🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>Well, I went to Best Buy today, intent on checking out OS/2. I 
>was led to a brand new spanking 100 Mhz Pentium IBM, and was 
>demonstrated the ins and outs of OS/2.  I have come to several 
>_personal_ conclusions:
>
>* OS/2 is SLLLLOOOW.  I can do the same stuff in Win95 10 times 
>as fast and that is on a 90 Mhz Pentium! File copying, menu 
>selecting, everything was slower

And how much memory was on the demo system? When I upgradded from
8 MB to 16 MB, i noticed a big difference in how fast OS/2 (almost
night and day).  Try running Win95 with 8 MB and I guarantee it'll be 
slower than a Win95 16 MB system

>* OS/2 doesn't look as good as Win95. The cosmetic appeal is 
>just not there.  

I for one happen to prefer the OS/2 interface cant say much about Win95
but what i've seen and played with from demos of it running at Microcenter, 
i cant stand the win95 look

>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>I am multitasking the following:

>-A file search
>-MS Word
>-Netscape
>-Eudora
>-Slip Connection
>-Virus Shield
>-Powerpoint
>-Visual Basic
>-Free Agent
>-WinZip
>-Paint Shop Pro
>-Solitiare
>-Win-HTTPD Server
>
>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>much much better.

  All that without "any" slowdown, if anyone believs that, I've got a bridge to 
sell you.  And all i'm saying is I like OS/2 much much much better than Win95

 

In article <42q6e2$7...@portal.gmu.edu>,
 <skeith@osf1.gmu.edu@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>
>>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>>I am multitasking the following:
>
>>-A file search
>>-MS Word
>>-Netscape
>>-Eudora
>>-Slip Connection
>>-Virus Shield
>>-Powerpoint
>>-Visual Basic
>>-Free Agent
>>-WinZip
>>-Paint Shop Pro
>>-Solitiare
>>-Win-HTTPD Server
>>
>>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>>much much better.
>
>  All that without "any" slowdown, if anyone believs that, I've got a bridge to
>sell you.  And all i'm saying is I like OS/2 much much much better than Win95
>
I agreed. I have a 486/66 with 12M Ram. The most I could do with Win95 is
running WinWord, Excel, PowerPoint, and two or three small utilities. If I go
more than that, the whole system will slow like hell, the harddisk light will
just never stop. But with OS/2, it's also slow, but at least my harddisk won;t
keep running. I think OS/2 is much better (except from drivers support and 
maybe user interface :> ).

If I were you, I will go for OS/2 instead of Win95 as you have 16M and a P??.


-- 

----------------
Mo Ko
----------------

In article <42q6e2$7...@portal.gmu.edu> skeith@osf1.gmu.edu@osf1.gmu.edu writes:
>From: skeith@osf1.gmu.edu@osf1.gmu.edu
>Subject: Re: Well, after checking out OS/2... Win95 is better
>Date: 8 Sep 1995 19:44:02 GMT

>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>>Well, I went to Best Buy today, intent on checking out OS/2. I 
>>was led to a brand new spanking 100 Mhz Pentium IBM, and was 
>>demonstrated the ins and outs of OS/2.  I have come to several 
>>_personal_ conclusions:
>>
>>* OS/2 is SLLLLOOOW.  I can do the same stuff in Win95 10 times 
>>as fast and that is on a 90 Mhz Pentium! File copying, menu 
>>selecting, everything was slower

>And how much memory was on the demo system? When I upgradded from
>8 MB to 16 MB, i noticed a big difference in how fast OS/2 (almost
>night and day).  Try running Win95 with 8 MB and I guarantee it'll be 
>slower than a Win95 16 MB system

>>* OS/2 doesn't look as good as Win95. The cosmetic appeal is 
>>just not there.  

>I for one happen to prefer the OS/2 interface cant say much about Win95
>but what i've seen and played with from demos of it running at Microcenter, 
>i cant stand the win95 look

>>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>>I am multitasking the following:

>>-A file search
>>-MS Word
>>-Netscape
>>-Eudora
>>-Slip Connection
>>-Virus Shield
>>-Powerpoint
>>-Visual Basic
>>-Free Agent
>>-WinZip
>>-Paint Shop Pro
>>-Solitiare
>>-Win-HTTPD Server
>>
>>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>>much much better.

