🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Collins (coll...@kai.ee.cit.ac.nz) wrote:
: In article <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net> tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) writes:
: >...back to the original Question:
: >
: >Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
: >A Good one?         Yes.
: >The best one?       No.
: >Better than OS/2?   No.
: >The new Standard?   Yes.
: >
: >True?               Yes.
: >Happy about it?     (Well, ask me next year...)


: It's just another windows sitting on top of dos.  When I was playing with 
: the beta, I wasn't impressed. An example... I ran the disk optimiser, It 
: said that the disk was 9% not fragmented, It took around half an hour to 
: optimise, After it had finished I ran the optimiser again, It said 8% not 
: fragmented.  Also it locked up a lot when booting.  I realise I didn't give 
: it  a fair run, but I'll stick to Win3.1 for the odd task switching I want 
: to do.

A beta will tell you LITTLE about the final product. I was a beta tester 
for a major win/dos utilities company and the problems that a beta has 
are...well..the reason for betas. Hell one of the programs ran the little 
info bar telling you how much is installed backwards, It was kind of fun 
watching my install go from 100% done to 0% done. Also the defrag didn't 
work when you ran it with the system resore program as a tsr. Both of 
these problems were fixed by the end product. I also check out as many 
game demos as I can. Most of these are actually "betas" and have LOTS of 
problems. When I go and get the final product I find that its fine. As 
far as how good is the real Win95??? Well not a single gaming mag had any 
problems with their copies playing DOS games.