🚀 go-pugleaf

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

<pc week comments re: win95 & the p6 deleted>

>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!

Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a
rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

I'd suspect that many early purchasers of the P6 will be people who
are already running OS/2 or NT.  I couldn't care less how a P6 runs
ANYTHING, as I won't be purcashing one until at least 1997 or later,
by which time Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp will both have been replaced
(in theory) by newer versions...

-Steve

 Davis, California
 email: boo...@sna.com 
 www:  http://www.sna.com/boojum/

Interesting stuff.  Do you work for IBM or something, you certainly fly a blue flag over 
you house.

On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
the 30 billion range.

I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
correct.  Sure MS may have some problems with P6 performance, but don't doubt that Bill 
Buddy could lull Big Blue to sleep again, and slip out Cairo.  WIN NT with Object Oriented 
interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.  MS is also looking at the 
market of 75 million PC's with a WIN3.X product that are not P6's.   And don't think that 
Bill buddy doesn't have the best marketing analyists working for him - because he does.  
Bill is going to grab a major chunk of cash with this forward and backward WIN95 OS by 
serving it up to the home market, and then tweek-up NT for the next generation of chips.

I will look for these wonderful articles that you deliver to us like they are pages from 
the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with portions of GDI and USER 
in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the transistors?  I am 
know expert but that seems to go against the grain that has been demonstrated through X86 
compatable Intel upgrades in the last few years.  Anyway, IBM OS/whatever may have the 
same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will dominate for 
sometime.  Touchdown!  Back to reality, most users are not geeks that need the latest and 
greatest performance, most of the 75 million WIN users are comfortable with their apps and 
don't want them changed.  I know my Office suite works performs fine for me under WIN95.  
I don't lose valuable minutes anymore with my P90, but then maybe that will change in a 
couple a years, and yes maybe I will have a preview edition of Cairo then.....so don't 
count Bill dead before he even tried the salmon mouse - Pathetic Python homage.

SYL,

SMD

/NEP ;-)





rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:
>Everyone interested in the "OS Wars" will surely be interested in this!
>
>The most recent PC Week had this to say about Intel's P6 chip:
>----clip----
>
>When Intel Corp.'s next-generation P6 processor arrives in systems late this
>year, it will offer only meager performance gains when running Windows 95, 
>leading many PC makers -- and corporate buyers -- to bypass the new operating
>system in favor of Windows NT or OS/2 Warp. 
>
>Testing of the preproduction Intel microprocessor shows that Windows 95 runs 
>only about 10 percent faster on P6 than on a high-speed Pentium processor 
>because of the significant amount of 16-bit code in the operating system,
>according to leading PC makers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 
>
>Since the P6 is optimized for native 32-bit unsegmented code, running 16-bit 
>code results in continued switching of memory segments, and thus, slower
>performance, according to sources close to Intel. 
>
>An official at another top 10 PC company concurred. "The only operating systems
>appropriate for P6 platforms are those that are true 32-bit, such as NT or OS/2
>Warp," said the executive. "We will test for Windows 95 compatibility and
>certification but will not ship it with our P6 [systems]." 
>
>Meanwhile, Microsoft officials say they have no immediate plans to optimize
>Windows 95 for the P6. 
>
>---clip---
>
>
>   Other articles spoke of the P6's performance stating that 32-bit applications
>will run as much as twice on a P6 than on a Pentium at the same clock speed
>due to the P6 being optimized for 32-bit code.  That's quite a bit better than
>the measly 10 percent increase for Windows 95 users!  By the end of 1995, the
>mighty Windows 95 will be crippling the performance of all your precious 32-bit
>Windows apps that you just spent so much money on!  Windows 95 is a dead end
>not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
>OS/2!
>
>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!
>
>
>Rob Vanden Heuvel
>
>The facts speak for themselves, I just reiterate them.

In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.

If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 


Farewell-


Aaron

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
           kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca "Kevin Speichts" writes:
> 
> In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
>  rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
> 
> >   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind
>  would
> >"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
> >isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
> >system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
> >future.
> 
> Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
> right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
> '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

In fact, OS/2 _will_ run doom in a DOS box in 4MB.  Not very well (the VM
paging tends to kill the performance), but it does run.

As for OS/2 requiring as much hardware as NT, all that comment proves is
that you clearly haven't used one of them (or possibly either of them).

OS/2 will work in 4MB - I personally don't think it's really usable, but
it will run.  NT _requires_ 12MB just to run, and it's performance isn't
too good until you have 32MB.  Both OS/2 and Win95 are fairly happy in
8MB, although 16MB is probably the right figure if you want to do real
work with either.

NT, even with enough memory, is also slower.  This is an almost inevitable
consequence of it's architecture (IMO, it's virtualised too close to the
hardware - this makes it quicker to port; it also ensures that the ports
are highly compatable with each other.  But it does slow things down).

Also, the Win95 shell for NT is _not_ in beta.  It's currently in alpha,
and (FWIH) it's still rather buggy.
> 
> > Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
> >possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
> >dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
> >any sense!
> 
> Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
> the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 
> 
That's easy.  See the comments about the NT architecture above.  This makes
porting very easy.  IBM have decided _not_ to do a plain port of OS/2 to
the PPC.  Instead, they have redesigned it around a microkernel, which is
a rather longer job.  It will make later porting much eaiser, however.