>  All that without "any" slowdown, if anyone believs that, I've got a bridge to 
>sell you.  And all i'm saying is I like OS/2 much much much better than Win95

You can keep your bridge...I tried a similar test that this fellow did on my 
P75-16M and he's right, there is no noticeable slowdown...you don't have to 
like it, but it's a fact...sell that bridge to another OS/2 user.

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Well, I went to Best Buy today, intent on checking out OS/2. I 
: was led to a brand new spanking 100 Mhz Pentium IBM, and was 
: demonstrated the ins and outs of OS/2.  I have come to several 
: _personal_ conclusions:
1. That you're posting to the wrong newsgroup.
2. That we just had a major flamewar over endless Windows/OS/2 threads, 
and the nearly  universal opinion is that as gamers, we don't care.
3. There is no third thing.

: Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
: that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
: much much better.
Well great. Um, how does this bear on computer gaming again? Now if 
somebody wanted to debate the merits of running GAMES under various OSs, 
it would still be boring but at least it would be on topic :).
								-Dr.23
-- 
"The truth of a proposition has nothing      |         
to do with its credibility. And vice         |       doct...@iglou.com
versa." -Lazarus Long                        | 

In article <DEnqw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> mc...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Mo Ko) writes:
>From: mc...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Mo Ko)
>Subject: Re: Well, after checking out OS/2... Win95 is better
>Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 21:41:05 GMT

>In article <42q6e2$7...@portal.gmu.edu>,
> <skeith@osf1.gmu.edu@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>>
>>>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>>>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>>>I am multitasking the following:
>>
>>>-A file search
>>>-MS Word
>>>-Netscape
>>>-Eudora
>>>-Slip Connection
>>>-Virus Shield
>>>-Powerpoint
>>>-Visual Basic
>>>-Free Agent
>>>-WinZip
>>>-Paint Shop Pro
>>>-Solitiare
>>>-Win-HTTPD Server
>>>
>>>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>>>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>>>much much better.
>>
>>  All that without "any" slowdown, if anyone believs that, I've got a bridge to
>>sell you.  And all i'm saying is I like OS/2 much much much better than Win95
>>
>I agreed. I have a 486/66 with 12M Ram. The most I could do with Win95 is
>running WinWord, Excel, PowerPoint, and two or three small utilities. If I go
>more than that, the whole system will slow like hell, the harddisk light will
>just never stop. But with OS/2, it's also slow, but at least my harddisk won;t
>keep running. I think OS/2 is much better (except from drivers support and 
>maybe user interface :> ).

>If I were you, I will go for OS/2 instead of Win95 as you have 16M and a P??.


>-- 

>----------------
>Mo Ko
>----------------

Hey Mo, Don't know what your setup was on Win95 but it doesn't exhibit what 
I've experienced.  I'd be interested to know what your win95 setup was and try 
to figure out why yours does what mine doesn't...it could be that extra 4 megs 
I have.  I would like to commend you on at least trying it...through all these 
OS discussions, I've found one thing to be prevalent...Most OS/2 users haven't 
tried Win95 on their own computers, but most Win95 users HAVE tried OS/2.  I 
tried OS/2 2.1 AND Warp, TWICE, and the bottom line is it never got anywhere 
near to working the way I wanted it to for games.  It also made my music 
printing software COMPLETELY unusable, and since music is my livelihood, there 
was no choice but to ditch it.  Removing OS/2 was no bed of roses, either...at 
least I can click a applet that uninstalls Win95...for OS/2 the only recourse 
I found was a much simpler dos command....:Format c:

Steve

>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:

>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>I am multitasking the following:

>-A file search
>-MS Word
>-Netscape
>-Eudora
>-Slip Connection
>-Virus Shield
>-Powerpoint
>-Visual Basic
>-Free Agent
>-WinZip
>-Paint Shop Pro
>-Solitiare
>-Win-HTTPD Server

>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>much much better.

