🚀 go-pugleaf

sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld) wrote:

>I saw it at a Babbage's today.  Since I don't have Win 95, I didn't
>get it, but I was wondering if anyone has tried it?  Someone with
>a beta version of Win 95, perhaps?

>It looked more or less like the console versions, and it has the original
>pitfall game hidden somewhere inside of it (all of this from the back
>of the box).

Yep,its exactly like the console version. Its mostly like the Sega-CD
version,except the sound,and graphics are much better. It works
great,but naturaly the control is a little off. Its more than worth
the money,if you dont own any other version of it.

Farlander

(When the worlds have crumbled, and the masses look for a savior, Bruce
will be there for us, chainsaw outstretched in friendship.  And we will
take his hand(?), and it will be good...)  -The Book of Bruce 9:13

                     

Steven Gershenfeld (sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: I saw it at a Babbage's today.  Since I don't have Win 95, I didn't
: get it, but I was wondering if anyone has tried it?  Someone with
: a beta version of Win 95, perhaps?

: It looked more or less like the console versions, and it has the original
: pitfall game hidden somewhere inside of it (all of this from the back
: of the box).

: The full name is Pitfall - The Mayan Adventures for Win 95.

: It REQUIRES Win 95 (according to the box).

: The first Win 95 game, and it isn't even out yet!!! :-)

: Steven

: P.S.  Babbages also had a Win 95 version of the Atari 2600 Action pack by
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: activision.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^

They're really pushing the edge with these high quality releases.  What a
tribute to WIndows.  NOT

J-> They're really pushing the edge with these high quality releases.  What a
 -> tribute to WIndows.  NOT

I think you'll change your mind once you've seen PitFall. :)

john....@hq.com (John Tracey) wrote:


>J-> They're really pushing the edge with these high quality releases.  What a
> -> tribute to WIndows.  NOT

>I think you'll change your mind once you've seen PitFall. :)

I was quite amazed to see a 60 fps game running in a window myself.
Amazing.

- Jason Zisk a.k.a. Sufferin' Pup
- Sophmore at the University of Hartford College of Arts and Sciences
- email: suf...@cris.com

    // It is really sad that dialog boxes in windows have to
    // commit suicide so that the program may continue.
    EndDialog(hwnd,TRUE);

Anyone know if a demo of Pitfall can be downloaded from anywhere ?

TIA

Jez

In article <420u7r$k...@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com>,
Hank Leukart <ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>In article <95082612...@hq.com>, john....@hq.com (John Tracey) wrote:
[Lost attribution wrote:]
>>J-> They're really pushing the edge with these high quality releases.  What a
>> -> tribute to WIndows.  NOT
>>
>>I think you'll change your mind once you've seen PitFall. :)
>
>	Agreed.  I myself admit that I was a Win 3.1 hater, but Windows 95 is 
>going to be a great gaming O/S (as well as its other uses, of course).  If the 
>speed, playability, and graphics of Pitfall are any indication: WOW. :)
>-Hank

Ditto.  I have had a long-time dislike of MS due to the lameness of DOS and 
the inherent problems with Windows 3.x, but I'm fairly pleased by Windows 95
and am impressed by Pitfall's speed, responsiveness, and graphics as well.

--
Russell Webb
rw...@panix.com

rw...@panix.com (Russell Webb) writes:

>In article <420u7r$k...@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com>,
>Hank Leukart <ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>>In article <95082612...@hq.com>, john....@hq.com (John Tracey) wrote:
>[Lost attribution wrote:]
>>>J-> They're really pushing the edge with these high quality releases.  What a
>>> -> tribute to WIndows.  NOT
>>>
>>>I think you'll change your mind once you've seen PitFall. :)
>>
>>	Agreed.  I myself admit that I was a Win 3.1 hater, but Windows 95 is 
>>going to be a great gaming O/S (as well as its other uses, of course).  If the 
>>speed, playability, and graphics of Pitfall are any indication: WOW. :)
>>-Hank

>Ditto.  I have had a long-time dislike of MS due to the lameness of DOS and 
>the inherent problems with Windows 3.x, but I'm fairly pleased by Windows 95
>and am impressed by Pitfall's speed, responsiveness, and graphics as well.

>--
>Russell Webb
>rw...@panix.com

After trying an MPEG viewer in DIB mode I noticed they had dramatically
improved the video access for Windows applications.  I think the AVIs
are a good example, usually they were not smooth on my machine but no
problem now.


-- 
Fred Mah  ---  fm...@ecn.purdue.edu                      Running Win95
http://widget.ecn.purdue.edu/~fmah                      Hasn't Crashed Yet...uh

suf...@cris.com (Jason Zisk) wrote:

>john....@hq.com (John Tracey) wrote:


>I was quite amazed to see a 60 fps game running in a window myself.
>Amazing.