> >Rob (in dreamland) Vanden Heuvel
> 
Since you appear to be a clueless newbie, I should point out that modifing
peoples .sigs is considered one indication that you've already lost the
argument (rather like mentioning H*tl*r).  Why don't you go out and buy
a bag of clues - the're not that expensive.

Pete
-- 
Peter Bell  <pe...@bell.demon.co.uk>

SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.
--j...@proteon.com (John Woods)

Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>right!!!!    
>[rest of post snipped]

Well, actually yes, it does.  I tried it once - it was not too bad most of the
time but it was dog slow when it had to hit the disk for anything.  However,
except for speed (or rather lack thereof), I did not experience any problems. 

Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:

: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 

OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  

: right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
: '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

Only if (a big if) MS upgrades NT's lousy Dos emulation (for the record, 
NT cannot run Dos Doom as it is, though it supposedly can run win32 Doom, 
although it has not been released yet.  Pitiful really, it still being 
unreleased over a year after the original was released, and after it has 
lost its appeal to most [the same goes for the OS/2 version])

: Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
: the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 

Hah, hah.  Because OS/2 for the PowerPC is not finished yet.  Because the 
original was not microkernel based, requiring a larger amount of work in 
the port.


: ----------------------------------------------------
: Kevin Speichts
: Beaverbank Nova Scotia

And it really is rude to modify someone's signature.

(that having been said, you will no doubt alter mine as well)

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

I would like to modify you signature because I find it 
offensive.

So you have hit no a key point as to why the Power PC is dead 
in the water for the time being, there is no damm mainstream OS 
and apps for it.  Damm emulation doesn't cut it, as you point 
out for NT.  

I have a question for you - do you know if the Cairo beta 
support the standard WIN32 and WIN32c or is it a another 
modified type?

bye

/USER





eh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) wrote:
>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>
>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>
>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  
>
>: right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
>: '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>Only if (a big if) MS upgrades NT's lousy Dos emulation (for the record, 
>NT cannot run Dos Doom as it is, though it supposedly can run win32 Doom, 
>although it has not been released yet.  Pitiful really, it still being 
>unreleased over a year after the original was released, and after it has 
>lost its appeal to most [the same goes for the OS/2 version])
>
>: Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
>: the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 
>
>Hah, hah.  Because OS/2 for the PowerPC is not finished yet.  Because the 
>original was not microkernel based, requiring a larger amount of work in 
>the port.
>
>
>: ----------------------------------------------------
>: Kevin Speichts
>: Beaverbank Nova Scotia
>
>And it really is rude to modify someone's signature.
>
>(that having been said, you will no doubt alter mine as well)
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

In article <3tnn0r$f...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@mirac.unm.edu> wrote:
>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>
>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>
>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  

NT _does_ technically run in 8.  A friend of mine got masochistic one time
and tried this.  It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and after pressing 
CTRL-ALT-DEL to login, expect about a minute delay for the login prompt to
appear.  Do not attempt to run anything under such an NT system.  So, to be
absolutely correct, NT runs in 8, but is not usable (far less usable than
OS/2 with 4 megs).

Happy to add a bit of technical trivia.


Farewell-


Aaron

: Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
: of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a

Agreed

: rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
: P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
: cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
: a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

No, it will happen when they role out their mid-to-high range Mhz 
machines, much as it did for 486's with the '66 and the Pentium with the 
'90's.  I'd predict around 6 months after first shipping the early P6's, 
though that's just my opinion.  (Based largely on the fact that Intel is 
scrambling like hell to compete with the insanely powerful and becoming 
more so 600 series)

: I'd suspect that many early purchasers of the P6 will be people who
: are already running OS/2 or NT.  I couldn't care less how a P6 runs
: ANYTHING, as I won't be purcashing one until at least 1997 or later,
: by which time Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp will both have been replaced
: (in theory) by newer versions...

Perhaps.  If the trend goes as it did with the Pentium (ie: many games 
already requiring P5's to run in hi-rez mode), I have a feeling I'm going 
to get a P6 as soon as the second generation ones come out.

If I have the money that is.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Hank Leukart (ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu) wrote:
: In article <3tmaqs$i...@carbon.concom.com>,
:    syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
: >In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
: >King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
: >>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
: >>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.
: >
: >If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
: >individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
: >questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 

: 	The Windows 95 interface for Windows NT 3.1 is currently in ALPHA 
: testing.  It's release is scheduled within two months after 95's release 
: (which will be August 24th).

Err... what does that have to do with Cairo?  If you're trying to claim
the Win95 interface is object based you should check again before making
a fool of yourself.  Cairo is most certainly AT LEAST 1.5-2 years from
shipping.  Win95 3.5x (not 3.1) with a 95 interface is due in '96, not
in October.  Cairo is NOT in beta testing, in fact a lot of Cairo developers
were pulled from Cairo earlier this year to try to force Win95 out the
door in '95.  Are you having a bad fact day?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl                           | 
da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

King Neptune (dmo...@globalx.net) wrote:

Just to begin with, would you please set your word wrap to 80 
characters?  The last two words of each of your sentences will be 
unreadable on about half the terminals in the world, if not more.


: On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
: a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
: the 30 billion range.

So Win'95 is better than OS/2 because MS is 46th on the list?  (IBM is 
most assurredly higher on the list, but even if it were'nt, so?)

