🚀 go-pugleaf

In <D77DB...@cdf.toronto.edu>, a260...@cdf.toronto.edu (Galasso Emilio N) writes:

>Games run exceptionally well under Windows 95... but I never really had any
>trouble running games under OS/2 either.  I do find they run faster under
>Windows 95 (Doom and Dark Forces feel just as smooth as under DOS in my
>opinion... though their loading times are increased by quite a bit).  On the
>other hand, background file transfers are easily affected by games under
>Windows 95 whereas OS/2 mananged to keep the transfers going strong... though
>games did run a little "choppier".  Nonetheless, I don't know of any decent
>32-bit Win95 terminal programs so it's probably not fair to compare 
>multitasking a 16-bit Windows term program to a native 32-bit OS/2 term
>program (Procomm and Livewire in this case).

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.

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