🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42mqis$3...@calweb.calweb.com>, morp...@calweb.calweb.com (Steve Lamb) writes:
|> > OS/2 Warp is known to run Win3.1 multimedia apps up to 80% slower than
|> > even WFW3.11 yet alone Win95.
OS/2 2.1 was not that fast, but Warp does a great job. According to the docs
(and my personal experience) Warp is about 40% faster than OS/2 2.1 so there are
no complaints in the speed compartment (not with me at least). I'd say 80% slower
is utter bullshit, told by some MS officials or users with too little memory to
run OS/2 (like 4Mb). So now there's Win95 and now everybody wants MORE MEMORY???
Adding more memory will also speed up OS/2! Even windows runs like shit in 4Mb!!!

As for the win3.11 speed statement, I have a 'Quick Launch' app that generates
a small delay at while it loads a windows environment (Yes, you can run multiple
Windows sessions simultaneously. Around 240 of 'em ==8^)  With this utility I
start (and run for that matter) win3.11 programs just as fast and easy as a
OS/2 program. Some DOS programs even run FASTER under my "virtual dos machine"
under OS/2, and some run ONLY under OS/2 (mostly sierra stuff), as plain DOS
sort of gives up with a GPF.

By the way, OS/2 runs all 16bit windows apps in true pre-emptive multitasking
and each 16bit app has its own protection domain so there's no way any 16bit
windows app can bring down another windows app, even if they belong to the same
windows session. Even Win95 doesn't do this (in fact MS admitted that the 16bit
apps are still cooperative multitasking, and one of them can bring down the
others).

Oh, and the windows 3.x interface is dead ugly (that's probably why they copied
the OS/2 desktop into win95 with right-clicking ahoy  ==;^)


Just my HFl 0.02 .....

Richard van Meurs(vme...@cs.utwente.nl)