[stuff deleted]

Your post seems to imply that you will stick with MS whether or not they 
have a good OS.  Why?  And, as if you were'nt looking blindly faithful 
enough, you talk about the imminent release of Cairo.  Do you remember 
the last time MS made claims like this?  The city in question that time 
was Chicago, and it (renamed) still isn't finished.  Why will you 
continue to refuse to try something that everyone that knows the 
technical side of computers acknowledges to be superior?  And one that 
will have a large speed performance in addition to the already superior 
power it boasts?

As far as that goes, I predict that P6 systems will be evenly divided 
btwn OS/2 and NT.  NT's system requirements may be huge, but I can't see 
anyone ever buying a P6 system with less than 32 megs of RAM anyway, can you?
What would be the point?  If the latest I've read is accurate (granted, 
it was semi-dated, being in May) the  P6 will be out 4Q this year.  Give 
it another quarter or so to roll out the higher megahertz systems, and 
you must see that the mainstream p6 systems will be out well before Cairo 
will be.

Now, if MS can just work on NT's pitiful compatibility, I may actually 
think about running it instead of OS/2.  Then again, I just may buy a 
Phat Powermac.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

King Neptune <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:


>I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
>correct.  Sure MS may have some problems with P6 performance, but don't doubt that Bill 
>Buddy could lull Big Blue to sleep again, and slip out Cairo. 

This is still up in the air.  I was surprised to hear this, but
instead of spamming the net in a "P6 Panic", I went to the Intel
conference and asked an Intel representative.

16 bits apps will not take advantage of the P6's speed, on 95 or NT.
32 bit apps I was told however, DO take advantage of the P6 _under
95_.  I think the PC Week article may have been speculation, Intel
stated that the P6 does not run 16-bit code well, and since it is
known that Win95 contains some 16 bit code, they may have assumed that
Win95 will run poorly.  Anyways, the Intel rep stated 32-bit apps
under 95 and NT do show significant speed gains with the P6.

With 95 however, it depends on the application.  Some may call more
16-bit code, some may call less.  To say Windows 95 is "mostly" 16 bit
is riduclous however, it's actually mostly 32-bit.  But the 16-bit
portions can be critical in terms of speed.  We'll see.

To sum up: Lets wait until we get some actual benchmarks to panic.  I
don't hold the reasoning that this isn't a problem because you can
"just go to NT", as NT resource requirements are still quite high
compared to 95 and there is no guarantee it will run all 95 apps,
specifically games.  P6 may be priced for NT systems with 16 megs NOW,
but as always, it will drop.  And from past experience, I wouldn't be
surprised to see RAM prices stay the same while the P6 costs half as
much as its introduction.


>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.  MS is also looking at the 

To clarify: Windows NT with the _95_ interface is in beta, and likely
will be released very early '96.  As for the object-oriented NT, MS
stated some time ago that it would be a series of add-ons, rather than
a large "Cairo" roll-out.

>Bill buddy doesn't have the best marketing analyists working for him - because he does.  
>Bill is going to grab a major chunk of cash with this forward and backward WIN95 OS by 
>serving it up to the home market, and then tweek-up NT for the next generation of chips.

What I don't get is how some people see this as a "conspiracy".  Of
course MS would like you to move to NT, it's a more robust OS, and its
ability to work across Power PC/Mips/Alpha/Intel machines just widens
MS's market.

But MS's realizes it needs apps, and people just can't make the
_large_ jump to NT.  So 95 is created.  It has compromises, but it
works, and works well for most machines where NT wouldn't.  You want
to upgrade to NT?  Do it when you get the hardware.  There's nothing
backhanded about this, it's serving your target markets while giving
them an upgrade path they don't even have to _wait for_.  Want a
better Windows 95 when you get the hardware?  No need to wait, it's
already here!

>the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with portions of GDI and USER 
>in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the transistors? 

The # of transistors does not necessarily translate into performance
gain. The problem is that by changing _modes_ of memory "prediction"
in the P6 causes a large speed hit because of it's 14 pipelines, as
compared to 6 in the P5.  Don't quote me on any technical details
however.

>same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will dominate for 
>sometime. 

I question this actually.  With MS releasing a 32-bit version of
office with 95, and 16-bit apps performing (already) quite poorly
under NT, it's not in a companies best competitive interests to
release a 16-bit app when it likely will be raked through the coals in
PC reviews and suffer against the competitions 32-bit apps.  MS sets
the standard here, and they'll be the ones out the door first with
32-bit apps.  Others will follow if they want to survive.

dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:
>32 bit apps I was told however, DO take advantage of the P6 _under
>95_.

Indeed they do.  And the whole point of WinG and the new 3D acceleration
APIs is to remove almost _all_ Windows code which gets in the way of doing
intensely graphical games.  Win95 on a P6 will run _screamingly_ fast for
games... it's old-style Windows apps, which rely heavily on the rest of the
Windows API, which will take a potential speed hit.

Of course, I could be wrong... I'm not up on WinG as much as I should be
yet.  Worth checking out, probably.
Rob Jellinghaus       ro...@unreal.com        http://www.best.com/~robj

Anyone out there know anything about Delta V, a racing, flight sim,
game by Bethseda (sp?)?????

I was on Bethseda's web page and they had a screen shot of the box I
believe, but didn't mention much else.  Has it been released already?

a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) wrote:
>Anyone out there know anything about Delta V, a racing, flight sim,
>game by Bethseda (sp?)?????
>
>I was on Bethseda's web page and they had a screen shot of the box I
>believe, but didn't mention much else.  Has it been released already?


