🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Linstruth (c...@qnet.com) wrote:
: 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...
:  >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?

Look, here's the deal.  Yes, Windows 95 is not revolutionary and, 
technilogically, Microsoft is behind the pack.  However, there are a few 
problems that OS/2 and Linux will be having in the near future.  One of 
them is Direct Draw for games, the other is Win32 programs.  Now, I'm the 
first one to admit that Microsoft is behind the pack in technology.  
However, I'm also the first to notice that there are 8 shelves of 
DOS/Windows software in Best Buy, two shelves of Macintosh, and no 
shelves of OS/2.

Now, onto an answer to your statement.  There are some games where one 
might have to boot into the command DOS prompt.  However, today at work, 
I fired up Terminal Velocity while Windows 95 was still running.  No 
sweat.  No problem.  I've also taken a look at Pitfall for Windows 95 and 
am pretty impressed that Windows is finally at the point where it can 
handle scrolling in a game, let alone two places of scrolling with a fair 
share of sprites floating around.

:  >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?

Look, we all have our reasons for choosing our operating system.  OS/2 is 
a fine product, but not all of us like the way it looks or the way it 
operates.  The same holds true for Windows.  Ultimatly the truth is that 
I had NT 3.1 and 3.5 to give me a 32 bit multitasking operating system 
for a while now.  However, I couldn't run my DOS multimedia programs well 
under NT.  Now I have Windows 95 that lets me run my DOS programs 
better.  It was worth it to wait a while rather than learn an entirely 
new operating system.