🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v8usi$m...@tornews.torolab.ibm.com>,
l...@torolab.ibm.com (Leo Comitale) wrote:
>>: Actually Dos is not necessary for os/2 I can install os/2 without dos
>>: (note: os/2 command line is not the same as dos). I can boot to os/2.

>>OS/2 is the disk operating system, i.e. the text-based command prompt;
>>the Presentation Manager is the GUI.  This is completely analogous to DOS
>>7.0 as the disk operating system and Win95 as the GUI.  Sure, you can't
>>have Win95 without DOS 7.0, but you can't have the OS/2 Presentation
>>Manager without the underlying OS/2 disk operating system either.

>Can you start Windows 95 in text mode and p-multitask any number of
>protected mode applications from "DOS 7.0"?  If so then your analogy is
>correct, otherwise it isn't.

Leo, consider the following:

        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

        3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
            interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
            multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
            OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and simple.


Take away the GUI from any of the Microsoft so called OS's and you are
left empty.  Or MT as Joseph Coughlan so aptly points out.  It's just
that simple.


>Leo Comitale



Bill Oconnor

>        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

True.

>        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.
Just because OS/2 is superior (ie: multi-tasks in command line mode)
doesn't mean that Win95's command line is DOS. It looks the same, and
has the same (or similar) file names (as MS-DOS) because the
programmers over at MS have little imagination (proof is in the fact
that every complimentable feature in Win95 appeard somewhere else
first).  Win95's command line is singletasking because MS has the
attitude of "Who needs to multi-task in command line mode?" --
Very similar to their "640K? That's more than anyone will EVER need!"
attitude back in 1982.
...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 

That is like calling Julian Lennon "John Lennon". He looks the same,
sounds the same, sings the same... 


>        3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
>            interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
>            multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
>            OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and simple.


>Take away the GUI from any of the Microsoft so called OS's and you are
>left empty.  Or MT as Joseph Coughlan so aptly points out.  It's just
>that simple.

I agree. OS/2 is a superior product, but the INFERIOR product is not
as inferior as you make it out to be. Shame that IBM has an inept
marketing department. Windows 95 will sell millions of copies, it will
soon become the standard, and IBM will rush behind to be compatable.

>>Leo Comitale



>Bill Oconnor

T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
: True.
: >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
: Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "SAM" command line mode?

[snip snip snip]
: ...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 

Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
MS-DOS 7.0.  Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)




-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
: : >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
: : True.
: : >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
: : Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.

: Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "SAM" command line mode?

: [snip snip snip]
: : ...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 

: Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
: MS-DOS 7.0.  Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)

<chop>

I have just one thing to say regarding this thread...

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam 

Can't you just hear the vikings?

Greggo...

In <3vba2j$n...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> mof...@bnr.ca (Greg Moffatt) writes: 
>
>Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>: T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: : >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
>: : True.
>: : >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

Oh really.  DOS is a multitasking, protected mode OS that calls your
program?  Learn something about what you about to criticize before you
criticize it.

Donald Collins (dona...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
> >: : >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
> >: : True.
> >: : >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

> Oh really.  DOS is a multitasking, protected mode OS that calls your
> program?  Learn something about what you about to criticize before you
> criticize it.

What he said is true.  If you use "Shut down to MS-DOS" in the Win95
shut-down dialog, or press F8 , or do some other tricks like set GUI=0
in certain config file, you will be boot to plain DOS 7.0.  100% pure
DOS, no multitask.  Now if type "WIN" or "EXIT" at the DOS prompt, it
load the GUI part.  Learn something about what you about to advocate
before you advocate it.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `

In <DCHB9...@cunews.carleton.ca> ko...@chat.carleton.ca (Ka On Lee)
writes: 
>
>Donald Collins (dona...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> >: T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
>> >: : >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
>> >: : True.
>> >: : >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
>
>> Oh really.  DOS is a multitasking, protected mode OS that calls your
>> program?  Learn something about what you about to criticize before
you
>> criticize it.
>
>What he said is true.  If you use "Shut down to MS-DOS" in the Win95
>shut-down dialog, or press F8 , or do some other tricks like set GUI=0
>in certain config file, you will be boot to plain DOS 7.0.  100% pure
>DOS, no multitask.  Now if type "WIN" or "EXIT" at the DOS prompt, it
>load the GUI part.  Learn something about what you about to advocate
>before you advocate it.
>
>           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
>           |_(0)_|			
> ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
>        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
>           '     `
Well, I came on at the end of this discussion.  I know this is not an
excuse.  I thought he was saying, if you pretended that there was no
GUI with Windows, you have something that is no better than DOS, which
is clearly untrue.  I apoligize for interrupting you discussion.  

Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> >Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
> >MS-DOS 7.0.  Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)
> >
> You have no idea do you?

No.  You don't.

> Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
> on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
> run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at all. 
> They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read "OS/2 
> sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it was 
> dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they would 
> check for the version string and would not find it.

No one is stupid enough to look into command.com to find the string of
"MS-DOS ?.??", because there is always a DOS function under INT 21h which
return the DOS version number in registers.  They don't have to put
"MS-DOS 7.0" in the string shown by the VER command.  They can put
"MS Windows 4.0 / MS-DOS 6.5" and it will not make a different.  MS
just being honest (!!) with you to tell you that you are in real,
plain and compatible, DOS.  Win95 is run on top of DOS, but so what?

> Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
> but "Win95".  

MS is being honest again (!!!!).  You are running Win95 now after you
load the Windows GUI and kernel.  I guess if you check the "Hide
windows from program" in the DOS setting option you will get "MS-DOS"
using the VER command.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `

In article <3vb70a$6...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
   mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
>T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: >        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
>: True.
>: >        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.
>: Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "SAM" command line mode?
>
>[snip snip snip]
>: ...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 
>
>Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
>MS-DOS 7.0.  Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)
>
You have no idea do you?

Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at all. 
They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read "OS/2 
sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it was 
dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they would 
check for the version string and would not find it.

Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
but "Win95".  

Jeremy

In article <3vb70a$6...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...

>Tell that to the OS then...if you ask it for it's version, it calls itself
>MS-DOS 7.0.

Imagine that.

>Heh heh, I guess it's wrong!  One more bug to report!  ;-)

Some versions make some sort of rude comment about Melinda French, too.


-- 
Tom Krotchko
<to...@access.digex.net>

Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: You have no idea do you?

Now you're getting personal.  As if you're posts weren't annoying enough,
now they're pissing me off.

: Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
: on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
: run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at all. 
: They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read "OS/2 
: sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it was 
: dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they would 
: check for the version string and would not find it.

I know all about this.  I know a heck of a lot about DOS and programming
in general.  (I sort of work in the business, and by the business, I do
mean the industry.)  Sure, anyone can go in and hack the string to "OS/2
sucks", but what was there originally is what the manufacturer titled the
product.  And they named is MS-DOS 7.  Now, you may not think that this is
a version of MS-DOS, but Microsoft certainly does.  And when it comes to
their products, their opinion on what it should be named counts just a wee
bit more than yours.

: Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
: but "Win95".  

Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.
-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:

>: Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
>: but "Win95".  

>Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.
>-- 
>========================================================================
>"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
> it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
>                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

Weird, I just went through all the DOS prompts and all ver displayed
was Windows 95,  [Version 4.00.490}. I did this in the spinoff from
windows, F8 command prompt, and safe mode command prompt. What version
are you using?


Paul

mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:

>Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.

What version are you running ?  It hasn't said Dos 7.0 for quite some
time.

Windows 95. [Version 4.00.490]

Go Figure.



==================================================================
Dennis Harrigan                       Visit "My Corner of the WEB"

New Jersey - More than just a suburb of NYC
             Its also a suburb of Philadelphia
                             
den...@omni.voicenet.com
dhar...@camden.mmc.com
dennis.j...@den.mmc.com
http://www.voicenet.com/~dennisj/
==================================================================

In article <1995Aug1.1...@news2.den.mmc.com> dhar...@camden.mmc.com (Dennis Harrigan) writes:
>>Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.

>What version are you running ?  It hasn't said Dos 7.0 for quite some
>time.

>Windows 95. [Version 4.00.490]

If you type ver at the DOS prompt it prints the above, if a program ask the os 
about the version it's get 7.0. Try msinfo or msd and se what they report.

// Gunnar D

Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : You have no idea do you?

: Now you're getting personal.  As if you're posts weren't annoying enough,
: now they're pissing me off.

: I know all about this.  I know a heck of a lot about DOS and programming
: in general.  (I sort of work in the business, and by the business, I do
: mean the industry.)  Sure, anyone can go in and hack the string to "OS/2
: sucks", but what was there originally is what the manufacturer titled the
: product.  And they named is MS-DOS 7.  Now, you may not think that this is
: a version of MS-DOS, but Microsoft certainly does.  And when it comes to
: their products, their opinion on what it should be named counts just a wee
: bit more than yours.

: : Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get "Dos-7.0" 
: : but "Win95".  

: Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.

Interesting thought:  Has anyone tried to make Win95 run on top of a 
different version of DOS (DR-DOS or whatever)?  If one could, a lot of 
this stupid posturing would cease...