Alex,

   Delta V has been out for over a year now I think.  The only place you'll 
find it now is probably the bargain bin.  It's kind of an odd game.  It's not a 
flightsim... it's kind of like that old Electronic Arts game POWERDROME only on 
some kind of hallucinogenic drugs or something!  :)  I have only a 486/66 and 
the game played so incredibly FAST that I had to give up on it.  It's like one 
"trench run" from Star Wars after another.  Obstacles and enemy ships are 
coming at you constantly... and they're coming SO FAST that you really don't 
have time to even react to them.  If you're really into arcade shoot-em-ups you 
might enjoy it.  It's not a terrible game, it's just more of a gamecart game.  
It's kind of like that Super Nintendo game STAR FOX, only not as imaginative, 
but... with better graphics! :)  Every level is... just another psychedelic 
trench.  I can't really recommend it... DESCENT or TERMINAL VELOCITY are light 
years better than Delta V.

Brad

a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) wrote:
>Anyone out there know anything about Delta V, a racing, flight sim,
>game by Bethseda (sp?)?????
>
>I was on Bethseda's web page and they had a screen shot of the box I
>believe, but didn't mention much else.  Has it been released already?


You want the latest on the future of space flight sims then get 
july Computer Gaming World, it has a good article on all the 
enw stuff.

ie

Absolute zero  -  Domark
Rebel Assault 2 - LA
WC4 - EA/ORIGIN
Fury  - Microsoft
Star Rangers  -  Interactive Magic
Battlecruiser 3000AD -  Derk Smart


These games are not out yet!  Don't ask when!

They are talking about them being out for Christmas, but I can 
think of games that were supposed to be out last Christmas but 
still are not.

bye

/USER

In article <3tno7i$m...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) writes:

>Anyone out there know anything about Delta V, a racing, flight sim,
>game by Bethseda (sp?)?????

Not very good.  Fly down the virtual trench, shoot at the incredibly fast and 
agily computer opponants, try to get to the mission objective, realize that 
mission 3 is the same as mision 1, realize later mission 16 is the same as 
mission 3 and so on.

Very unimaginative

Any OS/2 users have the brains/balls to refute what this post states? 
i think this post has a fairly decent amount of intelligence in it, not
to mention reasonable logic about MS's marketing.

Come on OS/2 zealots, flame away at this one, IF YOU CAN.


In <3tnjmr$k...@steel.interlog.com> dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
writes: 

>This is still up in the air.  I was surprised to hear this, but
>instead of spamming the net in a "P6 Panic", I went to the Intel
>conference and asked an Intel representative.
>
>16 bits apps will not take advantage of the P6's speed, on 95 or NT.
>32 bit apps I was told however, DO take advantage of the P6 _under
>95_.  I think the PC Week article may have been speculation, Intel
>stated that the P6 does not run 16-bit code well, and since it is
>known that Win95 contains some 16 bit code, they may have assumed that
>Win95 will run poorly.  Anyways, the Intel rep stated 32-bit apps
>under 95 and NT do show significant speed gains with the P6.
>
>With 95 however, it depends on the application.  Some may call more
>16-bit code, some may call less.  To say Windows 95 is "mostly" 16 bit
>is riduclous however, it's actually mostly 32-bit.  But the 16-bit
>portions can be critical in terms of speed.  We'll see.
>
>To sum up: Lets wait until we get some actual benchmarks to panic.  I
>don't hold the reasoning that this isn't a problem because you can
>"just go to NT", as NT resource requirements are still quite high
>compared to 95 and there is no guarantee it will run all 95 apps,
>specifically games.  P6 may be priced for NT systems with 16 megs NOW,
>but as always, it will drop.  And from past experience, I wouldn't be
>surprised to see RAM prices stay the same while the P6 costs half as
>much as its introduction.
>
>
>>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.  MS is also
looking at the 
>
>To clarify: Windows NT with the _95_ interface is in beta, and likely
>will be released very early '96.  As for the object-oriented NT, MS
>stated some time ago that it would be a series of add-ons, rather than
>a large "Cairo" roll-out.
>
>>Bill buddy doesn't have the best marketing analyists working for him
- because he does.  
>>Bill is going to grab a major chunk of cash with this forward and
backward WIN95 OS by 
>>serving it up to the home market, and then tweek-up NT for the next
generation of chips.
>
>What I don't get is how some people see this as a "conspiracy".  Of
>course MS would like you to move to NT, it's a more robust OS, and its
>ability to work across Power PC/Mips/Alpha/Intel machines just widens
>MS's market.
>
>But MS's realizes it needs apps, and people just can't make the
>_large_ jump to NT.  So 95 is created.  It has compromises, but it
>works, and works well for most machines where NT wouldn't.  You want
>to upgrade to NT?  Do it when you get the hardware.  There's nothing
>backhanded about this, it's serving your target markets while giving
>them an upgrade path they don't even have to _wait for_.  Want a
>better Windows 95 when you get the hardware?  No need to wait, it's
>already here!
>
>>the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with
portions of GDI and USER 
>>in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the
transistors? 
>
>The # of transistors does not necessarily translate into performance
>gain. The problem is that by changing _modes_ of memory "prediction"
>in the P6 causes a large speed hit because of it's 14 pipelines, as
>compared to 6 in the P5.  Don't quote me on any technical details
>however.
>
>>same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will
dominate for 
>>sometime. 
>
>I question this actually.  With MS releasing a 32-bit version of
>office with 95, and 16-bit apps performing (already) quite poorly
>under NT, it's not in a companies best competitive interests to
>release a 16-bit app when it likely will be raked through the coals in
>PC reviews and suffer against the competitions 32-bit apps.  MS sets
>the standard here, and they'll be the ones out the door first with
>32-bit apps.  Others will follow if they want to survive.
>
>
>

There is an Alpha, but I don't really see the difference 
between Alpha and Beta, as I have talked with one person that 
says they are running a version of Cairo at a University. Now 
this may be crap, but most people agree that an NT with the 
object oriented interface in WIN95 is well under way in the 
Alpha stage.

