🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42pj3i$c...@calweb.calweb.com> morp...@calweb.com writes:
>From: morp...@calweb.com
>Subject: Re: Windows 95 & OS/2
>Date: 8 Sep 1995 14:14:10 GMT

>In <42o4b1$b...@stratus.skypoint.com>, syd...@skypoint.com (Scott Butler)
>writes:

>    Sounds like you're talking about Windows95 there.  800 DOS programs out of
>a test group of 2500 that Microsoft itself picked had problems running in
>Win95.

I've personally had zero problems as yet, but 800 out of millions is a pretty 
small percentage.  I actually had more trouble with dos apps under Warp, which 
I tried and deleted twice now.  Why?  Because I didn't know how to tweak it, 
I'm not a computer guru, and I didn't have time to program my computer to run 
the programs I wanted it to run.  Why should I even WANT a system like that?

>    And does so in a manner that is begging for a system crash and invites
>viruses.  Also, when it runs Win16 apps it turns into a glorified version of
>Windows 3.x.

I've had 8 16 bit apps open at one time...many of which used various other 
devices...i.e. sound, record port, printer...etc...nothing near a crash...not 
once.  Using my system performance meter thingy I found the following:
pre-any apps open with the exception of my ppp login and this newsreader, I 
had 92% system resources, 92% User resources, 97% GDI resources.   After 
opening Encore, WP 6.1, My ppp login, netscape, Eudora, Trumpet newsreader, 
and multiple control panel applets, It was 80% across the board.  Now, I'm 
sure you think that's no big deal, but here's where Win95 is not just a pretty 
3.1 when running 16bit apps...when I closed it all down again...except of 
course the login and this newsreader, it was all back.  Now you'll say "Well 
it's supposed to do that...any decent os would!"  And I answer yes, but my 
point is, Win3.x didn't...in fact, I always started with NO apps open at 72% 
resources which were gradually eaten...and therefor I have proven that when 
running 16 bit apps, Win95 is not just a prettified 3.x

>>Listen, OS/2 is not a bad OS - but there's NO WAY you can claim it has
>>ANYWHERE NEAR the applications support that Windows 95 has. 

>    Sure we can.

>OS/2 - DOS & OS/2 & Windows
>Win 95 - DOS & Windows

That's nice...but I've yet to see an OS/2 app that I liked...personal 
preference I suppose.  I'm sure part of the reason for that is that you have 
to order the vast majority of them through a catalog because the demands from 
the masses for them are not sufficient to make stocking them in a software 
store a sound economical choice for that store.  I like to shop for apps.  
When I see one I want, I want it right then...and if I don't like it, it's a 
damn sight easier to take back...I don't think you are including these factors 
into what you guys are calling "software support" but I do, and I'm not alone.

<snip - numbers of apps farce>
If OS/2 had 1 million apps, and Win95 had 1 million and 1, that wouldn't say a 
damned thing about the either os...however if the numbers were sufficiently 
skewed in a greater than 2:1 ration on either side, I'd be interested to see 
those figures...not that I would change MY mind...after all Win95 runs 
everything I've put it through without me having to program it to run it, and 
OS/2 simply put, did not. 


Please understand, I am not an "advocate" of microsoft, and I really think 
this whole argument about OS's is a big prick waving dick fight between people 
who have either low self esteem over the size of their os's penis or have 
penis envy of the other guy's os's penis size.  If this guy wants to use OS/2, 
so what?  If somebody else wants to use Win95, again...so what?  It's a 
consumer market, fellows, and all the geek-speak in the world isn't going to 
determine what OS is better...the people will decide that with their wallets 
in a remote computer store in some remote state, province, or country 
somewhere.  The IBM Microsoft competition is just a big chess game...granted, 
M$ didn't take IBM's queen with this one, but it did take a piece, and it 
wasn't a pawn, and the board position definitely favors M$ right now.  It's 
IBM's move...what will they do...resign or play on...should be interesting.  
The end game is upon us...pull the wagons into a circle, IBMers...

Steve
They're just my opinions, but please flame if you wish...I like a good laugh 
with my morning coffee (that's when I read my mail ;-)