BTW, is there a frame counter command to enable a FPS display?  Mine
is not that smooth on a DX2-66, even with a full-screen fast mode.  CD
music and effects are off.  8 meg system, though.

Russell Webb (rw...@panix.com) wrote:
: Ditto.  I have had a long-time dislike of MS due to the lameness of DOS and 
: the inherent problems with Windows 3.x, .........

I wish people would get this stuff right! Don't blame Microsoft for DOS, 
blame IBM - who picked the lame-ass Intel chip for their new PC (over 
Microsoft's advice) in the first place. Many of DOSs limitations actually 
stem from limitations in the Intel architecture. 

:..................................... but I'm fairly pleased by Windows 95
: and am impressed by Pitfall's speed, responsiveness, and graphics as well.

Windows 95 is the DOS killer we've all been waiting for. As more games 
developers start writing for Win32, DOS (and Win16) will fade into 
history. 

Scott

syd...@skypoint.com (Scott Butler) writes:
>Russell Webb (rw...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Ditto.  I have had a long-time dislike of MS due to the lameness of DOS and 
>: the inherent problems with Windows 3.x, .........
>I wish people would get this stuff right! Don't blame Microsoft for DOS, 
>blame IBM - who picked the lame-ass Intel chip for their new PC (over 
>Microsoft's advice) in the first place. Many of DOSs limitations actually 
>stem from limitations in the Intel architecture. 

Huh?

IBM had the Intel 8086/8088 in mind before it solicited OS people.  CPM/80
was probably envisioned as the primary OS, but when Microsoft bought DOS
1.0 from someone else and fixed it up a little, they were in the right
place at the right time (and Digital missed out, as the legends say).  DOS
1.0 was so awful it had to be rewritten from scratch for 2.0.

The details are rough, but my paragraph above is much closer to true than
yours.  Jeez.

-- 
Kevin Martin                                                   si...@mcs.com
Pinball Archive: ftp://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball http://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/
I'd love to, but I have to study for a blood test.

syd...@skypoint.com (Scott Butler) writes:
>IBM had a processor *in mind* when it approached Microsoft about doing
>a BASIC for the new machine - they HAD NOT made a decision on the
>processor yet.

Not the impression you would get from Intel's historical web site, but I'll
admit that's not surprising ;)

>Jack Sams of IBM discovered that "Gates and his crew
>obviously new quite a bit about hardware design as well", so Sams
>"gave him sort of an open invitation to tell us what was needed."
>(from "Gates", by Stephen Manes & Paul Andrews, page 152).

I'm sure Gates didn't exaggerate this in any way in his own biography.  I
find it unusual that monolithic IBM would solicit advice from what was
basically a pipsqueak software company.

>Gates
>pushed for many things, including "a 16-bit design instead of the
>outmoded 8-bit". 

The 8086 is 16-bit in some ways; settling on the 8088 just made the design
cheaper and quicker.

>Sams also contacted Gates regarding an OS, and Gates initially
>referred him to Gary Kildall of DRI, who was off flying his plane and
>missed the meeting - probably one of the most expensive airplane rides
>in history.

This is the anecdote to which I was referring.

>Maybe you should double check your *own* statements before you shoot
>your mouth off....

I still don't understand, though, how:

1) Intel's flawed architecture does a fine job of running UNIXes such as
Linux, FreeBSD, and the like

2) Windows 95 still has a lot of DOS internals

There are DOS-mode emulators for quite a few PC UNIXes, and they work
reasonably well, while allowing the UNIX kernel to still do things its own
efficient way.  Why couldn't this approach be taken for a new OS such as
Win95?  You still get better performance under OS/2 or UNIX, on the same
equipment, in general.

-- 
Kevin Martin                                                   si...@mcs.com
Pinball Archive: ftp://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball http://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/
UFO's are for real, but the Air Force doesn't exist.

si...@MCS.COM (Kevin Martin) wrote:

>Huh?

>IBM had the Intel 8086/8088 in mind before it solicited OS people.  CPM/80
>was probably envisioned as the primary OS, but when Microsoft bought DOS
>1.0 from someone else and fixed it up a little, they were in the right
>place at the right time (and Digital missed out, as the legends say).  DOS
>1.0 was so awful it had to be rewritten from scratch for 2.0.

>The details are rough, but my paragraph above is much closer to true than
>yours.  Jeez.