Are you actually multitasking or just task switching?  i.e. Are those 
programs in the backround actually doing anything?  I find it very
doubtfull that all those programs are actually doing something.


sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (Steve C. Brown) writes:

>OS discussions, I've found one thing to be prevalent...Most OS/2 users haven't 
>tried Win95 on their own computers, but most Win95 users HAVE tried OS/2.  I 

I am satisfied with OS/2 as my OS.  Why should I screw up my
whole system, not to mention shelling out $100, just to try Win95?
And your claim that most Win95 users have tried OS/2 is total FUD.

-- 
      Jason  Hardt           'Meek and obedient you follow the leader,
to...@expert.cc.purdue.edu        Down well-trodden corridors 
       Team OS/2                  Into the valley of steel'
     Mithril Dragon  -==(UDIC)==-   

In article <42vdcb$a...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> to...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jason Hardt) writes:
>From: to...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jason Hardt)
>Subject: Re: Well, after checking out OS/2... Win95 is better
>Date: 10 Sep 1995 19:13:15 GMT

>>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:

>>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
>>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
>>I am multitasking the following:

>>-A file search
>>-MS Word
>>-Netscape
>>-Eudora
>>-Slip Connection
>>-Virus Shield
>>-Powerpoint
>>-Visual Basic
>>-Free Agent
>>-WinZip
>>-Paint Shop Pro
>>-Solitiare
>>-Win-HTTPD Server

>>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
>>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
>>much much better.

>Are you actually multitasking or just task switching?  i.e. Are those 
>programs in the backround actually doing anything?  I find it very
>doubtfull that all those programs are actually doing something.


>sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (Steve C. Brown) writes:

>>OS discussions, I've found one thing to be prevalent...Most OS/2 users haven't 
>>tried Win95 on their own computers, but most Win95 users HAVE tried OS/2.  I 

>I am satisfied with OS/2 as my OS.  Why should I screw up my
>whole system, not to mention shelling out $100, just to try Win95?
>And your claim that most Win95 users have tried OS/2 is total FUD.

Oh really? Would adding Win95 to your oh so stable OS/2 screw up your system?  
Not so stable I guess.

Listen pal, I don't give a tinkers damn in hell WHAT OS you use.  If you like 
OS/2, good for you...have fun.  Win95 has better games support, works out of 
the box, and right now with two 16 bit apps running, I still have 94% system 
resources, 94% user resources, and 98% gdi resources.  See those numbers? 
They're called FACTS!  Know how I compare those facts with OS/2?  I tried 
both so that my opinion would be at least partially valid based on experience 
and not on the fact that I'm petrified that somebody else's OS has a bigger 
dick thean mine.  If you're not even going to TRY Win95 then why discuss it?

Oh, and a last little suggestion, please don't put my name and e-mail address 
under what somebody else writes.  If you're going to respond to me, snip the 
part that the other guys wrote and leave the part that I wrote in.  That's 
just basic netiquette.

Steve

In message <42vdcb$a...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> - to...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jason H
ardt) writes:
:>
:>>In <DEIBG...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
:>
:>>OS/2 may be more robust, but Win95 sure has it's qualities. I 
:>>mean, what is a power user?  I am running a P90 with 16MB, and 
:>>I am multitasking the following:
:>
:>>-A file search
:>>-MS Word
:>>-Netscape
:>>-Eudora
:>>-Slip Connection
:>>-Virus Shield
:>>-Powerpoint
:>>-Visual Basic
:>>-Free Agent
:>>-WinZip
:>>-Paint Shop Pro
:>>-Solitiare
:>>-Win-HTTPD Server
:>
:>>Without _any_ slowdown... So, if a "power user" uses more then 
:>>that, please let me know.  What I'm saying is, I like Win95 
:>>much much better.
:>
:>Are you actually multitasking or just task switching?  i.e. Are those 
:>programs in the backround actually doing anything?  I find it very
:>doubtfull that all those programs are actually doing something.

Absolutely not!  W95 does not multitask 16 bit apps.  Those background 
programs are doing very little, if anything,(unless they are all W95 native 
32 bit apps, of course). 