/NEP




>>NT, with 
>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>to information on joining it.
>
>
>
>Farewell-
>
>
>Aaron

King Neptune <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:

>There is an Alpha, but I don't really see the difference 
>between Alpha and Beta, as I have talked with one person that 
>says they are running a version of Cairo at a University. Now 
>this may be crap, but most people agree that an NT with the 
>object oriented interface in WIN95 is well under way in the 
>Alpha stage.

That's a contradiction, actually.  First off:

NT with the 95 interface is _not_ the Cairo project.  It is a
hold-over until Cairo appears.  The official name will likely be NT
4.0.

MS announced some time ago that Cairo would not be a full-blown
seperate version of NT, rather a series of add-ons.

Win 95's interface is _not_ object oriented.

In a previous article, dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) says:

>syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>
>
>
>>1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
>
>While we're speaking of lies...
>
>OS/2 will LOAD in 4 megs.  You cannot do anything productive with it
>in that configuration.  You'll have a hard time trying to convince
>someone who's actually used the product in 4 of that.
>
>>2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
>
>"Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
>NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.
>
>
>>>NT, with 
>>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>>to information on joining it.
>
>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.
>

I beleive what you are talking about is named Daytona.  (And no, I'm not 
pro-Microsoft, just an innocent bystander.)

I gotta ask you what the point of arguing about how OS/2, WIN95 
and NT running on 4 megs is, as you well know mobody in their 
right mind would want to run any of these OS's with that amount 
of memory, certainly you will not be very productive.

Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
think they are very useful.

SMD

/NEP








syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>In article <3tnn0r$f...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@mirac.unm.edu> wrote:
>>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>>
>>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  
>
>NT _does_ technically run in 8.  A friend of mine got masochistic one time
>and tried this.  It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and after pressing 
>CTRL-ALT-DEL to login, expect about a minute delay for the login prompt to
>appear.  Do not attempt to run anything under such an NT system.  So, to be
>absolutely correct, NT runs in 8, but is not usable (far less usable than
>OS/2 with 4 megs).
>
>Happy to add a bit of technical trivia.
>
>
>Farewell-
>
>
>Aaron
>

King Neptune (dmo...@globalx.net) wrote:

: Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
: meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
: Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
: looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
: typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
: would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
: Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
: think they are very useful.

You are correct in your argument that (for now at least) NT's main niche 
is as a server OS.  This, however, is decidedly not the niche MS aimed 
it at.  And, in the near future (ie: when the standard PC comes with 16+ 
megs of RAM) it may well become the mainstream OS, especially if MS's 
campaign of Win32 compliance is successful. 

Actually, I see this as the only good thing to come out of Win9x.  I 
wouldn't mind using NT instead of OS/2 if I had to (assuming they 
actually finish the OO interface)

: /NEP

I can't help but wonder why you use a false name?  No flame, just wondering..

Also, it would be more courteous (and less wasteful) if you would delete 
all text you're not refering to.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

In article <3tpnbn$16...@heart.cas.und.nodak.edu>, da...@aero.und.nodak.edu 
says...
>
>Hank Leukart (ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3tmaqs$i...@carbon.concom.com>,
>:    syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>: >In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
>: >King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
>: >>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
>: >>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.
>: >
>: >If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What 
companies or
>: >individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
>: >questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 
>
>:       The Windows 95 interface for Windows NT 3.1 is currently in 
ALPHA 
>: testing.  It's release is scheduled within two months after 95's 
release 
>: (which will be August 24th).
>
>Err... what does that have to do with Cairo?  If you're trying to claim
>the Win95 interface is object based you should check again before making
>a fool of yourself.  Cairo is most certainly AT LEAST 1.5-2 years from
>shipping.  Win95 3.5x (not 3.1) with a 95 interface is due in '96, not
>in October.  Cairo is NOT in beta testing, in fact a lot of Cairo 
developers
>were pulled from Cairo earlier this year to try to force Win95 out the
>door in '95.  Are you having a bad fact day?
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Dahl                           | 
>da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh...? I was just reading through here (I rarely come to these groups, 
but I was posting my for sale message and blah blah blah...) and I'm 
wondering now, what the HELL is Cairo? What does it have to do with 
Win95? And in terms of how fast Win95 will run, be it on a P5 or a P6, 
how can anyone but Microsoft be QUITE sure how fast it will be if it 
isn't even released yet? And what's the deal with the Windows NT 
compatibility with Win95? I thought Windows NT was for a LAN or a 
server...? It seems like a better version of Win3.1, from what I'm 
hearing though.  Anyone who can help me out, thanks in advance!

		-- Psyc!

In article <3tr9ct$1...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Psychoboy <mcr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[munch]

>Eh...? I was just reading through here (I rarely come to these groups, 
>but I was posting my for sale message and blah blah blah...) and I'm 
>wondering now, what the HELL is Cairo?

