🚀 go-pugleaf

	The Windows 95 / OS/2 debate here gets alot of people's attention, and alot
of different types of responses, ranging from stupidity to very intelligent
remarks.  I don't think that many people have tried to do this, but I'm
going to attempt to compare the four major operating systems (Windows 3.1x,
Windows 95, OS/2 Warp, and Windows NT) as best I can, and as unbiased as I
can.  I do however have a personal bias for Windows 95 which I currently
use and very much like, I have however used all four systems.

-- System Architecture --
	The first thing people usually consider is the operating systems system
architecture.  This is not really the most important aspect but is the
easiest one to compare and quantify.  IMO, Windows NT is the leader in this
area, followed closely by OS/2, a little farther by 95, and Windows 3.1
which is light years behind.  Of course I will justify this.  I think the
best way to do this is to compare the different parts of the architecture.

*Memory model for native applications:*
--------------------------------------------------
NT - 2GB system memory area, 2GB application memory area (each
application), all memory protected from all other parts of system other
than the kernel and some very low-level hardware interface components.
Eliminates Windows 3.1 resource limitations for Win32 apps.

Warp - I don't know the specifics but it provides a similar system to NT,
only allowing lower level drivers and parts of the system access to the
heaps of native apps.  Has no need for any resource heap of any type.

95 - Similar to NT, but has less stringent protections for drivers. (VxD's
and DOS Devices)  It does however protect native applications from 16-bit,
and DOS apps.  Still requires resource heap even for Win32 apps, though the
design is much improved.  Despite the media hype about this shortcoming the
issue is fairly insignificant since it is possible to open many
applications without problems (I open about 15 every time I turn on the
computer).  The only area where this is likely to cause diffuculty is when
using multi-threaded, window spawning programs that use many message que's
per window.  The average user didn't encounter resource limitations under
3.1, and the more advanced users who did are unlikely to encounter them
under 95.  So far I have not once encoutered such an error myself.

3.1 - All programs run cooperatively and anyone could access any memory
address if desired.  Required resource heaps which limited the number of
programs a user could run at once, though it was easily possible to have 3
or 4 large applications, or 10 to 12 small ones open at once.

*Memory model for Windows 3.1(Win16) applications*
-----------------------------------------------------------
NT - Defaults to running each application in it's own virtual machine(VM),
and eliminates resouce requirements.  It was also possible to run all Win16
applications in one single VM, allowing them to run cooperatively but also
deprotecting eachother's memory.

Warp - Could either run each app in it's own VM or cooperatively in a
single VM, I'm not sure how Warp handles resource limitations.

95 - Runs all Win16 apps in a single VM, improves resource limitations but
does not remove them.

3.1 - Already covered

*Memory model for DOS applications*
-------------------------------------------------
All OS's - runs each DOS app in seperate VM's

*Hardware protection*
----------------------------
NT - uses the Hardware Abstraction Layer(HAL) to allow application's,
protocol interfaces, services, etc. to command standard system defined
devices.  The requests to HAL are then processed and sent to system drivers
for specific devices.  This has the effect of protecting the system from a
lockup unless it was precipitated by a flaw in HAL, the device driver, or
the hardware itself.  It also makes it much easier to deal with I/O, IRQ,
and DMA conflicts, since HAL is responsible for making sure no two devices
request access to the same resources.  However, HAL is the main reason that
Windows NT generally performs slower than any other OS since all hardware
calls must pass through an extra processing layer.  HAL also can prevent
many DOS and Win16 applications from running properly if they expect to be
able to directly control the hardware.

Warp - uses a system similar to HAL, but is not as robust and bulletproof,
and also affects performance.  Like NT Warp's system causes some DOS and
Win16 apps to be unable to run properly (Doom after v1.2).  Warp however,
unlike NT attempts to provide workarounds to this problem in an effort to
increase it's DOS compatibility.  These features are good in that they let
you run more programs such as games, but they offer a loophole for
mis-behaved applications to crash the entire system.

95 - uses more hardware protection than 3.1, but unlike NT and Warp, 95
uses an active method rather than a passive method, meaning that instead of
completely prohibiting access to the hardware and demanding that all
requests to the hardware be made to the OS, it instead monitors hardware
access, and attempts to stop anything that looks destructive.  This system
provides the highest level of compatabilty and speed, but a relatively low
amount of system protection.

3.1 - similar to the system used for 95, but poorly implemented.  3.1
generally did not protect the system very well, and did not usually know
how to handle problems it did detect.

--Features--
	This is either the second or most important area of concern, depending upon
your own priorities it may be superior to actual system performance.

