🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41f4u8$j...@news.dgsys.com>,
Michael Askounes <ic...@dgs.dgsys.com> wrote:
 >In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950822...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, 
 >mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu says...
 >
 >>Let's go into that last comment a little more.  Does it run the old/slow 
 >>DOS as well as the new low and high mem intensive DOS well.  For example 
 >>Battles of Napoleon or the SSG Battlefront/Decisive Battles of the ACW on 
 >>the low/slow (namely made to run on PCXT or 286) and, say, Panzer General 
 >>or Stalingrad on the high end.
 >
 >I can vouch for Win '95 as far as the newer, high end games go.  Since you 
 >can choose to restart your computer in MS-DOS mode, I've had no problem 
 >with any of the games I've tried to run.  Oddly enough, the only programs 
 >I've had trouble running are MS-Windows games.  Sorta strange...

Unbelievable.  Boot DOS instead of Windows 95 and DOS games run.
How totally revolutionary.  How much CPU time is your receive
fax process getting while you're playing?

 >One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
 >files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

Holy Smokes!  It's a computer revolution!  How many years have OS/2
users had this capability while the lemmings were waiting for MS?

-- 
Chris Linstruth  -  c...@qnet.com