It's the rumored next Microsoft addition to the Windows family.  Details
are very sketchy, as it is about as real now as Win95 was three years ago
(and I wouldn't be surprised if the wait is similar).  Cairo is to be
a 32 bit protected OS (as NT, OS/2, UNIXes) with an object-oriented
interface (as OS/2).  Rumors have circulated that it is to be just NT
with a Win95 interface, but that doesn't fit the central description;
Win95's interface is not object oriented, though perhaps prettier than older
Windows.  How much Cairo should theoretically resemble other Windows or
OS/2 or other GUIs is not known.  Theorizing about it is really about as
productive as theorizing about the P8.  Only very, very basic premises
are available.

>What does it have to do with 
>Win95?

Except for the fact that they are both currently non-existent Microsoft
products, very little.

>And in terms of how fast Win95 will run, be it on a P5 or a P6, 
>how can anyone but Microsoft be QUITE sure how fast it will be if it 
>isn't even released yet?

Many beta and prerelease copies have been released, sold, or leaked.  
Thousands outside of Microsoft have certainly seen it.

>And what's the deal with the Windows NT 
>compatibility with Win95?

It is admittedly a good idea.  If the same binaries run on both OSes, it
makes migration from Win95 to the more advanced, stable, and resource hungry
NT.  It would also allow those who can afford and prefer the more advanced
and larger OS now to use a possible flood of apps. for the low-end OS.  I
grant Microsoft is making a wise marketing move by pushing for compatibility
between the apps.


Farewell-


Aaron

a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) wrote:

>Anyone out there know anything about Delta V, a racing, flight sim,
>game by Bethseda (sp?)?????

>I was on Bethseda's web page and they had a screen shot of the box I
>believe, but didn't mention much else.  Has it been released already?

It's been out for a while.  It's made by Bethesda  Softworks.  I'd be
willing to sell mine for $15.00.

dave

aki...@cln.etc.bc.ca (Aaron Kimoto) wrote:


>I beleive what you are talking about is named Daytona.  (And no, I'm not 
>pro-Microsoft, just an innocent bystander.)

Daytona was the code name for NT 3.5, released quite some time ago.

On Sat, 8 Jul 1995, Steve McCready wrote:

> Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
> of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a
> rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
> P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
> cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
> a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

You make it sound like it HAS a solid foothold. Walk into any electronics 
store and see what they're pushing on "average folk" who are finally 
giving in and buying a PC.... 486/66's on average. Usually with only 4 
meg ram too, but with CD ROM of course.

I'd give it another year.

>If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
>individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
>questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 

NT 3.5+ is already out in production and has been for some time. Cairo was
orginally supposed to be the 3.5 release. MS Excluded the OO interface for
various reasons, but that is now in beta also. From what I've heard, the look is 
there, but the brains are'nt. Most people are saying, if you use it, don't put it on
a production system...

What exactly is the "Cairo" version that I've been seeing discussed?

On 9 Jul 1995, Aaron Bilger wrote:

> In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>,
> Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
> >In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
> >
> >>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
> >>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
> >>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
> >>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
> >>future.
> >
Speaking if NT not being a viable choice, unless you have a massively 
powerful system... isn't that what the P6 is supposed to be???  Win95 
products are REQUIRED to work with NT.  When people get around to moving 
to the more powerful systems, and more powerful os (the majority of 
people), their Win95 Apps 
and games will work fine.  Just a side note... IBM announced that OS/2 
will not be made to support Win95 software.  Of course as usual IBM also 
said that they reserve the right to change their mind at any time.
Perhaps this means nothing to you, since many have already decided 
whether they will go for Os/2 or W95, to me however it means if I choose 
to go with W95 now, I am going to be safe with NT in the future, and the 
interface will be the same (I won't have to learn a new way of operating 
again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
especially when you enter a store and see all three products dedicated to 
it, as compared to the hundreds displayed and activly merchandised for 
win and dos), and finally they like going with software and companies 
they are familiar with (like it or not Microsoft is definatly that).

> 
> Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,

NT with the 95 interface is not Cairo.

What they have been talking about is just an upgrade to NT.

In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert Lucier) says:
>
>: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
>: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
>: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
>: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
>W R O N G ! ! !
>===============


I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
various other utils on it. 
It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
And I do have a clue in this regard.

While channel surfing at 3 a.m., I happened to go to one of those home
shopping stations (QVC).  They were advertising WIN95 for 89.95.  Is this
actually available or do they have some type of special deal?

Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
>again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
>ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 

I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.

Heck, there never has been.


Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.

I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

-- 
| kr...@netcom.com \     1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100      |
|   PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87  0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2  |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \   Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad!!  |
| [303/777-2911] Data \                     - Malorey Knox -            |

In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>, pc...@orca.ucd.ie (Peter Cox) says:
>
>In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert Lucier) says:
>>
>>: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
>>: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
>>: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
>>: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
>>W R O N G ! ! !
>>===============
>
>
>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>various other utils on it. 
>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
>And I do have a clue in this regard.


Actually, MSN was included in the earlier builds -- I 
had it up and running under B347.  I would bet that it's
been pulled out of W95 and into the PlusPak to placate
the Department of Justice, who were threatening to bar
M$ from releasing W95 AT ALL...

