🚀 go-pugleaf

I couldn't get to the original posting, so I'm replying to a reply.

> >Great :), time for my reasoned reply...
> >Win 95 is a true multitasking o/s [agreed? :)]. 

Technically, it's a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS (vs. co-operative 
multitasking -- something even Win3.1 could do).  But when you get
into a section of the Win95 code called USER you are reduced to single 
tasking until until the code in USER has been exited.  


> >It is therefore running
> >multiple tasks at the same time - 

Yes.

> >therefore the main pipeline in the o/s CAN be
> >optimized to run as efficiently as possible at a certain speed or above because
> >it's a multitasking pipeline. 

No.  Not even close.

> >Microsoft decided that the DX2 and above would be
> >a sensible computer to optimize for. The Pentium will obvious run Win 95 very
> >well because of it's 2 486 cpu's allowing for great multi-tasking.

No.  Even further away, this time.  Microsoft have long proclaimed that 
the OS would be able to run all Win3.1 programs as well as Win3.1 does. 
Since Win3.1 runs on 386's, your reference to the DX2 is irrelevant.

Further, a Pentium does not have 2 486 CPUs.  It has a single CPU.
Furthermore, multiple CPUs *only* benefit from an OS that supports
SMP (Symetric MultiProcessing).  NT has an SMP version (as does OS/2).
Sadly, there are some concurrency problems in the Pentium chip so
you can get NT/SMP (or OS2/SMP) but you can only run one copy of
the OS.  (Kinda like buying a bicycle then being able to use it
only as a unicycle.)

Finally, you might want to do a little reasearch and see what SX
means in the 386, 486 and Pentium worlds.  Then do the same for
DX.