🚀 go-pugleaf

Eugen Woiwod (Eugen_...@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
> > Running games in a window?  That's been in OS/2 for years.
> Yeah like maybe 2 years with OS/2 2.x, and now OS/2 warp which is HIGHLY
> overated. and before that, well no one ran OS/2 v1.x anyways :-)

Yep.  Both Win95 and OS/2 3.0 are highly overated as a gaming
platform.  At least OS/2 have GalCiv to show.  After so many Windows3.x
games released, only Stars! is original(not Mac port) and worth
mentioning.  Will Win95 games at least match DOS games or flop like   
Out Post?  We will see...

> > From your comments I'll bet you don't know that Windows 95
> > is 16-bit.
> ONLY some part's of it are 16 bit, pretty much to maintain compatibility
> with the TON of Windows 3.0, 3.1, and DOS software out on the market. WIN95
> is more compatibile with windows & Dos programs then OS/2 WARP is anyways

Don't count on it.  Ask Microsoft about their list 200+ Win16 apps
that don't work under Win95.  It can't run my friend's Turbo C++ 3.0
unless reboot to MS-DOS mode.  It's just a text mode DOS program, no
sound, no graphic, no DOS extender.

>[...]
> and it showed, I liked the performance of the WIN95 apps :-) and it goes to
> show how well WIN95 ran my WIn 3.x software and Terminate, DOOM and DOOM2,
> Vga Planets, Qedit, News Xpress, Paint Shop Pro etc. DOOM and DOOM2 dont
> work all that great under OS/2 warp, Vga Planets works fine even on a 286,
> no problem there. Qedit should work,

Qedit works under ANYTHING.

> News Xpress probably wouldnt work
> under WIN95,

Oops!  So much for your "very good" compatibility of Win95.

> and Paint Shop Pro v3.0 probably doesnt work under OS/2 WARP.

Why?  Because it don't work with your Win95?


>[...]  And if
> you find a game or DOS app that doesn't run under WIN95 properly(e.g say in
> full screen or in a window) then you can use MS-DOS mode, which is more
> "elegant" then using boot disks for fussy dos app's/games.

You are not stupid enough to use boot disk, do you?  I use
multi-config when I first got my 386DX 4 years ago.  I was using
DOS 4.01 with a 3rd party software for boot menu until DOS 6.0 come
out years later with multi-config built in.  Boot disk was never needed.
The reason why there is still so many boot sector virus floating
around is because people still use boot disk instead of taking a few
minutes to learn multi-config.

And OS/2 support dual-boot since very earily version, possibly 1.0.

> >   It should.  It's sad since my computers
> > have been 32 bit since the 1980's.
> Yeah with just Unix since the 60's, big whoop <g>

In terms of OS performance, Unix out perform NT, Win95 and OS/2.
But of course you don't want to play games under Unix.

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

In <75641-8...@mindlink.bc.ca>, Eugen_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Eugen Woiwod) writes:

>In fact, I dont think you know what your talking about :-)
>In fact it seems to me like you havent tried WIN95, or perhaps you tried
>one of the VERY early first build's of WIN95 and perhaps based your opions
>on that.
>>
>Sound like you know what the fuck your talking about? Sure doesn't to me
>
>Ttul

Ttul:

You shouldn't be so quick to call me stupid.  If you have a chance
look in Microsoft Systems Journal.  It is a Microsoft publication for programmers.
In it MICROSOFT explains that the ENTIRE operating system is 16-bit
for compatibility and it would be impossible to get good Windows 3.1
compatibility without this.  Read it, then act like you know something.

As far as applications running under Windows 95 vs. OS/2.  Microsoft
announced last week they have tested 2600 Windows 3.1 applications.
Of that somewhere around 800 have problems with Windows 95 and
of those 800, 200 do not even work.  IBM has tested on the order of 25,000
applications (I admit I don't know exactly the #), of those, you can read
the list of applications that do not work at all on a single piece of paper
(like 10 or 20).