----This is from USA Today, 14 Jul 95



wrangler	         |"Greatest Hits albums are for
af...@dayton.wright.edu  |housewives and little girls!"
			 | -- The Kids in the Hall

kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:


>I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
>know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

They will not have to "pay" for bug updates.  They will be free.  And
OS/2 Warp never had bugs?  ROTFL!

I hope you don't mean the Plus Pack- it is _not_ a bug fix.

In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>,
Peter Cox <pc...@orca.ucd.ie> wrote:
>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>various other utils on it. 

Think about what you are saying. The Justice department is considering 
bringing an action against Microsoft because they are planning on 
bundling MSN with Win95. If they are forcing you to buy something else in 
order to access MSN, not only are they not giving themselves an "unfair" 
advantage, but they are in fact putting themselves behind Cserve and AOL 
who give out their access software everywhere you go.

People, I know we want to nail Microsoft for everything under the sun, 
but we really need to pick on side or the other:

1) Are they dirty monopolistic bastards because they are throwing in MSN 
access software for free and therefore pushing all the other service 
providers into chapter 11?

or

2) Are they dirty money grubing bastards because they are going to try to 
milk an extra $50 out of us in order to use MSN?


>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....

Now I know that we all can take it as a matter of faith that everything 
that Microsoft does is evil, but could you back up this statement? Could 
you give me even one example where Msoft claimed to be selling (giving) 
something and then forced you to buy something else? Can you give a 
closely related example? Or a distantly related one? The closest one I 
can come up with is the Internet Asistent that they made a seperate 
product from Word, instead of including it together. Oh wait, they gave 
that away, didn't they? C'mon Peter, show me something to justify the 
comment "typical MS business". 

>And I do have a clue in this regard.

Sure, sure.

Michael




-- 
                        | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack 
   Michael L. Kaufman   | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched 
    kau...@mcs.com     | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. 
                        | All those moments will be lost in time - like tears 
                        | in rain. Time to die.        Roy Batty - Blade Runner

In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>,
   pc...@orca.ucd.ie (Peter Cox) wrote:
>In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert 
Lucier) says:
>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>various other utils on it. 
>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
>And I do have a clue in this regard.

Are you sure?  We just got the "golden" CD's which is the same build that was 
sent for production.  MSN is definately on the main CD and not on the Plus! 
pack.

I'd go look again for that "clue."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.

          "If I'm not mistaken, that's a duck sensitive pressure trigger!"
                                                                   - Phish
                                "I've got a duck and I'm going to use it!"
                                                                     -Chip
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Cox (pc...@orca.ucd.ie) wrote:
: In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert Lucier) says:
: >
: >: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
: >: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
: >: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
: >: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
: >W R O N G ! ! !
: >===============


: I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
: need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
: various other utils on it. 
: It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
: And I do have a clue in this regard.

--

...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

b...@primenet.com (Brad Grossman) wrote:

>...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
>included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 

I can vouch for this. MSN was included in the April Test Release of
Win95. I assume it would be included with the official release.


---------- Matt Bruce -------- mbr...@orion.tower.com.au ----------
Kryten: "It seems, after all this time, that Mr Lister is a robot."
Rimmer: "I'll write you into my will if you let me tell him."
----------------- http://www.tower.com.au/~mbruce/ ----------------

>: [SNIP]
>: I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>: need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>: various other utils on it. 
>: It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
>: And I do have a clue in this regard.

It Is WRONG, in case you have missed out on the news in the last month
or so, MS is being probed for including it in the OS, not the plus
pack.  It is an itegeral part of the OS.  Check out COMA and the
millions of posts there.  BTW whoever is cross-posting this to games
is a freakin idiot!  Flame me for replying to all, but this is getting
out of hand!  Pull your heads out when you cross-post an orig article!
Many users don't realise they reply to all as well!  
Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page       

> ...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
> included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
> stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
> use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
> a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
> install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

   Don't be too sure that MSN will come included in Win95 when it finally is
released.  The Department of Justice has been carrying out an ongoing 
investigation into whether or not MSN's inclusion in Win95 is anti-competitive
and give MS ann unfair advantage in the Internet service provider arena.  The
basis for the argument is that, based on the likelihood that Win95 will be
on a very large number of computers in a fairly short time, other third party
providers will not even be considered.  This may be illegal because MS is
using its virtual monopoly of the OS market to try and achieve a monopoly of
the service provider market.

   According to the latest PC Week, the DOJ did not rule out the possibility
of taking action within the week (meaning certain delays for Win95).  Needless
to say, this has Compuserve officials pretty excited.


Rob Vanden Heuvel

> 
> Re: *** HUGE NEWS ABOUT WINDOWS 
> 95 ***
> 
> kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark)
> Mon, 17 Jul 1995 05:37:37 GMT
> Nyx, the spirit of the Night (telent nyx.cs.du.edu)
> 
> Newsgroups:
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc
> References:
> <vendettaD...@netcom.com> <3squjd$f...@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
> <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> 
> <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> <3tp4ls$a...@carbon.concom.com> 
> <Pine.OSF.3.91a.95071...@christa.unh.edu>
> 
> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  
Compatability, 
> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the 
entire
> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
> Heck, there never has been.
> Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish 
propoganda
> machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
> I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when 
they
> know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.
> -- 
And I suppose that IBM Os/2 is bug free.  

Well you know what they say about opinions, everyone has one!!  |

dlap...@modicon.com (David LaPointe) wrote:

>> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
>> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  
>Compatability, 
>> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
>> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the 
>entire
>> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
>> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.