"Rough" is a good word. Here are the *facts*: 

IBM had a processor *in mind* when it approached Microsoft about doing
a BASIC for the new machine - they HAD NOT made a decision on the
processor yet. Jack Sams of IBM discovered that "Gates and his crew
obviously new quite a bit about hardware design as well", so Sams
"gave him sort of an open invitation to tell us what was needed."
(from "Gates", by Stephen Manes & Paul Andrews, page 152). Gates
pushed for many things, including "a 16-bit design instead of the
outmoded 8-bit". 

Sams also contacted Gates regarding an OS, and Gates initially
referred him to Gary Kildall of DRI, who was off flying his plane and
missed the meeting - probably one of the most expensive airplane rides
in history. Sams called Gates back and told him it was up to Gates to
find an OS for the new PC, or the languages deal was off. This info
can be found in "Big Blues", by Paul Carroll (pages 17-19).

Maybe you should double check your *own* statements before you shoot
your mouth off....

Scott

Kevin Martin (si...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: >Jack Sams of IBM discovered that "Gates and his crew
: >obviously new quite a bit about hardware design as well", so Sams
: >"gave him sort of an open invitation to tell us what was needed."
: >(from "Gates", by Stephen Manes & Paul Andrews, page 152).

: I'm sure Gates didn't exaggerate this in any way in his own biography.  I
: find it unusual that monolithic IBM would solicit advice from what was
: basically a pipsqueak software company.

It isn't Gate's "own" biography. He didn't write it. And the quote was
attributed directly to Jack Sams of IBM. In addition, the PC project was
pretty unusual at IBM. 

: The 8086 is 16-bit in some ways; settling on the 8088 just made the design
: cheaper and quicker.

The 8086 is 16-bit internally and externally; the 8088 is 16-bit 
internally and 8-bits externally. Kind of like a 386sx.

: >Sams also contacted Gates regarding an OS, and Gates initially
: >referred him to Gary Kildall of DRI, who was off flying his plane and
: >missed the meeting - probably one of the most expensive airplane rides
: >in history.

: This is the anecdote to which I was referring.

The two events are intertwined.

: >Maybe you should double check your *own* statements before you shoot
: >your mouth off....

: I still don't understand, though, how:

: 1) Intel's flawed architecture does a fine job of running UNIXes such as
: Linux, FreeBSD, and the like

Have you run Linux on an 8088 lately?

: 2) Windows 95 still has a lot of DOS internals

For backwards compatibility. I'll say it yet again: one of the big things 
that Windows 95 does is create a good transition to true 32-bitness. This 
will eventually (sooner than later, I hope) kill DOS off for good. The 
inclusion of some of the old DOS internals was a tradeoff they had to 
make to provide good backwards compatibility, since a lot of people are 
still very attached to their 16-bit DOS and Windows code.

It still astonishes me how little people seem to understand the 
importance of backwards compatibility in the marketplace. 

: There are DOS-mode emulators for quite a few PC UNIXes, and they work
: reasonably well, while allowing the UNIX kernel to still do things its own
: efficient way.  Why couldn't this approach be taken for a new OS such as
: Win95?  You still get better performance under OS/2 or UNIX, on the same
: equipment, in general.

The compatibility is NOWHERE NEAR as good. How do your DOS device drivers 
work under emulation? Your Windows apps? How about Doom? 

Scott

>: There are DOS-mode emulators for quite a few PC UNIXes, and they work
>: reasonably well, while allowing the UNIX kernel to still do things its own
>: efficient way.  Why couldn't this approach be taken for a new OS such as
>: Win95?  You still get better performance under OS/2 or UNIX, on the same
>: equipment, in general.
>
>The compatibility is NOWHERE NEAR as good. How do your DOS device drivers 
>work under emulation? Your Windows apps? How about Doom? 

Under Os/2 you mean? In my dos sessions, all my drivers have worked without
any problems. Though in some cases, Os/2 makes them needless. Don't have to
load my cd-rom drivers in dos session for instance. Load the sound driver for
my Pas-16 card under dos, and it works just fine too. My windows apps? Well
fortunately since I've been using os/2, I've found some really great native os/2
apps, though some of my favourates (coreldraw 3.0) are still windows programs,
and they all run fine under warp. In fact, I've recently purchased MediaHost bbs
software for Win 3.x, and I will be using it to run a graphical multiline
windows-based bbs under OS/2 WARP.

There have been problems with Doom, I'll admit. Mostly only in later releases.
And as far as I can tell, the problem is with the sound code. If you turn sound
off, the game should run. I even had it running in a window once. For the sound
screwups, blame the 3rd party co. ID hired to write the sloppy sound code. Course
if you really must play that now 'old' game, the os/2 version of it with DIVE
support is expected to be released shortly.

Later!
Jeff Klug (Dedicated gamer and OS/2 enthusiast.)

---------------------
Brought to you by Spaghetti Man Software
705-549-6655
---------------------