Just a thought,
bj

--
William Justice (B.J.) Black   |   jus...@asu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a bananna.
                               - Groucho Marx

In article <3vip3k$m...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
   mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
>Jeremy Bee (b...@sfu.ca) wrote:
>: You have no idea do you?
>
>Now you're getting personal.  As if you're posts weren't annoying enough,
>now they're pissing me off.

I wasn't getting personal, I just meant that you show an astounding lack of 
knowledge for one being so insuffrably superior. I am probably acting 
similarly in response, but I didn't start it.
>
>: Most Dos programs do a call to test the version of the Dos they are running 
>: on, if the OS does not return a sensible string to the program, it will not 
>: run.  This is the *only* reason for the string that says "MS-DOS 7.0" at 
all. 
>: They could have, or a hacker could, go in and change the string to read 
"OS/2 
>: sucks" and it would not change anything about the OS, or whether or not it 
was 
>: dos or windows.  It would not run any dos programs though, because they 
would 
>: check for the version string and would not find it.
>
>I know all about this.  I know a heck of a lot about DOS and programming
>in general.  (I sort of work in the business, and by the business, I do
>mean the industry.)  Sure, anyone can go in and hack the string to "OS/2
>sucks", but what was there originally is what the manufacturer titled the
>product.  And they named is MS-DOS 7.  Now, you may not think that this is
>a version of MS-DOS, but Microsoft certainly does.  And when it comes to
>their products, their opinion on what it should be named counts just a wee
>bit more than yours.

Well you missed the point again, thus my original comment of "you have no 
idea".  The point is that it is a string that a program expects to get in 
response, the string can be anything but only something like Dos 7.0 will be 
of any value.  My point was the exeistence of this string does nothing to 
prove that any "product" called Dos 7.0 is actually there,, it is simply a 
string that is there for compatibility reasons.  It is not *necessarily* the 
name of "the product" at all.  
>
>: Also, if you simply type "ver" at the prompt in Win95, you won't get 
"Dos-7.0" 
>: but "Win95".  
>
>Ours says "MS-DOS 7.0".  Go figure.

Mine says "Windows 95. [Version 4.00.490]"

It used to say "Windows 95. [Version 4.00.370]"

I have never seen anyone type "ver" at what you call the "Dos 7.0" prompt 
in Win95 and get anything else.

Jeremy

>But the DOS part of Win95 is still good old, non-reentrant, real mode,
>DOS. It will not change however much you would like it to. Without
>good old 16 bit (who cares about the bitness???), real-mode (this is
>important, and BAD for DOS), non-reentrant (this is important and BAD
>for DOS) DOS Windows 95 will not function at all. Not even if you
>use something else to boot it. Windows 95 needs DOS to run Win32
>software.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data

Hey, I remember you.  Terje Bergesen - OS/2  zealot.

Hey everybody, don't believe anything that comes out of an OS/2 zealots 
mouth.  Anybody who hates Microsoft is going to bash everything they 
make.  When they can communicate well its even more dangerous because 
they can persuade people to believe in the same false ideas that they do.

Heres what everbody should do.  Read, the posts of Windows 95 -vs- OS/2 
but don't believe any of it; for or against Windows 95.  Most of it is 
well presented bull shit anyway.  Instead, wait until after Windwos 95 
comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
                    __________    No matter where you go,
                   /  ______  \       there you are.
                  |  |      |  |        

...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...)

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.



+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Peter Collins             email: coll...@kai.ee.cit.ac.nz          |
|  call my raytracing home page at: http://www.ee.cit.ac.nz/~collinpe  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) writes:
>...wait until after Windwos 95 
>comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.

Yes. Wait to buy Win9x until you read BYTE's review of the product.
You'll find the review both illuminating and accurate, I promise.

Barry Nance
  author of "Using OS/2 Warp", "Introduction to Networking",
  "Client/Server LAN Programming", "Networking Windows for Workgroups",
  and "Connecting with LAN Server". BYTE Magazine Contributing Editor.

In <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net>, tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) writes:
>....back to the original Question:

Just some minor adjustments to the origional reply.

>Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
No.
>A Good one?         Yes.
Hardly.
>The best one?       No.
Thats to funny to answer.
>Better than OS/2?   No.
I agree
>The new Standard?   Yes.
IF it is we just turned the wonderful and powerful PC into a MAC
>Happy about it?     (Well, ask me next year...)
Yeah, I believe that people will be very disappointed over this desktop shell.

fit...@osu.edu wrote:
: In <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net>, tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) writes:

: >Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
: No.
True, the GUI is only a shell.  The underlying DOS is a true OS.  But
since Microsoft has named the entire package "Win95", then Win95 is a true OS.
It's all semantics.

 : >A Good one?         Yes.
: Hardly.
Sure it is.  Better than Win 3.x, at least.

