🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Article #2750

Re: Win95 and games: good news...

#2750
From: swil... Stephen Wilhelm
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00
36 lines
2768 bytes
Ryan Baker (rynb...@eek.cwru.edu) wrote:
> 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.

Wow!  What an article!  I think it is very well written and about as
unbiased as it gets.  I agree with just about everything you said.  I
wish you knew a little more about OS/2, but your knowledge of NT far
exceeds mine.  You were very honest and pointed out each of theirs
strengths and weaknesses, and did so accurately.  I was getting sick
of people writing misinformation (your OS won't run games with sound
and my OS does...) and it is good to see that there are a few of us
who seem to know what is going on.  For a review of usability, I think
you did a good job.  As it stands, the conclusion to this is that each
OS has its strengths and weaknesses, and based on those you need to
make your decision.  I might like to add something, OS/2 can give you
superior performance to DOS, but it probably won't.  You need to sit
down and customize your settings for that program (OS/2 is good at
this, but it does take a little time and effort).  Once done, I can
get CorelDraw to load and run faster under OS/2 than under Windows on
my machine.  Similar results with some other Windows apps, but not
quite so drastic.  Also, Doom (version 1.1 so I can have sound) is
choppy under DOS on my system, but smooth under OS/2.  The real
question is if the extra performance is worth the time it took to
configure them right.  I will let you decide.  But I agree that Win95
appears to be a little faster, especially when it comes to things like
opening windows.  
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID: <3o5ssk$6j8@csc.mc.edu>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <3mtquj$hq2@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <3nmv5u$3hd@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: swil...@csc.mc.edu (Stephen Wilhelm)
Subject: Re: Win95 and games: good news...
Date: 1995/05/02
Message-ID: <3o5ssk$6j8@csc.mc.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 101870058
references: <3mtquj$hq2@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <3nmv5u$3hd@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
organization: Mississippi College, Clinton, MS -- USA
newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit