Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Article #2750Re: Win95 and games: good news...
From: swil... Stephen Wilhelm
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00
36 lines
2768 bytes
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$6j8@csc.mc.edu>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<3mtquj$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