: >The best one?       No.
: Thats to funny to answer.
Not even Bill G. himself claims it's the best one.  He's already pushing NT.

: >Better than OS/2?   No.
: I agree
As does anyone in the know.

: >The new Standard?   Yes.
: IF it is we just turned the wonderful and powerful PC into a MAC
Hate to break this to you, but as a gaming platform the MAC is a pretty
great machine.  The only problem is that there are no games to play on it.
That's really too bad, they've had all sorts of great stuff that we're
just now getting for years.

: >Happy about it?     (Well, ask me next year...)
: Yeah, I believe that people will be very disappointed over this desktop shell.
I doubt it.  The average Joe User will find it very easy to use, and will
therefore like it a lot.  Sooner or later we'll all have to move to Win95
because Ultima 9 is Win95 only.  So you see, we have no choice.

-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

bar...@BIX.com (barryn on BIX) wrote:

>jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) writes:
>>...wait until after Windwos 95 
>>comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.

>Yes. Wait to buy Win9x until you read BYTE's review of the product.
>You'll find the review both illuminating and accurate, I promise.

>Barry Nance
>  author of "Using OS/2 Warp", "Introduction to Networking",
>  "Client/Server LAN Programming", "Networking Windows for Workgroups",
>  and "Connecting with LAN Server". BYTE Magazine Contributing Editor.

<LG> Well said.  
Mr. Nance, one of these days I want to have a job like yours.
When do you think I'll be able to review this review?

I'm still laughing <G>
Bill Churchan
bch...@pacifier.com
www.pacifier.com/~bchurch

In message <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net> - tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wri
tes:
:>
:>....back to the original Question:
:>
:>Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
  NO until it doesn't need DOS anymore.

:>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...)

wong

In article <4127l8$j...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, 
mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>
>I doubt it.  The average Joe User will find it very easy to use, and will
>therefore like it a lot.  Sooner or later we'll all have to move to Win95
>because Ultima 9 is Win95 only.  So you see, we have no choice.
>
>-- 
>========================================================================
>"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
> it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
>                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us


 I still honestly don't believe Microsoft really cares about gamers or many 
home users, if it gets them, great, if not, well they will concentrate on the 
workplace.  I was just set recently to a Win95 seminar sponsored by ASAP 
software, and the focus was barely on Win95, they mostly tried to sell us 
Office95.  I think that's the real focus, considering one of the reps from 
Microsoft was already talking about further migration to WindowsNT, which by 
then have the Win95 interface.  Although I'm not a Microsoft fan, my users 
want the new interface, and I'm getting it for them.  And I'm MIS for a 
mid-size company, can you imagine what they stand to make off large 
corporations?
-- 
                               -Kevin Wing
                                MIS, Krauss-Maffei Corp
email...@one.net
      wi...@nku.edu
Standard stuff:  I don't speak for KMC or anyone else that's not 
                 named Kevin Wing, so if that's your name, change
                 it.

> I still honestly don't believe Microsoft really cares about gamers or many 
>home users, if it gets them, great, if not, well they will concentrate on the 
>workplace.  I was just set recently to a Win95 seminar sponsored by ASAP 
>software, and the focus was barely on Win95, they mostly tried to sell us 
>Office95.  I think that's the real focus, considering one of the reps from 
>Microsoft was already talking about further migration to WindowsNT, which by 
>then have the Win95 interface.  Although I'm not a Microsoft fan, my users 
>want the new interface, and I'm getting it for them.  And I'm MIS for a 
>mid-size company, can you imagine what they stand to make off large 
>corporations?

I agree whole-heartedly.  As much as MS wants to make some people believe, MS 
wrote 95 FOR businesses.  In all of the advertisements and whoopla surounding 
the 95 release, I've yet to see why joe-blow would see that and think 'cool'. 
 Personally, I think the Mac is the better computer all around.  They've had 
PnP for years and the OS is much more stable than 95 could hope to be.  And 
I'm writing this on a P90.

Chris 

> In message <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net> - tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wri
> tes:
> :>
> :>....back to the original Question:
> :>
> :>Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
>   NO until it doesn't need DOS anymore.

I don't think Win95 -had- to have DOS included, but it would've had a hard
time running any DOS apps without some kind of DOS version lurking around.

       Neutronium Dragon
  alfred...@cyberstore.ca
              __
             /  \
             \  /
        --==(UDIC)==--
              ||
              ||
              ||
              ||
             /--\

Ultima Dragons Internet Chapter
  http://www.why.com/ultima/

Chris (ch...@skypoint.com) wrote:
>[...]  Personally, I think the Mac is the better computer all around. They've had 
> PnP for years and the OS is much more stable than 95 could hope to be.  And 
> I'm writing this on a P90.

My limited experience show that Mac is even less stable than Win3.1. 
It make me sad to see a "Not enough memory" error can bring down
the whole system.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `

ch...@skypoint.com (Chris) wrote:


>I agree whole-heartedly.  As much as MS wants to make some people believe, MS 
>wrote 95 FOR businesses.  In all of the advertisements and whoopla surounding 
>the 95 release, I've yet to see why joe-blow would see that and think 'cool'. 
> Personally, I think the Mac is the better computer all around.  They've had 
>PnP for years and the OS is much more stable than 95 could hope to be.  And 
>I'm writing this on a P90.

You have apparently not used a Mac for long if you believe it to be
more stable than Win 95.

Win95 is the future of PC gaming.  Deal with it.  Open your eyes, and
see the product announcements.  Read WHY it is GOOD for PC gaming.

In other words, get a friggin' clue.

wi...@one.net (Kevin Wing) wrote:



> I still honestly don't believe Microsoft really cares about gamers or many 
>home users, if it gets them, great, if not, well they will concentrate on the 
>workplace.  

Microsoft, like any corporation, isn't concerned about *you*, they are
concerned about $$$$.  And Billy see's gold in them thar gaming hills!
Microsoft obviously has made Win95 _very_ receptive to gaming, you
have not read any reports on 95's gaming technologies in PC gaming
mags if you don't believe that 95 is going to be _the_ platform for PC
games in the future.

On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, T.D. Shadow wrote:

> ...back to the original Question:
> 
> Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.

It's an improved (very improved, in fact) version of windows, integrated 
with DOS. It's NOT a full 32 bit OS.

> A Good one?         Yes.
> The best one?       No.
> Better than OS/2?   No.

Define 'The best..' 
GUI wise it's a LOT better than OS/2.

> The new Standard?   Yes.

By Sales alone, Yes. By all the new apps being ported/produced, Yes again.

> 
> True?               Yes.
> Happy about it?     (Well, ask me next year...)
> 

Win'95 is much better than Win3.1/WFWG in all respects, its more stable, 
more compatible and a site easier to navigate, plus it still allows you 
to run all your old DOS apps as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen Clarke						   a...@mround.bt.co.uk|
| TEL: 01473-649371				                              |
| Fax: 01473-637523	      MLB G/35, BT Labs, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, IP5 7RE|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO: A...@MROUND.BT.CO.UK

On 08-22-95, a...@mround.bt.co.uk  wrote to Unknown  about Re: Win95 a 
TRUE OS? Help...

a> > Better than OS/2?   No.

a> Define 'The best..' 
a> GUI wise it's a LOT better than OS/2.

Am I the only one that HATES OS/2?  Its buggy as hell and its hard to 
find what you're looking for.  Sound gets fucked up when you run Windows 
programs, it has to load windows every time you open a Windows program.  
You still have the windows setup programs which makes things confusing, 
no Win32 support... and on and on.  I'd rather use DOS 2.11 and Windows 
3.0 than OS/2.  Windows 95 looks like there are no disadvantages, just 
changes for the better.

>en >ell - bz...@unix.swcbbs.com
>   <

---
... In every bowl of Rice Krispies there is a black crunchy one.
-=CMPQwk ver. 1.42 Reg. #8102=-

>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #YHJYXBJA

Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
>> In message <4101c5$q...@news.iadfw.net> - tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wri
>> :>Win95 a TRUE OS?    Yes.
>>   NO until it doesn't need DOS anymore.
>I don't think Win95 -had- to have DOS included, but it would've had a hard
>time running any DOS apps without some kind of DOS version lurking around.

What you *think* is quite irrelevant, the facts say otherwise. Face them.
The 'design' of Windows 95 makes DOS a necessary component, not for running
DOS apps, but for running Windows 95 *itself* *and* every other app, including
win32 apps. It needs it for booting, for 'process information' (PSPs) and as
a disk/file system helper.
Windows 95 can *NOT* run without it's DOS component.
But by definition Windows 95, as it is packaged and delivered, is a 'true' OS
since you don't need anything else. Had DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 been delivered in
one package, they would have been just as much of a 'real' OS as Windows 95.
You just don't get the option of choosing your DOS-provider and -version
anymore. So much for choices.
If Windows 95 is ok by you, fine. But don't pretend it's something it's not.
-- 
Illya Vaes  (iv...@hr.ns.nl)
Holland Railconsult BV, Signalling CAD
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.358586, Fax 357212           "Do...or do not, there is no try" - Yoda

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. 

