🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41emov$5...@news.alaska.edu> fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (PALMER THOMAS L) writes:
>From: fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (PALMER THOMAS L)
>Subject: Re: Win95 a TRUE OS? Help a newbie!
>Date: 23 Aug 1995 07:53:03 GMT

>fit...@osu.edu wrote:
>: In <40uqt8$6...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, Vincent Ho <s2172730> writes:
>: >In article <3vk3o1$c...@eng_ser1.erg.cuhk.hk> kyw...@cs.cuhk.hk (Wong) writes:
>: >>In message <3vdumb$k...@seymour.sfu.ca> - b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>: >>
>: >>:>Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get
>: > "Dos-7.0" but "Win95".  
>: >>:>
>: >>:>Jeremy
>: >>
>: >>    If you run MSD at "SAM mode" of windows 95, you'll get "MS-DOS 7.0".
>: >
>: >
>: >  Exactly, but all this means nothing.  I could rewrite the "ver" function in
>: >DOS or in Windows 95 to say anything I wanted.  All that it demonstrates is
>: >that someone has changed the code for the ver function.  It doesn't prove
>: >anything *else* have changed.  I'm not bashing/praising Windows 95, just saying
>: >that "ver" is almost certainly independent of the rest of the OS.
>: >
>: >________________________________________________________
>: >                     Loki                            
>: >
>: >--> OS Too: We've given up on waking him.
>: >
>: >E-mail: s217...@cse.unsw.edu.au                             
>: >Web   : http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~s2172730/
>: >
>: >--------> May the force live long & prosper.  <---------
>: Win95 is a new desktop shell with 32bit support.  Anything that is made for it will
>: also work with Windows 3.1 with a 32bit patch that is available from almost all
>: ftp servers that support the windows enviroment.  The dos support is truley less support
>: then dos 6.x offers.  I cannot get many of my games to run under the 95 enviroment
>: even when I bypass the desktop shell and go through the long task of getting directly 
>: to the command prompt.  All Microsoft did was add 32bit support, some extra utilities
>: that windows 3.1 didn't ship with, and made the desktop a pain to navigate.
>: For a true OS you should consider OS/2 Warp!  This platform will run many dos and windows
>: programs and native os2 programs.  It will also let you customise Dos and Windows settings
>: to meet individual programs needs.  For example, On my system I have successfully ran:
>:       Doom/2
>:       Gunship 2000
>:       2 seperate windows sessions (WP 6.1 in one) and (Excel in the other)
>:       and 10 OS/2 specific applications (including Harddisk utils, and Internet programs)
>:       at the same time.
>: I have failed to see anyone match this with win95.  Also OS/2 has a command structure that
>: will allow you to boot up Specific Dos Sessions (like 4.1, 5.0, 6.X, 7.0) if a program requires
>: a specific dos.  And in the event that this tatic doesn't work.  OS/2 has the option to boot
>: up the system with your older DOS still 100% operational.
>: I fail to see the greatness of 95 when Warp goes far beyond.  But I guess for people who don't
>: take computing seriously 95 is as good as a MAC.  ---Pun intended---

>: If you would like to know more about OS/2 a true OS, and not just flame me, Please feel free to 
>: email me.

>OS/2 Warp is the absolute worst OS I have ever seen. I bought it seening 
>as everyone claimed it was so good. Not only was I unable to get it to 
>install because of my Western Digital EIDE drive, IBM could give me NO 
>HELP WHAT SO EVER. I called the 1-800 number given in the package and was 
>told I had to call a new toll #. I had got a FREE copy of 2.1 about 5 
>months prior and was told then that they didn't have 1-800 support. I 
>couldn't install that one because it couldn't see my CD-Rom. I figured 
>since 5 months had passed and they put the 1-800 number in the package as 
>the support line that it was..boy was I wrong. I tried to call the toll # 
>and was put on hold for 45 minutes and then told that there was nothing I 
>could do. I ended up giving it to my roomate. He installed it, tried to 
>use it, called it shit after a week and we destroyed the entire thing, 
>books disk and everything. As far as using WIN95 for games well quite a 
>few mag have been able to get everthing to run under it. There was a copy 
>of it here at a local computer store and once they and I got a hang of 
>setting up DOS sessions there WASN'T A SINGLE PRODUCT available right now 
>that we couldn't get to work. They also had OS/2 Warp running once and 
>they couldn't get 15% of the games to work. And that was over a 4 month 
>period. Ohhh for those of you who think you can still play games w/o 
>Win95 go find out how many big name game publishers are moving to Win95. 
>With the ability to get 45fps out of a game on a 486/66 with a DOS game 
>that could only get 30fps in DOS on a P-75 how can you go wrong???


If you went to the Os/2 warp "Pharmacy" on the WWW then you would have found 
the patch for the western digital drive there and I think it's a REALLY great 
Operating system.