However, if W95 meets your needs and you are happy with it, by all means 
stick with it; hey, that is the power of choice!  ;)

Myself, I will stay with OS/2 Warp; IBM is coming out with some exciting 
things (Warp Connect, Warp Server Beta) and there are more ISV's getting 
interested in providing quality apps/utilities than ever, AND I have some 
great DOS and Windows 16 bit apps that benefit from OS/2's memory management 
and premptive multitasking. I'll stay, thanks!!

merr...@nyquist.ee.ualberta.ca       "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
Shaun P. Merrigan                        
3rd Year EE
University of Alberta                     -Cyberdyne Systems T800 Model 101 Terminator 
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (Steve C. Brown) writes:

>Oh really? Would adding Win95 to your oh so stable OS/2 screw up your system?  
>Not so stable I guess.

OS/2's stability is not in question.  I've read reports of Win95 screwing
up Boot Manager...purely by accident, of course.  Most of my HD is
formatted for HPFS anyway.

>Listen pal, I don't give a tinkers damn in hell WHAT OS you use.  If you like 
>OS/2, good for you...have fun.  Win95 has better games support, works out of 
>the box, and right now with two 16 bit apps running, I still have 94% system 
>resources, 94% user resources, and 98% gdi resources.  See those numbers? 

Win95 can only pre-emptively multitask 16 bit apps.  Basically all
you're doing is task switching...with an increadibly high overhead, of
course.  Why buy Win95 just so you can run 16 bit apps?  Better games
support?  There's only 1 (Pitfall) that I know of.  The rest are just vapor.
But I guess Win95 users are used to vapor after waiting YEARS to finally
get their "OS".  And finally OS/2 installed beautifully on my machine.
No problems whatsoever.

>dick thean mine.  If you're not even going to TRY Win95 then why discuss it?

I HAVE tried Win95, just not on my computer and not for very long.  What's
the point.  Win95 is a step backwards...compared to OS/2 (and Mac's for
that matter) but I'm sure Windows users are just gushing over all the
"new" features.

-- 
      Jason  Hardt           'Meek and obedient you follow the leader,
to...@expert.cc.purdue.edu        Down well-trodden corridors 
       Team OS/2                  Into the valley of steel'
     Mithril Dragon  -==(UDIC)==-   

In <sbrown.66...@new-orleans.neosoft.com>, sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (Steve C. Brown) writes:

>Oh really? Would adding Win95 to your oh so stable OS/2 screw up your system?  
>Not so stable I guess.

    No, here is fact.  Win95 has destroyed many DOS only systems because of
its install.  Microsoft helplines have been ringing off the hook because of
Windows95.  I bet the OS/2 operators are yawning.  OS/2 WARP ran right out of
the box for me.

>the box, and right now with two 16 bit apps running, I still have 94% system 
>resources, 94% user resources, and 98% gdi resources.  See those numbers? 
>They're called FACTS!

    Really?  I can get 3 different CPU monitors for OS/2 and Windows and each
will read something different.

>dick thean mine.  If you're not even going to TRY Win95 then why discuss it?

    I've tried it.  I've also read up on its faults, something you have not.
If it were the case, you'd not have to resort to insults as a final defense.


>part that the other guys wrote and leave the part that I wrote in.  That's 
>just basic netiquette.

    And not insulting another is also basic netiquette.

Steve 'Rava' Lamb - PGP 1024/1DE8B981 | My thoughts, my actions are my own.
            The Underground           | I need not worry if others do not
 Anime - RPG - Doors - Babylon 5 - etc| like them.  For they are me, there
BBS: (916) 631-8743  2400-v.FAST 28.8k| is no changing that.
BBS2: (916) 631-8653  2400-v.32b 14.4k| ------------[Team OS/2]------------

>    No, here is fact.  Win95 has destroyed many DOS only systems because of
>its install.  Microsoft helplines have been ringing off the hook because of
>Windows95.  I bet the OS/2 operators are yawning.  OS/2 WARP ran right out of
>the box for me.

         You've got to be kidding.  Win95 "destroyed many DOS only
systems"???  Where did you get this, your little OS/2 kids club team
or whatever you call it?  The #1 reason OS/2 operators are yawning: 
       
                    Only 6 people got suckered into buying it. 

--Evan

In <431co2$3...@cocoa.brown.edu>, Evan_M...@brown.edu (Evan) writes:

>         You've got to be kidding.  Win95 "destroyed many DOS only
>systems"???  Where did you get this, your little OS/2 kids club team
>or whatever you call it?  The #1 reason OS/2 operators are yawning: 

    CBS news, at the same time they reported that Microsoft was getting 2k
calls per hour because of Windows95.  Two major reasons, it wouldn't install
and when they tried to back out of it the partition they were installing over
was gone.

Steve 'Rava' Lamb - PGP 1024/1DE8B981 | My thoughts, my actions are my own.
            The Underground           | I need not worry if others do not
 Anime - RPG - Doors - Babylon 5 - etc| like them.  For they are me, there
BBS: (916) 631-8743  2400-v.FAST 28.8k| is no changing that.
BBS2: (916) 631-8653  2400-v.32b 14.4k| ------------[Team OS/2]------------

In article <432qbs$g...@calweb.calweb.com>,  <morp...@calweb.com> wrote:
>In <431co2$3...@cocoa.brown.edu>, Evan_M...@brown.edu (Evan) writes:
>
>>         You've got to be kidding.  Win95 "destroyed many DOS only
>>systems"???  Where did you get this, your little OS/2 kids club team
>>or whatever you call it?  The #1 reason OS/2 operators are yawning: 
>
>    CBS news, at the same time they reported that Microsoft was getting 2k
>calls per hour because of Windows95.  Two major reasons, it wouldn't install
>and when they tried to back out of it the partition they were installing over
>was gone.
>
>Steve 'Rava' Lamb - PGP 1024/1DE8B981 | My thoughts, my actions are my own.
>            The Underground           | I need not worry if others do not
> Anime - RPG - Doors - Babylon 5 - etc| like them.  For they are me, there
>BBS: (916) 631-8743  2400-v.FAST 28.8k| is no changing that.
>BBS2: (916) 631-8653  2400-v.32b 14.4k| ------------[Team OS/2]------------
>
>

What I never understood was why Windows 95 has to mess with the master
boot record?  Doesn't it first load the same files as DOS does (talking
about the upgrade version).  It made Linux unavailable to me until
I loaded up my linux boot disk and reran LILO.  Annoying.  Oh well.  Seems
like a conspiracy to me.  Since Windows 95 runs just fine from a Linux
created MBR (which doesn't know anything about Win 95, just DOS), it seems
silly for Win 95 to mess with it, unless they want to destroy other
operating systems.  I heard that some OS/2 have more trouble with this
problem, especially those using boot manager.  It should at the very least
ask you if you want to do this...   I can see it messing with it in the
Full version (since you have nothing on your drive), but not an upgrade 
version.

Still I enjoy Windows 95 a lot, since I can now almost every game I have
in it, though there are a few that absolutely won't, and Linux still hasn't
gotten to the point that it has great dos compatiblity.



Happily running Linux and Win 95,

Steven

Evan (Evan_M...@brown.edu) wrote:
> >    No, here is fact.  Win95 has destroyed many DOS only systems because of
> >its install.  Microsoft helplines have been ringing off the hook because of
> >Windows95.  I bet the OS/2 operators are yawning.  OS/2 WARP ran right out of
> >the box for me.
>          You've got to be kidding.  Win95 "destroyed many DOS only
> systems"???  Where did you get this, your little OS/2 kids club team
> or whatever you call it?

Don't know how many, but Win95 did make my C: drive unreadable right
after install.  Just think how I feel after Win95 don't boot,
startup-disk boot but UNINSTALL or FDISK or SCANDISK cannot do
anything.  Finally I swap the floppy drive in the CMOS setup and boot
from my old 5.25" disk of DOS 6.00 which I made years ago and happen
to have Norton Disk Doctor on it.  NDD fix my 1st FAT, and Win95
finally boot from my C:.  Without NDD I will have to reformat my C:.

>  The #1 reason OS/2 operators are yawning: 

Don't know about OS/2 -- never use it before.  Right now I only know
that Win95 is quite bad.  BTW how to make Master of Orion run under Win95
without reboot to "DOS mode"?

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