🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3n26k9$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>
>: The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
>: the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM.  OS/2 does.  It's
>: possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
>: 95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
>: luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
>: it's not your term program man, it's the OS.  Windows 95 does simple
>: rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
>: did.  It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
>: no control over it.
>
>So are you saying I wasn't just multitasking Dark Forces with Telix 
>earlier tonight?  I could have SWORN I was.  Amazing.  This guy sounds 
>like he hasn't even used Win95.
>
>Jeff

Well I've already pointed out the specific mistake I've made, but I'd like
to publicly make one other point:  usage of a product has nothing to do
with product design and mechanics.  I don't need to drive a car to know
it has a 6 cylinder engine, do I?  I don't need to use Win95 to know it
doesn't multitask 16 bit Windows programs, either.

I'd also like to point out publicly, just so everyone else realizes it, that
switching back and forth between programs is NOT true multitasking
(preemptive multitasking).  Saying you were running DF and Telix at
the same time says nothing.  Of course, you WERE multitasking them, but
this conclusion isn't drawn from the statement you just made; it's drawn
from the publicly disclosed design of the OS.  In other words, in this area 
at least, my knowledge of Win95 without even having used it is greater 
than yours using it every day.  I don't think you should be calling anyone
else computer illiterate (in a previous post)...

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu