🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Rogers <Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <huntercr....@lab11.cs.purdue.edu>
>           hunt...@cs.purdue.edu "Charles Randolph Hunter" writes:

>> >Dos works as fast if not faster for me.  Disk access especially
>> >is much faster 
>> >          
>> 
>> I think this is not true about disk access. Windows 95 if I am not mistaken,
>> does not have HDD drivers, therefore it used BIOS, which is not slow, but

>You think?  I *know* because I have seen the difference.
What are you basing this on? There really is no common ground, is there?
Windows can launch windows and dos apps faster than OS/2 because of
the unified address space etc... I can't think of a fair comparison.
The amount of overhead differs for the two operating systems... 
I don't think anyone will seriously disagree that OS/2's 
IDE specific ibm1s506 driver will blow away the ibmint13 driver 
for BIOS accessed HHD's and MFM, RLL, drives.  That driver accesses 
the drive through interrupt 13 [hence the name ] and so does Windows95. 
I don't have the ability to really do any benchmarks but if you'd like
we could try and think of something. I think that if you had your 
cache settings and proper settings for your HDD driver you would see 
OS/2's drivers perform way beyond the BIOS interface.

>> The point is that OS/2 will multitask 16-bit Win 3 apps and
>> Win95 will not. I think much faster than 3 seconds ahead of a program.
>> That is why OS/2 is for me and Win95 is for you. As I said before,
>> it is just two totally different worlds. 

>It doesn't stop you loading lots of windows 3.1 programs in Win95 and 
>using them at the same time just like Windows 3.1 does - Whilst also
>running Dos programs etc so what's the problem.  

Again... try and use them at the *same* time. You *know* what
I am talking about.

>Anyway when this finally comes out of BETA then there will be plenty 
>of updated programs out there designed for Win95.

Yes, I agree.

>> Try this... Launch these programs in this order:

>>         Corel Draw, Autocad, a midi player or CD player etc, Word 6, 
>>         clipboard or notepad etc.. anything like these.

>Well I think you may have hit on a certain combination of programs
>on *your* machine not working happily together.  This is not necessarily 
>the same experience on other people's machines who may be running 
>different apps and/or a newer Beta of Win95.  I don't run Autocad
>but everything I have tried so far has worked fine including 
>up/downloading in the backgound whilst playing doom 2, running various
>utilities together (mutlitasking ) etc.  I bought OS2 Warp CD a while 
>ago and liked it but having seen both running I prefer Win95 
>(and it's still beta).  Each to his own.  

These function great on both systems. I was just saying that all I have
to do is start Corel and Autocad [ I mean just click on the icon  not
wait for the app to come up ] and then i can go on to other things.

>I will be typing away on my Word, while I listen to a favorite
>>         CD and looking at my recently done TG project and favorite    
>>         Hubble JPEGS, before you will even get past the Autocad startup 
>>         screen. Almost regardless of my system! The big advantage is that 

>Sure.
Don't you see what I mean? I am not talking about speed, but I am saying that 
you will be forced to wait until those other apps are completely load before
 you regain control of the system. This may be only a few seconds, but 
it may be a long time. Wouldn't you rather just be able to
start them and forget about it until you need it?

>>         I will be able to get working right away and when things become
>>         important, they will be there for me. You will have to take 

>Well a few seconds can kill a man.

Yes, and that is precisely what I mean. You have to
wait... even if for a few seconds and I don't.


>>         time out to load up corel or whatever when you take a break
>>         from typing.
>> 
>>                 I'm not trying to flame here... I just find it 
>>         necessary to do this kind of thing all of the time in my 
>>         work and it saves me a great deal of time when I use OS/2.
>> 

>Good for you I am glad you're happy.  So am I.  

Yes, and so is Microsoft. You paid money for a beta remember? 
I have never seen a blow so low as to charge for a beta. I hope you
will agree, regardless of the operating system.

			--Charles Hunter

P.S. There is no such thing as a better company. They are all out
for our money in the end right? I was happy with IBM for awhile,
then microsoft, and now IBM again for awhile. Maybe for a long
time maybe for a little. It is up to the consumer to judge what 
system fits his or he needs best. I don't see why people can't
try to have unbiased discussions once in awhile... 

>Cheers.
>-- 
>Mark Rogers.
>- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
>- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).