🚀 go-pugleaf

cpe...@ibm.net wrote:

>You have your point of view and millions of users who use OS/2 every
>day have their points of view. Having used operating systems from PC DOS
>V1.0 - Windows - Windows '95 - UNIX - MVS etc..... I have to say that 
>OS/2 is one of the best operating systems I have used - given the 
>inherrent instability of PC hardware and standards - lets face it, which 
>games programmer has never used undocumented call? :-) - I have to 
>say it is now one of the most stable OS's. 

Well, I am not a Windows advocate. 
In my company, all the applications are Windows based. I presumed that
Windows was selected based on the amount of applications available and
not so much on the internal architecture design of the OS (have to ask
those fellers in the IS department).

I, myself, given the chance would like very much to switch over to
OS/2 as it is much more stable than Windows (For the record, I rushed
out to buy a copy of OS/2 WARP as soon as it was launched, but now it
is gathering dust now somewhere in my drawer). But as circumstances
depicts, I am using Windows as I do bring back quite a substantial
amount of work back from office and I also have quite a substantial
amount of money invested in DOS softwares (mostly games ;-)) that may
not run well under OS/2.

I've just purchased Windows 95 and spend one day installing it and
configurating it until I am happy with it, and the next few days
trying to beat the life out of it and I am glad to say that it appears
to be much much more stable than Window 3.1.  One 16 bit application
did crashed once, but recovery was fast, easy and there was no need to
reboot windows.  After some minor tweaking, I managed to get Windows
95 to boot up in less than 30 seconds, not lightning fast, but
acceptable to me.

As of now, all of my DOS games work fine and I did noticed that some
of the games, like Aces over the Pacific, do run slightly faster under
the DOS session in Windows 95. Don't ask me why.

>Let's face it, Win-95 is V1.0 with all the problems an initial version will
>have. It will be unstable and buggy for a long time to come. So far, only
>tecchies have tried to use it (Joe Bloggs from the chip shop down the 
>road isn't going to get involved in the beta is he?). So what happens when 
>millions of people who have had their hopes and expectations built up 
>by the M$ marketing machine try to use it? 

I agreed that there will be bugs for most of the initial OS releases.
It is just whether they are serious or not.  For Windows 95, I have
yet to encounter those pesky pests (maybe I am lucky??).  In fact, I
managed to crash both Windows 3.1, WFWG 3.11 and OS/2 within hours of
installing it, but had to admit that the OS/2 crash was not as serious
as those crashes made by Windows 3.1 and 3.11. 

>I am a firm believer of the adage - 'If it ain't broke then don't fix it' or 
>'Don't upgrade just because Bill tells you' If you are happy with DOS/Windows
>and it does everything you need to then leave '95 alone - it will only cause 
>you grief. And if, like most of home computer users you have no idea what 
>Windows '95 is, only that all the M$ press copy supplied to 'independant'
>journalists is telling you it's the best thing since sliced bread, then you don't
>need it.

Well, I would think of it as "Better switch before it broke!!"  ;-)

               \|/
             [0] [0]
                o
----------ooooO) (Ooooo----------
| DARK ANGEL             | (\/) |
| paul...@singnet.com.sg| (00) |
|                        |  \/  |
---------------------------------
          ooooO   Ooooo
     ----------------------