>And I suppose that IBM Os/2 is bug free.  

I think the point he was making was that OS/2 is much LESS bug-free
than either Windows or DOS. I would have to wholeheartedly agree with
that. Of course, there are other factors (compatibility, speed, ease
of installation, price, etc.), but it seems to me pretty obvious that
OS/2 is less buggy than Windows and DOS.

So, the result is that the "OS/2 will die because it's unstable" is
not a great argument. That's not to say that the others aren't...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willer <wil...@io.org>              This space reserved.
Team OS/2

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:


>> ...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
>> included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
>> stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
>> use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
>> a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
>> install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

>   Don't be too sure that MSN will come included in Win95 when it finally is
>released.  The Department of Justice has been carrying out an ongoing 
>investigation into whether or not MSN's inclusion in Win95 is anti-competitive
>and give MS ann unfair advantage in the Internet service provider arena.  The
>basis for the argument is that, based on the likelihood that Win95 will be
>on a very large number of computers in a fairly short time, other third party
>providers will not even be considered.  This may be illegal because MS is
>using its virtual monopoly of the OS market to try and achieve a monopoly of
>the service provider market.

>   According to the latest PC Week, the DOJ did not rule out the possibility
>of taking action within the week (meaning certain delays for Win95).  Needless
>to say, this has Compuserve officials pretty excited.


>Rob Vanden Heuvel

Well I Am POSITIVE That MSN will come with Win95...
My friend is a beta tester and the MSN package comes installed in
win95.. they even put an icon on the desktop to install win95
nuff said
dont argue :)


 +----------------------------------+
 | Exodus - exo...@nj5.injersey.com |
 | Raj Shahani - New Jersey, USA    |
 +----------------------------------+

> Well I Am POSITIVE That MSN will come with Win95...
> My friend is a beta tester and the MSN package comes installed in
> win95.. they even put an icon on the desktop to install win95
> nuff said
> dont argue :)

   <Grumble>  If you'd read my posting more closely, you would have noticed
that my point was that, even though MS plans to ship MSN as part of Win95
(and is doing so at the moment), the Dept of Justice may step in prior to
August 24th to prevent it.  If that happens, then all current copies of Win95
will have to be yanked back and MS will have to release a MSN-free version
of Win95.  Needless to say, this would cost them millions of dollars and 
the deadline could not even come close to being met.


Rob Vanden Heuvel

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

>   <Grumble>  If you'd read my posting more closely, you would have noticed
>that my point was that, even though MS plans to ship MSN as part of Win95
>(and is doing so at the moment), the Dept of Justice may step in prior to
>August 24th to prevent it.  If that happens, then all current copies of Win95
>will have to be yanked back and MS will have to release a MSN-free version
>of Win95.  Needless to say, this would cost them millions of dollars and 
>the deadline could not even come close to being met.

>Rob Vanden Heuvel

Not necessarily.  They could potentialy release a with MSN version on
the 24th.  They could offer the non-MSN to those who request it later.
Packaging would not even have to be changed, just add a sticker to the
current 95 box sayin with/without MSN.  This would give the consumer
the option and stop the stupid DOJ from crapping on their parade!

I would take the with MSN of course, not that I would use MSN, I just
want 95!

Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page       

I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
that)

David

**********************************************************
* David T. Payne     "Once in a while you can get shown  *
* dpa...@wlu.edu      the light in the strangest of      *
* Washington &        places if you look at it right"    *
* Lee University      - Grateful Dead                    *
**********************************************************

In article <408vf1$19...@firehose.mindspring.com>, 
dpa...@bham.mindspring.com says...

>I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
>prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
>motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
>believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
>release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
>actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
>that)

Headline News has said the the DOJ will not take any actions 
to prevent Microsoft from shipping Win95 with MSN on
August 24th.  They will, however, continue an investigation
afterward.  


Personal Note:
--------------
Personaly I like Microsoft products.  Although, I can see
why competitors get in an uproar.  But in my opinion the only
reason thier competitors are doing poorly is because Microsoft 
just does such a better job at producing quality software for the 
average computer user.  No one is preventing Novell or Joe Schmoe
from creating a personal computer OS to compete with Microsoft.  
The computer business is not like a telephone or cable company
Almost anyone can go out and buy a computer and begin coding.
Look at what id did.  They produced a piece of software on a
non-microsoft system, that (today) runs on several non-microsoft systems.
DOOM is probably one of the most popular peices of software 
in computer history.  (of course, Microsoft is liscensing it now) ;)

-- 
=================================================================
 Thomas Kadlec                                m...@ra.msstate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 "Bitchin!...  It's fun to say... Bitchin!" - Real Japanese Guy
                           From a Big Japanese Company in Japan
=================================================================

dpa...@bham.mindspring.com (David Payne) wrote:



>I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
>prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
>motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
>believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
>release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
>actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
>that)

>David

You are quite right David, yesterday, the DOJ announced it would not
be able to stop 95 from shipping as it could not prepare anything
before the 24th release date.  Today it was confirmed.  I guess they
will end up with just a $$$ fine.  MS also announced it would limit
the MSN start up to 500,000 people.  This seems to be a ploy to get
the rush to MSN started.  Gates at work again, no doubt.  MS also
released pricing, something like $5/mo for 3 hours and of course a
nice hourly fee of about 2.50.  I might be off on the prices by a bit,
trying to remember what I read earlier.


Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page