What do you think of my new .sig?
Is 21 lines too much?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*                                                                         *
*   You guys make me sick.                                                *
*   "OS/2 Sucks"                                                          *
*   "Win95 is better."                                                    *
*                                                                         *
*   Who cares?                                                            *
*   1. OS/2 does not suck                                                 *
*   2. Win95 is not better.                                               *
*                                                                         *
*   Sounds stupid, doesn't it?                                            *
*                                                                         *
*   I hope the world doesn't read these idiot's rantings and think that   *
*   all MS advocates behave this way.                                     *
*                                                                         *
*   OS/2 -- better crash protection, better multi-tasking                 *
*   Mac -- Better graphics, better sound                                  *
*   Me? I use windows95 -- it's better at meeting MY requirements,        *
*   so all of you who think that "your" OS is the best, get a life.       *
*                                                                         *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For the Sarcasm Impared: It's not a real .sig

In article <41dm7c$c...@news.swcbbs.com>,
Ben Zell <bz...@unix.swcbbs.com> wrote:
>TO: A...@MROUND.BT.CO.UK
>
>On 08-22-95, a...@mround.bt.co.uk  wrote to Unknown  about Re: Win95 a 
>TRUE OS? Help...
>Am I the only one that HATES OS/2?  Its buggy as hell and its hard to 
>find what you're looking for.  Sound gets fucked up when you run Windows 
>programs, it has to load windows every time you open a Windows program.  
>You still have the windows setup programs which makes things confusing, 
>no Win32 support... and on and on.  I'd rather use DOS 2.11 and Windows 
>3.0 than OS/2.  Windows 95 looks like there are no disadvantages, just 
>changes for the better.
>
>>en >ell - bz...@unix.swcbbs.com
>>   <
>
Count me in.  I hate OS/2.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
                    __________    No matter where you go,
                   /  ______  \       there you are.
                  |  |      |  |        

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950822...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, 
mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu says...

>Let's go into that last comment a little more.  Does it run the old/slow 
>DOS as well as the new low and high mem intensive DOS well.  For example 
>Battles of Napoleon or the SSG Battlefront/Decisive Battles of the ACW on 
>the low/slow (namely made to run on PCXT or 286) and, say, Panzer General 
>or Stalingrad on the high end.

I can vouch for Win '95 as far as the newer, high end games go.  Since you 
can choose to restart your computer in MS-DOS mode, I've had no problem 
with any of the games I've tried to run.  Oddly enough, the only programs 
I've had trouble running are MS-Windows games.  Sorta strange...

One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

- Drake Tungsten

In article <41f4u8$j...@news.dgsys.com>,
Michael Askounes <ic...@dgs.dgsys.com> wrote:
 >In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950822...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, 
 >mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu says...
 >
 >>Let's go into that last comment a little more.  Does it run the old/slow 
 >>DOS as well as the new low and high mem intensive DOS well.  For example 
 >>Battles of Napoleon or the SSG Battlefront/Decisive Battles of the ACW on 
 >>the low/slow (namely made to run on PCXT or 286) and, say, Panzer General 
 >>or Stalingrad on the high end.
 >
 >I can vouch for Win '95 as far as the newer, high end games go.  Since you 
 >can choose to restart your computer in MS-DOS mode, I've had no problem 
 >with any of the games I've tried to run.  Oddly enough, the only programs 
 >I've had trouble running are MS-Windows games.  Sorta strange...

Unbelievable.  Boot DOS instead of Windows 95 and DOS games run.
How totally revolutionary.  How much CPU time is your receive
fax process getting while you're playing?

 >One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
 >files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

Holy Smokes!  It's a computer revolution!  How many years have OS/2
users had this capability while the lemmings were waiting for MS?

-- 
Chris Linstruth  -  c...@qnet.com

In <41dm7c$c...@news.swcbbs.com>, bz...@unix.swcbbs.com (Ben Zell) writes:
>TO: A...@MROUND.BT.CO.UK
>
>On 08-22-95, a...@mround.bt.co.uk  wrote to Unknown  about Re: Win95 a 
>TRUE OS? Help...
>
>a> > Better than OS/2?   No.
>
>a> Define 'The best..' 
>a> GUI wise it's a LOT better than OS/2.
>
>Am I the only one that HATES OS/2?  Its buggy as hell and its hard to 
>find what you're looking for.  Sound gets fucked up when you run Windows 
>programs, it has to load windows every time you open a Windows program.  
>You still have the windows setup programs which makes things confusing, 
>no Win32 support... and on and on.  I'd rather use DOS 2.11 and Windows 
>3.0 than OS/2.  Windows 95 looks like there are no disadvantages, just 
>changes for the better.
>
>>en >ell - bz...@unix.swcbbs.com
Have you tried Warp because it sounds like you have no Idea what you are saying.
I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.

