🚀 go-pugleaf

In <799992...@markbz.demon.co.uk>, Mark Rogers <Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <3ok4fp$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>           khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu "Oliver Chung" writes:
[delete]

>> While you wait, I will be happily playin
>> *multithreaded* OS/2 games (GalCiv, Avarice, Entreprenuer, thanks
                     [my own spelling mistake corrected ^]
>
>Cor such marvelous famous games there.  Lets face it they aren't
>falcon 4 or Ultima 9 are they? Games like these are being written
>for Win95 ONLY at the moment).

Fine, tell me about them *when* they are available, ok?

>> >When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!
>> >It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves
>> >its purpose.
>>
>> Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
>> *Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
>> with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
>> system slowing down.
>
>I am sorry but a computer running two tasks is slower than a computer
>running 1 task.  Even if the tasks are relatively light.

Not when your task is mainly idle.  Guess how much CPU does a
14.4k download takes?  Less then 10% on a 486.  Two tasks that
take up < 50% CPU each (or less when including multitasking
overhead) can be run simultaneously without any performance loss
on either task, *that's* multitasking, and that's what OS/2
delivers and Win95 won't.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__