🚀 go-pugleaf

khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu       (Oliver Chung) wrote:


>Not quite from what I heard.  From all accounts in c.o.o.a, Win95
>is a dead end (even Win advocates there don't deny it), and NT is
>the way MS wants you to go.  That's why they are forcing NT
>compatibility on Win95 developers (you need to make sure you Win95
>apps runs in NT in order to get the Win95 sticker)

Microsoft dropped that requirement months ago. You haven't been
hearing much.


>they will put Win95's interface in NT a year or two later (Isn't
>it great to have you guys pay to test the new interface for MS?).

They announced 95's interface for NT would be available early next
year, this is not news.

If you have used Win 95, you would see the enormous amount of work
that has been done into making the PC a more friendly and easier
environment.  Microsoft has taken an ENORMOUS undertaking by trying to
coordinate all the legacy hardware and software out there and provide
a substantially superior product than the previous Windows.  

Of course they want you to move to Windows NT, technically, it's a far
more robust product.  And that comes at a price- compatibility.  What
95 is, is basically a bridge.  The chasm is too great- in resources
and compatibility problems- for people to jump over to NT now.  So 95
is here to get a swell of 32-bit apps, get device independent games,
so when you want a more robust OS, you won't have to wait for
Microsoft to release a new version of 95.  It will already be out, and
likely in its third incarnation.

It's marketing.  It's smart business.  It's LOGICAL.

Before anyone claims I'm a "Gates flunkie", I was certainly not
blown away by 95.  Itss weak multitasking, and some interface hang-ups
bother me.  But I can appreciate what it has to do, it's ability to
set itself up so easily with so many hardware devices is a feat in
itself.  Plug and play WORKS folks.  It 'aint perfect, but it's a HUGE
leap.

>Changing the Win16 subsystem in Win95 from cooperative to
>preemptive is too big a change to do in beta, and they have only
>a few months to so even if they want.  No, the cooperative nature
>of Win16 system is not going to change in Win95.  Expect to
>upgrade again to NT a year or two later if you buy Win95 now.

Hardly.  Win 95 is a monumental leap over 3.1, and people are still
using that now for the reasons I mentioned.  Certainly, if there are
enough 32-bit apps out there and you have 16-20 megs of ram, NT with
the new interface is probably a better choice.  But those two
requirements aren't satisfied right now for most people, hence 95's
existence.

>As for NT being a better multitasker than OS/2, I don't think so.
>It's probably more robust (thus resulting in less DOS/Win and
>hardware compatibility than OS/2), but the efficiency in
>multitasking is probably similar for both.

Depends.  PC magazine did some tests, and under heavy load NT came out
ahead, but other benchmarks may show otherwise.  I'd say their roughly
similar, but NT keeps getting better with each revision.

>NT is not a games platform (at least for a couple more years),
>Win95 is not available yet, no Win95 games is available yet.
>OS/2 is here, OS/2 games are here, and more OS/2 games are coming
>(and they are multithreaded too).

But 95 enhances the games available.  It provides a means of avoiding
EMM/XMS hassles, and even its last-ditch "compatibility" mode, where
it exits 95 and re-starts when done is far more eloquent than OS/2's
"dual boot".  



>Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
>testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.

And it doesn't do the same under OS/2?  Certainly, the multitasking is
better, but my experience with Warp showed a discernable slowdown in
games when multitasking, something I can't tolerate.