🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4320n3$h...@emf.emf.net>, pat...@diva.com says...

[comments by others snipped]

>
>I use win '95 at home.
>I stay connected to the 'net via an 28.8 modem and I sometimes get mail in the 
background while
>I am playing a dos game in full-screen mode.  I download/decompress files 
while I am doing 
>whatever I want in the foreground (watching .avi files or mpegs or dos games)
>Nary a problem.
>I am a win95 convert.  I have no real complaints.  The networking is 
excellent, the interface
>is pleasant and administering it has been a snap.  It supports dos games 
better than dos did
>(in my experience) - I now have all my devices set up in dos and also have 
over 600K free 
>without trying.
>I tend to think of these amiga and os/2 users in the same context.  They have 
some obscure
>system that may have a couple of superior salient features or better base 
architecture at the
>expense of compatibility (I am talking about drivers/peripherals/etc) and they 
cling to it with
>the tenacity of a zealot.  Not good grounds for an objective opinion, I would 
say.

You might want to add many Mac users to your list of zealots, but that's 
another thread.

I think the problem is some kind of snobbishness on the part of many old-time 
PC users, who are so used to the idea that they know, and everyone else 
doesn't.  A feeling of being an authority on the subject of PCs, the guy people 
come to for answers.  So an "elite" or somehow "more professional" OS, one to 
do "real work on", is needed, and the commoners can go get Win 95.  I have 
heard the argument from both the internet at large and more than one of my 
OS/2-using collegues that Win 95 is "too user friendly".  I don't know if 
that's what the Warp-users on this thread are thinking, but I hope not.

I, for one, have had nothing but good experiences with Win 95, from the simple 
install on up to now.  I can play memory-hogs like Dark Forces straight from 
windows, without even having to restart in DOS mode.  With DOS/Windows 3.1 I 
needed a boot disk.  Before I installed, I had about 4 or 5 megs of free RAM.
afterward, I have about 7, with hardly any decrease in conventional memory  
(This is in DOS mode, but I think it's about the same in Windows).  Software 
compatibility is excellent (I, too, found my programs run better than on DOS 
6.x), GPFs are non-existent, the program just gets shut down, instead of 
Windows.  Maybe Warp does all this, but as we just got it and I don't use it at 
home, my experiences with it are limited.  But one thing I know for sure: Win 
95 is easier to use.  Once I installed, it, bang, whatever I wanted to do, be 
it file managing or whatever, was right in front of me.  I had to poke around 
for a while just to find Warp's file manager.

The biggest downside of Win 95, and the only major one that I've found, is that 
on my 486DX2/66 machine with 8 megs of RAM, when I'm doing major multitsking 
there's a bit of a slowdown when quickly closing and opening programs.  But the 
 extra 8 megs of RAM that I was planning on getting anyway should fix that.


>I also use linux.  I am a sysadmin for a site with 30 or so linux machines.  I 
don't believe
>that anyone would seriously suggest that a normal user be subjected to Unix.
>
>

Jeremy Petrisor

-- 
"If we have a prince," said Pliny to Trajan, "it is so that he may
 preserve us from having a master."