*Networking*
-----------------
NT - the name doesn't do a bad job of describing it (NT stands for
Networking).  NT has an extremely robust support for networks rivaled only
by 95.  The NT system provides several hundred drivers for network
adapters, clients to connect to standard networks such as Netware, LAN
Manager, etc.  It also supports a wide range of protocols such as TCP/IP
(which is the basic communication protocol between NT servers), Netbios,
NetBuei, IPX/SPX, Banyan Vines.  NT has advanced services such as dial up
networking clients and servers both supporting the PPP, RAS, and Novell
protocols for remote networking.  NT provides advanced security (C-2
compliant), and administration features, plus the capability to act as a
router in many networks.  NT is a robust and full featured networking
platform for both LAN's, WAN's and the internet, which is cleary shown by
the number of Winsock applications which have been ported or written on
Win32s, even before the preview release of 95.  I personally have setup
Windows NT 3.5 in an office with a Novell Network, and had it fully
connected to the server, the internet, and setup to serve any Windows
clients, in under 2 hours.

Warp - provides internet PPP dialup capability.  That's it.  IBM does
intend to release a version of Warp with network capabilities soon called
Fullpack though, but even the features of that do not rival those of NT and
95.

95 - as good or better than NT as a client, and an effective peer server.
Provides the same support for multiple network cards, server types, and
protocols like NT, all of which is tightly integrated with the OS.  The
winsock interface that both NT and 95 use to allow connection to the
internet is robust, fast and have a wide variety of applications designed
to use them.  Another important feature is Microsoft Exchange, the mail
application that combines many old applications, such as a fax program, a
LAN mail client, and an Internet Mail program into one application.  It
also supports mail retrieval from either Compuserve or the Microsoft
Network(MSN).

3.1 - WfWg 3.11 provided a good network client for Windows networks, and
worked decently with Netware, but was inadequete as a server for anything
other than small networks. Mostly, it made networking a little easier, but
did not make it much better.  However, even it's minimal capabilities are
better than those of Warp, and some older networks such as Personal
Netware.

*Included software*
-------------------------
NT - included the standard Windows accesories with nothing flashy or
impressive other than a few good network management tools and a backup
program.

Warp - included several good applications for office use such as a word
proccessor, and fax program.

95 - currently includes the standard Windows accessories plus an enhanced
terminal program, software to connect to MSN, an audio CD player, disk
checking, defrag and backup programs, wordpad ( a small but functional word
processor), and the Exchange program.

3.1 - the standard windows accessories

*Available software*
-------------------------
NT - relatively few commercial NT applications are available now, but many,
many vendors have annouced their intentions to make new Win32 applications
soon.  NT does have a few native applications which are well suited to it's
market such as SQL servers and such.

Warp - relatively few commercial OS/2 applications are available now, and
though there was a recent flurry of new applications, the market now seems
to be backing away from the idea of writing applications for OS/2

95 - Since 95 is still in beta there are not many applications designed for
it.  However there are still a few available, such as Norton Utilities, and
hundreds or even thousands announced as under development that should be
available within a few months of it's release.  Also currently there are a
large body of programs developed for Win32s, and a large number of
shareware utilities, especially ones designed for the internet (Netscape,
Win QVTnet, WS_FTP, WinVN, NewsXPress all have 32-bit versions)

3.1 - literally tens of thousands of programs have been written for Windows
3.1 and is the main reason that it still survives today.

*User Interface* - I'm not going to try to hard here since this is opinion
--------------------
NT - currently uses 3.1 interface, but will soon be upgraded to 95
interface.

Warp - uses the Workplace Shell, which is somewhat closer to the Mac's
analogy.  I didn't appreciate Warp's inteface much mainly because it
generally exagerated everything, having huge icons and menu bars.  But I
have heard that many Warp users love it's interface, so either I am looking
for something different, am too picky, or just didn't have time to get used
to it (I only had Warp on my computer for a week and a half before I
removed it).

95 - IMO, this is the best interface I've seen.  It's title and menu bars
have an XWindows look to them, which is to say small, sleak, and
streamlined.  This look can be seen all over 95, from the scroll bars, to
the tiny icons that drop in the indentation next to the clock on the task
bar (such as the one that indicates modem status.  The taskbar is also a
significant improvement giving you access to all currently open
applications in a single click.  Personally I don't care much for the
Macintosh like desktop, but I'm sure that many Warp and Mac users would
like it, since it is very much similar to those two systems.  For those
like me who dislike a Mac type interface, there is the explorer, which
displays almost all of the computer's resources in a hierarchial view.
Also there is the very useful start button, which lets you launch almost
any application at any time, and works quite similar to CP Desktop's quick
launch feature, but due to the way 95 makes menus act it is much more
practical to nest menus.  Overall, 95 incorporates the best features of
many great products and develops some new things such as Plug 'n Play, and
Autoplay.

3.1 - Most people know what the 3.1 interface is, and while it was good
when it first came around, it did need a revamping.  I personally disliked
the large title bars, which wasted screen space and made it diffucult to
put two applications on one screen.  Program Manager was fairly obnoxious,
but most people had replaced that with something like Dashboard or CP
Desktop.

*Hardware Support*
-------------------------
NT - NoT very good. NT has few drivers for anything except network cards,
video cards, and SCSI CD-ROMs.  Well, most people buy a computer for NT,
instead of the other way around, so Microsoft didn't worry about this one.
However that is the main reason that I wasn't running NT as my main OS for
the last year.

