🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41uafc$g...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Aaron Van Stralen <av...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
>>only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
>>has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.
>
>Win-OS2 and ms windows 3.x are the same thing down to the code. They
>also both have the same bugs. To prove this open ms windows and type
>in 4.00000 in the calculator, after the first zero you won't see 
>anymore of the zeros until you press six. Same thing is in Win-OS2. 
>
>The only difference is that you won't see any references to windows in
>win-os2, they have become win-os2.
>
>So if they have the same coding that also means win-os2 isn't 32bit.
>Try running a 32bit program under win-os2 with out win32s.
>
>Avan
>
 
According to a post from some of the IBM developers who ported the
Windows 3.x code over to Win-OS2 : 

	The biggest single change was in memory management.  Windows 
uses about 70% DPMI and the rest is direct.  IBM re-wrote the 30%
so that the Win-Os2 code is ALL DPMI conformant.

The next change was using the Watcom 16-bit C compiler since it generates
better code than the MS 16-bit C.

I *THINK* they did some page tuning, but I'm not sure.

Bob