T.D. Shadow (tdsh...@airmail.net) composed eloquently:
>For the Sarcasm Impared: It's not a real .sig

Good. :)
-- 
_________________________________________________________
Robert Woodcock | Note: Your standard disclaimers apply. |
r...@netcom.com  | I never forget a face (In some cases   |
................| it can be quite a curse) - Plucky Duck |

In <416h0n$q...@sulla.cyberstore.ca>, Neutronium Dragon <alfred...@cyberstore.ca> writes:
>I don't think Win95 -had- to have DOS included, but it would've had a hard
>time running any DOS apps without some kind of DOS version lurking around.
Well, Win95 does need DOS, since it's still running under DOS.
(Although the DOS is hidden better than before)

Stephan Siano
(ste...@embata.muk.uni-hannover.de)

fit...@osu.edu wrote:
: Have you tried Warp because it sounds like you have no Idea what you are saying.
: I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
: only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
: has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.

The plain truth is that, for every person that has trouble getting OS/2 
to work, there is one that has trouble getting Windows to work.  No 
operating system is perfect.  Every operating system has trouble.  
Unfortunatly, ones first experience with an operating system can affect 
their judgement from here on out.

My first experience with OS/2 (version 2.1) was a disaster.  Windows 
programs took forever to load.  C/Set++ was a nightmare to use.  Every 
add on I tried to install screwed up my previous installations.  Etc.  I 
seriously doubt everyone has had the same problems I have with OS/2, but 
I personally did.  Windows NT and Windows 95, on the other hand, have 
installed almost flawelessly for me over the past couple of years and 
I've been very pleased with both.

fit...@osu.edu wrote:
>I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
>only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
>has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.

All these 'required' and 'recommended' specifications really annoy me.  
Unless I am totally mistaken, any program which will run on a pentium 
will run on a 386 (am I correct in thinking that?)  Therefore the 
'required' system is basically a judgement call as to whether the 
application will be fast enough.  When I bought Ultima 8, it said on the 
box that a 486 was reccomended, I played it on a 386, and it was fine 
albeit a little slow.
--
 ____/\___  |  _O_       Erraticus      _O_   |"Those people who most
 ___/__\__) |   |       -==(UDIC)==-     |    | want to rule people are,
(__/    \__ |   mailto:char...@ihug.co.nz    | ipso facto, those least
  /      \  | mailto:ach...@cs.auckland.ac.nz | suited to do it." --HHGTG

c...@qnet.com (Chris Linstruth) wrote:


> >One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
> >files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

>Holy Smokes!  It's a computer revolution!  How many years have OS/2
>users had this capability while the lemmings were waiting for MS?

Come on, now!  Are you unaware that this alternate-bootups feature is
available in DOS 6.0?  Why are you even using boot disks?
 -JL

Chris Linstruth (c...@qnet.com) wrote:
: In article <41f4u8$j...@news.dgsys.com>,
: Michael Askounes <ic...@dgs.dgsys.com> wrote:
:  >In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950822...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, 
:  >mt...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu says...
:  >I can vouch for Win '95 as far as the newer, high end games go.  Since you 
:  >can choose to restart your computer in MS-DOS mode, I've had no problem 
:  >with any of the games I've tried to run.  Oddly enough, the only programs 
:  >I've had trouble running are MS-Windows games.  Sorta strange...

: Unbelievable.  Boot DOS instead of Windows 95 and DOS games run.
: How totally revolutionary.  How much CPU time is your receive
: fax process getting while you're playing?

Look, here's the deal.  Yes, Windows 95 is not revolutionary and, 
technilogically, Microsoft is behind the pack.  However, there are a few 
problems that OS/2 and Linux will be having in the near future.  One of 
them is Direct Draw for games, the other is Win32 programs.  Now, I'm the 
first one to admit that Microsoft is behind the pack in technology.  
However, I'm also the first to notice that there are 8 shelves of 
DOS/Windows software in Best Buy, two shelves of Macintosh, and no 
shelves of OS/2.

Now, onto an answer to your statement.  There are some games where one 
might have to boot into the command DOS prompt.  However, today at work, 
I fired up Terminal Velocity while Windows 95 was still running.  No 
sweat.  No problem.  I've also taken a look at Pitfall for Windows 95 and 
am pretty impressed that Windows is finally at the point where it can 
handle scrolling in a game, let alone two places of scrolling with a fair 
share of sprites floating around.

:  >One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
:  >files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

: Holy Smokes!  It's a computer revolution!  How many years have OS/2
: users had this capability while the lemmings were waiting for MS?

Look, we all have our reasons for choosing our operating system.  OS/2 is 
a fine product, but not all of us like the way it looks or the way it 
operates.  The same holds true for Windows.  Ultimatly the truth is that 
I had NT 3.1 and 3.5 to give me a 32 bit multitasking operating system 
for a while now.  However, I couldn't run my DOS multimedia programs well 
under NT.  Now I have Windows 95 that lets me run my DOS programs 
better.  It was worth it to wait a while rather than learn an entirely 
new operating system.

: > >One nice feature in Win '95 is that you can assign different start-up 
: > >files for each different program.  Kinda like using a boot disk.

: >Holy Smokes!  It's a computer revolution!  How many years have OS/2
: >users had this capability while the lemmings were waiting for MS?

: Come on, now!  Are you unaware that this alternate-bootups feature is
: available in DOS 6.0?  Why are you even using boot disks?

	Think he means without rebooting, my friend.

--
wa...@union4.su.swin.edu.au    | Check me out at the web site -
070...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au     | http://www.su.swin.edu.au/~wazza/wazza.html
Allah, Allah, all praise be to | Did someone say, "Windows 95"?  Guards!
Robert for our hallowed .sig...| Rip that man's colon out! With a vernier!

Charlton <char...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>fit...@osu.edu wrote:
>>I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
>>only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
>>has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.

>All these 'required' and 'recommended' specifications really annoy me.  
>Unless I am totally mistaken, any program which will run on a pentium 
>will run on a 386 (am I correct in thinking that?)  Therefore the 
>'required' system is basically a judgement call as to whether the 
>application will be fast enough.  When I bought Ultima 8, it said on the 
>box that a 486 was reccomended, I played it on a 386, and it was fine 
>albeit a little slow.

             You are "totally mistaken."  :)

> ____/\___  |  _O_       Erraticus      _O_   

                How appropriate....heh.

--Evan

Charlton (char...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: All these 'required' and 'recommended' specifications really annoy me.  
: Unless I am totally mistaken, any program which will run on a pentium 
: will run on a 386 (am I correct in thinking that?)  Therefore the 
: 'required' system is basically a judgement call as to whether the 
: application will be fast enough.  When I bought Ultima 8, it said on the 
: box that a 486 was reccomended, I played it on a 386, and it was fine 
: albeit a little slow.

Usually you're right, but not always.  The 486 does have some machine
instructions that the 386 doesn't have, but they're pretty esoteric (e.g.
cache control instructions).  If a program actually calls one of these
instructions, a 386 would have no idea what to do and so the game would
most likely crash.  Similarly, the Pentium has machine instructions that a
486 doesn't have, and the same thing could happen if a Pentium-only game
was run on a 486.

And the difference between "recommended" and "required" is huge.  Required
means that the game absolutely will not run on any machine less powerful
than the one specified.  Recommended means the game will run the way it
was meant to run on the specified system, but will run with a performance
hit on lesser machines.  Of course there labels aren't always 100%
correct on some games, but it's a safe bet to just follow what the box says.
-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

>I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
>only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
>has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.

Win-OS2 and ms windows 3.x are the same thing down to the code. They
also both have the same bugs. To prove this open ms windows and type
in 4.00000 in the calculator, after the first zero you won't see 
anymore of the zeros until you press six. Same thing is in Win-OS2. 

The only difference is that you won't see any references to windows in
win-os2, they have become win-os2.

So if they have the same coding that also means win-os2 isn't 32bit.
Try running a 32bit program under win-os2 with out win32s.

Avan

In article <41uafc$g...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Aaron Van Stralen <av...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I have used OS/2 since 2.1 and it has none of the problems you discussed.  Unless you
>>only have the basic system required to run it.  Win-OS2 is a 32bit windows clone that
>>has none of the bugs of the MS 3.x line.
>
>Win-OS2 and ms windows 3.x are the same thing down to the code. They
>also both have the same bugs. To prove this open ms windows and type
>in 4.00000 in the calculator, after the first zero you won't see 
>anymore of the zeros until you press six. Same thing is in Win-OS2. 
>
>The only difference is that you won't see any references to windows in
>win-os2, they have become win-os2.
>
>So if they have the same coding that also means win-os2 isn't 32bit.
>Try running a 32bit program under win-os2 with out win32s.
>
>Avan
>
 
According to a post from some of the IBM developers who ported the
Windows 3.x code over to Win-OS2 : 

	The biggest single change was in memory management.  Windows 
uses about 70% DPMI and the rest is direct.  IBM re-wrote the 30%
so that the Win-Os2 code is ALL DPMI conformant.

The next change was using the Watcom 16-bit C compiler since it generates
better code than the MS 16-bit C.

I *THINK* they did some page tuning, but I'm not sure.

Bob