Warp - same story as NT with only slightly better results.  When I loaded
Warp it supported my Video Board, and that was it.  Now, it was possible to
get a driver for my GUS, but that didn't work well with Warp, because it
was designed for 2.11, and wouldn't support sound in Windows apps, or any
of the GUS's emulation programs.  My ACE 5000 had no drivers, though it
would have been possible to steal to Windsurfer OS/2 software, which was
also designed for 2.11, which is unbelievably ignorant since IBM
manufactures not only the Mwave chip the ACE 5000 uses, but also sells the
Windsurfer board.  To top off all of this, Warp wouldn't support my
TEAC-55A 4x CD-ROM.  Oh ya, and I almost forgot about the network card.

95 - this is what really convinced me that 95 was the best OS available
now.  When I installed it, 95 went through the installation asked me maybe
15 questions despite the fact I'd chosen the custom setup option, and
booted up to it's new desktop, having my GUS chirp out the standard startup
sound, and also loaded the ACE 5000 software without a single glitch, it
allowed my old DOS CD-ROM driver to continue running, and allowed me to
access the two Stacker drives I had the same way as my uncompressed C
drive.  I would like to see the release version come with a 32-bit version
of the drivers for the CD-ROM, GUS, ACE, and Stacker, but the fact that
every one of these ran without a glitch is something I had never seen
happen anywhere except DOS.  Some people bitch about Windows 95 having some
remaining DOS code, but I think it was one of Microsoft's best decisions.
We an interim release before we completely leave DOS and Win16 behind.
Without this vendors won't have time to develop 32-bit drivers,
applications, or games.  It really hurts to trash everything on your
system, but it won't be that tough to trash everything that's five years
old.

3.1 - It supports almost anything developed for a PC, since it is the
standard that vendors develop for.

--System performance--
	IMO, this is the most important aspect of the OS.  It determines how well a
user will be able to use the system, how reliable, and efficent the system
is, pretty much how well it runs.  The main factors that affect this are
the system architecture and the coding, with the coding being the more
important.

*Stability*
------------
NT - solid as a rock, NT has the most superior architecture and has been
through massive beta programs, and is constantly under scrutiny.  If you
want to see how obvious NT's stability is, run it and try and crash it.  If
it boots up properly I would be surprised if you can.

Warp - although Warp's system architecture is very well designed, IBM
didn't spend the time they needed too testing their program.  Warp often
will crash the system on it's own, and the simple fact is, until hardware
starts protecting itself, nothing protects the computer from bugs in the
kernel or system drivers.  During Warp's installation it crashed something
like 15 times, but was a little more stable once out of installation.

95 - Since it's in beta test now it's hard to say about 95, currently the
stability of the system seems a little better than that of Warp.  I've had
my share of reboots, but they have gone away almost entirely since I
changed a few things about my setup (turned off ROM shadowing on QEMM,
which I might remove entirely; got rid of the CD-ROM drivers built in cache
since 95's CD-ROM does a better job with less memory; and stopped trying to
run CP Desktop.

3.1 - As much as magazines bitch about Warp and 95's stability, 3.1 itself
wasn't very stable either.  Everyone knows the meaning of GPF, right?

*Compatability*
NT - It sucks, NT can find many reasons not to run an application, such as
security, memory and hardware protection, or an exiplicable complication.
However when an application won't run, it just doesn't run, instead of
locking up your computer.  Also, NT supports some things like X-11, and
POSIX programs that none of the others do.

Warp - I have very little experience here, but I've heard that Warp does a
pretty good job running DOS games, and Windows programs.

95 - It runs almost anything with very few hitches, the one thing I miss
the most that it won't run is Ubique's Seasame, which won't run because it
is designed for Win32s in a way that is incompatable with Win32 (?)

3.1 - Don't try to run DOS programs under this, but Windows programs run
fine.

*Speed*
----------
NT - this is also fairly abysmal when running Win16 or DOS programs,
however some Win32 applications fly under NT, but they still don't compare
with the same programs under 95.

Warp - again, I have little experience here, but I generally noticed that
Warp performed slower than DOS or Windows 3.1, and I can't say much for
native applications, but they should be fast, and I've heard the same.

95 - the fastest OS I've seen so far 95 runs Win16 apps slightly faster
because of improved disk and graphics performance, and runs Win32 apps even
faster, the most noticeable change was when I switched from the 16-bit
version of Netscape to the 32-bit version.  Things were almost twice as
fast, though most of that was due to better cacheing to the disk and not
increased throughput through the PPP connection.

3.1 - 3.1 has been critized for it's lack of support for speedy programs
like graphics, and lacks the features such as DIVE, and WinG that the other
OS's have, and as such is not a suitable platform for action games.  3.1
however did provide good disk access, and GUI graphics performance by it's
standardization of video functions for accelerated video chips, which was
valuable to office applications.

--Summary--
	That pretty much says it all, draw your own conclusions, correct me where
needed, but I hope this awnsers some questions.
Ryan Baker: e-mail - rynb...@eek.cwru.edu
1010 Vernon Rd.
Bexley, OH 43209
(614)-231-6271