Dwayne

 -> of those 800, 200 do not even work.  IBM has tested on the order of 25,000
 -> applications (I admit I don't know exactly the #), of those, you can read
 -> the list of applications that do not work at all on a single piece of paper
 -> (like 10 or 20).

25,000 applications?

<blanches>

Oh yes, and almost a dozen were OS/2-native.

Eugen_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Eugen Woiwod) wrote:


>> Running games in a window?  That's been in OS/2 for years.


>Yeah like maybe 2 years with OS/2 2.x, and now OS/2 warp which is HIGHLY
>overated. and before that, well no one ran OS/2 v1.x anyways :-)

 Highly overrated?  I think not.  It costs less than Windows 95 will
on August 24th, it multitasks better, and runs DOS applications
better.

>> Nice to see Microsoft offering you that later this month
>> in Windows 95 (August 24, 1995).

>Yeah and it'll work better then WARP also :-) DOOM2 ran fine under WIN95(I
>tested this WITH A friend's system AND my system, SOUND and MUSIC ACTUALLY
>WORKED, not like WARP where your lucky to get SOUND fx or music, but not
>both.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

iD has said this again and again: the sound code in DOOM is BUGGY as
hell, and it took the Microsoft programmers quite a while to kludge
around this buggy sound code so DOOM could with sound under Win95.

Under OS/2, I can run Descent with full sound, and it's FASTER than
DOS.  That's because OS/2's dos code is much faster.
  
>ONLY some part's of it are 16 bit, pretty much to maintain compatibility
>with the TON of Windows 3.0, 3.1, and DOS software out on the market. WIN95
>is more compatibile with windows & Dos programs then OS/2 WARP is anyways

  Check out Microsoft's web page.. over 600 apps are buggy under
Win95.  OS/2?  Not nearly as many.  DOS support under OS/2 nearly
flawless.  Win 3.1 support uses actual Windows code, so it is just as
solid.


>In fact, I dont think you know what your talking about :-)

Funny, that was the first impression I got when I read *YOUR* message.
;-)

>In fact it seems to me like you havent tried WIN95, or perhaps you tried
>one of the VERY early first build's of WIN95 and perhaps based your opions
>on that.

 Yep, I'm running Windows 95 right now.  I just don't like seeing FUD
spread about an excellent operating system (OS/2), and exagerrated
hype about Windows 95 (which is quite nice as well.)

>Well there's gonna be lots of WIN95 apps after this August, I can guarantee
>that, and OS/2 WARP user's are probably gonna be bitching to IBM, WE WANT
>WIN95 SUPPORT IN OS/2! Hell there's already a lot of WIN95 software

Nope.  Why use Win32 apps, when we can use OS/2 apps?  Y'know, over
8000 that are out there? (That Win95 will not beat for at least a year
or two.)

>already, just waiting to be released when WIN95 is released. And even now
>there's Netscape WIN95 beta that people can download, and also a Webpage on
>the Internet with WIN95 software.

  Wow, there's about 80 or so pages like that.  And nearly the same
amount (around 90) for OS/2 shareware.

>was VERY good in WIN95, it even ran Terminate just fine, with OS/2 you need
>to replace the communication driver to even get Terminate to work reliably,
>goes to show you IBM cant write a proper Communications driver :-) And if

  If you use DOS programs, yes, you should use the SIO drivers.  OS/2
terms (like LIvewire) work fine with the stock drivers.

>you find a game or DOS app that doesn't run under WIN95 properly(e.g say in
>full screen or in a window) then you can use MS-DOS mode, which is more
>"elegant" then using boot disks for fussy dos app's/games.

  Have you even run Warp?  Ever hear of "dual boot" which is exactly
the same as MS-DOS mode?

>Yeah with just Unix since the 60's, big whoop <g>

If it weren't for that big whoop, you wouldn't be talking on the
Internet right now. :)

Have a nice day. :)



----------------------
Stuart Charlton				Team OS/2 Member
win...@feldspar.com			Fidonet 1:224/120
Sidewinde on IRC			Pink Floyd:  Still first in space...