚀 go-pugleaf

Sven Dahlin (f89...@nada.kth.se) wrote:
> swil...@csc.mc.edu (Stephen Wilhelm) wrote:
> >is great, but for people who need more, it doesn't cut it.  I for one,
> >run more than 10 things at a time quite often, and Win95's limit to 8
> >programs (that damn 64K heap) get's on my nerves.  Also, I can't have

> In later builds (not the "Final Preview" though (437)) the heap has been moved
> out to the 32-bit flat adress space.

!!!!!  Wow!  If what you say is true, then my second biggest gripe
about Win95 is fixed!  Hm, maybe MS is really trying to improve it.
On the other hand, maybe not.  What I still want to know, is why MS
doesn't use HPFS?  They wrote the code for the filesystem, and they
themselves admit that it is light-years ahead of FAT.  No real
backwards compatability problems, no need for a defragger anymore, and
long filenames (unlike VFAT, which uses multiple directory entries for
long filenames, talk about a kludge).  Adding HPFS support wouldn't be
that hard, and it would be much better.  The only real reason that I
can see for not adding it, is some speed issues.  HPFS is faster for
reading (which is what we do most), but slower for writing, and the
caching for HPFS is not that great in either OS/2 or WinNT.  It is
good news, though, about them moving the heap space, and I feel much
more comfortable thinking of Win95 as a possible alternative for a lot
of people, mostly people who don't have the technical know-how to use
OS/2.  

-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu