🚀 go-pugleaf

Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
: DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
: games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
: work...

: Well think again... For a while I thought I *had* to run all my DOS programs
: in a window and realized that eventhough most normal games would still
: work (X-COM 2, Doom, etc...) other wouldn't (System Shock, Wing
: Commander III, etc...). A little bummed out, I read the (great) help file and
: finally realized that you can actually allocate all your computer
: resources to your DOS programs... After a normal installation of the
: game (any) in a DOS box, you can go to the Windows Explorer (Win95's
: file manager), select the .exe program of the game, chose properties
: and then chose to run it as a DOS program... Now, the "neat" feature
: is that you can assign a different config.sys and autoexec.bat to
: *each* program... That's great because you can finally easily optimize
: each settings...

: Of course, it took a little twitching for some games (WC3 was a little
: hard for me), but once it's done, it works flawlessly... 

: There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...

: Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)

: PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: I tried it and didn't like it...

	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
time.
--
Kevin Hurley
Alexandria, VA

Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:

: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: : I tried it and didn't like it...

: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
: time.

Bullshit.  OS/2 sucks for games, period.  I have tried Warp, and DOS 
games do not want to run.  So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere 
near as well as Windows 95.  Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has 
also been doing the same thing.  

OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.

Jef

Oh yeah, it has to be true.  I read it in PC Gamer.  They're
the definitive source of all things true!!!!

(If you couldn't figure it, that was sarcasm)

sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Fulcrum Brown
University of Washington


On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Mark Bassett wrote:

> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim: 17-Apr-95 Re:
> Win95 and games: good n.. by Derek Suzuki@ocf.berkele 
> > >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
> > >right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
> 
> Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
> Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
> compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
> better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??
> 
> Mark
> 
> 

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim: 17-Apr-95 Re:
Win95 and games: good n.. by Derek Suzuki@ocf.berkele 
> >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
> >right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.

Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??

Mark

In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>: time.
	The way I read the original post, he was referring to Win95's
"Ultimate Compatibility Mode".  This is basically an automated equivalent
of Warp's dualboot feature.  It saves the state of the OS, sends you back to
real DOS, then reloads the OS from disk.  There is also the option to run
games in DOS boxes, which is more what you had in mind.

>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.
	Most of the DOS settings should be the same for any game.  You can
just copy one of the built-in game objects to get mostly optimal settings.
As for separate config files, you can assign a list of drivers and TSRs to
each individual program object.  All of the stuff you would normally set in a
text file is accessible through the settings dialog.

>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
	Sigh, at least you didn't use the term "ROOLZ".  Anyway, even the
MS crowd says that NT is the future.

Derek
drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu

Did you notice any speed loss?

> 
> PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
> I tried it and didn't like it...
> 

Oh-Shit/2 is great, if you don't need sound for your programs.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
                    Scott Alter    sca...@crl.com   
                         San Antonio, Texas    
                 I'm so conservative I even press my socks...
 ___________________________________________________________________________

Fuck OS/2.  OS/2 is going to be dead. I've had so many bad expeiriences with warp it's not even   
funny.  ANd yes, Win95 is alot faster for games then OS/2.  OS/2 offers all the "amizing   
multitasking ability" for those who want to myltitask wordperfect and internet.  Its not for games 
 
Jon

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
> Fuck OS/2.  OS/2 is going to be dead. 

OS/2 is going to be dead?  Win95 isn't even out yet, and you already
know that OS/2 is going to be dead?  Hmmm....I seem to remember the
same threat with WinNT....I also seem to remember a History teacher of
mine saying that history repeats itself.....

> I've had so many bad expeiriences with warp it's not even   
> funny.  

I must be doing something wrong, I have never had a problem.  My guess
is that you either have weird hardware, a Diamond video card (until
recently they refused to write drivers, and they told IBM that they
would sue if they tried to write one), or you don't know what you are
doing.  OS/2 isn't for everyone, it does require a certain knowledge
of how the computer runs.  Once you get past all those settings,
though, OS/2 is the best thing out there.

> ANd yes, Win95 is alot faster for games then OS/2.  OS/2 offers all
> the "amizing multitasking ability" for those who want to myltitask
> wordperfect and internet.  Its not for games 

Faster for games, eh?  Descent runs faster and smoother under OS/2
than under DOS.  Same for Doom (no sound, I hate that), and Dark
Forces.  I haven't really compared them with Win95 yet, I am still
trying to figure out how to get two Windows apps to multitask (so far
they are slower than under Win3.1 whether I am multitasking or running
them all by themselves).  Win95 should run DOS programs about as well
as OS/2 though.  

Wordperfect and Internet?  Oh, come on, surely you can see why that
would be nice.  For instance, you are downloading a big file from
somewhere.  Under Windows, you can multitask (get a cup of coffee,
watch some TV, maybe even take a nap), or you can multitask under OS/2
(type that research paper you have been putting off, play some Dark
Forces, or whatever you want to do).  

OS/2 may not be for everyone, but it can run games fairly well.
Disclaimer:  I have 20MB of RAM on my 486SX-33, so that may explain
why I can get it faster than under DOS, but it is still pretty quick
on a friends computer with 8MB.  

If you want to stay with a 64K heap, 16bit device drivers, FAT
filesystem (multiple directory entries to emulate long filenames), and
the DOS kernel, and you really don't want to multitask anything, then
I wholehardedly recomend Win95.
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

  It's amazing how loudly people are willing to proclaim
their ignorance about a subject and pronounce OS/2
dead and Win95 the future.

  If you want your various points about OS/2 DOS support shot down,
please post to the OS/2 advocacy groups, not here.

  Actually, I'm sure that Microsoft by now knows that
Win95 is a complete DEAD END and their future lies in NT and
future variants thereof... but you won't seem them
acknowledging that just yet!

In <D77DB...@cdf.toronto.edu>, a260...@cdf.toronto.edu (Galasso Emilio N) writes:

>Games run exceptionally well under Windows 95... but I never really had any
>trouble running games under OS/2 either.  I do find they run faster under
>Windows 95 (Doom and Dark Forces feel just as smooth as under DOS in my
>opinion... though their loading times are increased by quite a bit).  On the
>other hand, background file transfers are easily affected by games under
>Windows 95 whereas OS/2 mananged to keep the transfers going strong... though
>games did run a little "choppier".  Nonetheless, I don't know of any decent
>32-bit Win95 terminal programs so it's probably not fair to compare 
>multitasking a 16-bit Windows term program to a native 32-bit OS/2 term
>program (Procomm and Livewire in this case).

The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM.  OS/2 does.  It's
possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
it's not your term program man, it's the OS.  Windows 95 does simple
rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
did.  It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
no control over it.

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>
>: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>: : I tried it and didn't like it...
>
>: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>: time.

 [snip]


>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

  This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy. 

BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
statements for *E A C H* DOS session.


==========================================================================
Simon Chung		Go Canucks Go!
sch...@Direct.CA        Equipe d'OS/deux

Q: How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?    
		    	 
A: 563. Four to announce the news to the press 2 years in advance, 400 to 
   design a new plug'n'play 32-bit version of the light bulb, 150 to 
   supervise 2,000 beta testers for the 8 months, 8 to announce the install-
   ation of the bulb will be four months late, and one to change it. 
==========================================================================

Windows 95 runs all your favorite Windows 3.1 stuff and
more better and faster.  Trust me, I know from experience.
Those OS/2 Fanatics will say anything to desperatly save
their Doomed! Operating System.  Windows 95 also runs all
your DOS applications better and faster too.  And the
interface kicks rear.

Windows 95 is the future.
Fulcrum Brown
University of Washington


On 18 Apr 1995, Baphometae Organus wrote:

> . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
> : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> : pointless to argue with them.
> 
> : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> : sloughing in their so called os/2
> :  systems.
> 
> I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
> programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
> would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
> 
> 
> 
> 

In <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu> jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu (Baphometae
Organus) writes: 

>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? 
>I would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...

A truly scaly lie that would be. :)  As a matter of fact, it's the
backward compatibility (with 16-bit Windows apps) that's generating
some of the stick points that people love to harp on with Win95.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways.  If you want
backward-compatibility, then don't complain about the results of such
compatibility, ya know? :)

Fear not.. with VERY few exceptions, your Win3.1 apps will work fine
with Win95 (some work better, and with far fewer faults).


Rich
-- 
>==============================================<
>  Rich D. <        /                          <
>----------<    O===[=Excalibur Dragon====-    <
>                   \                          <
>   R E D J r @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m      <
>  Excalibur Systems   <*>    -==(UDIC)==-     <
>----------------------------------------------<
> "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and  <
> pass, leaving memories that become legend.." <
>==============================================<

In article <3n0cl0$j...@nuscc.nus.sg>, law3...@leonis.nus.sg (NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS) says:
>
>I had a very bad experience with os/2 because of the increadibilily slow 
>performance in running windows 16bit applications. I just couldn't stand 
>it. To make matters worse, boot manager didn't work with my system 
>because there was a problem between fdisk and my harddisk.
>

   That's funny, it seems to be running fine for me, and I am one who
demands speed and reliability using the same standards I apply to 
Sun SPARC/DEC Alpha workstation. Maybe all you need are some tweaks,
e.g. setting the cache, swap device, getting more RAM, using HPFS, etc..
I must confess, though, raw DOS/Windows is much faster...of course, then
there are boot disk, CONFIG.SYS issues, running out of memory (on a 48MB
machine!), an average 'necessary reboot count' of about 8 per day, etc.,
but for the purpose of gaming, I guess that really isn't an issue!

>I could go on for days about the problems I had with oS/2 but to make 
>this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in 
>stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first 
>priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. 

   Hmm...I'll sit on Win95. Speed is not of utmost priority!  What good
is a sorting algorithm (for instance) that is fastest but works only 80%
of the time? Regarding B/W compatibility, some sacrifice is necessary to
advance the state of the art; this rabid insistence on backward compati-
bility (I have witnessed since IBM XT first came out) due mostly to those
business types resisting change is why we have a lot of trouble of late.
Most notably, the patchwork quilt and house of cards nature of Windows.

>I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
>sloughing in their so called os/2
>systems.
>

   If it does what you need it to, more power! Personally, I was unim-
pressed by Windows NT.


Best Regards,


  +----------+
  | ________ |    Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
  | \      / |    Department of High Energy Physics
  |  \    /  |    California State University
  |   \  /   |
  |    \/    |     COMING TO YOU FROM WONDERFUL WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
  | USA   G  |    WHERE THE MEN ARE PRETTY AND THE WOMEN ARE STRONG
  +----------+

 
> 
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1  
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I  
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games... 
> 
> 
Windows 95 latest Premier Demo Beta version for general release does not   
support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX   
compatable.  However, this is a preview version only and not the full   
Beta or the final version. 
 
The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and   
furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements   
to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code. 
 
Anyway, the reviews say that it will run faster than OS2.X with less   
memory, especially when running 16 bit software. 
 
See ya 
 
*	* 
    - 
 ------- 
    - 
bye 
/DM ;-) 

Dave Morris <dmo...@globalx.net: writes:


:Windows 95 latest Premier Demo Beta version for general release does not   
:support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX   
:compatable.  However, this is a preview version only and not the full   
:Beta or the final version. 

Are you really SURE ? I had about 10 different Win 95 betas up to now and NONE
of them (and none I ever heard of) doesn't support 16bit Windows apps. 99.8%
of all old Windows apps should run on Win 95.
Maybe you are talking about the SDK that comes with the Win95 CD, which
is the Win 32 API SDK only. But of course you can use any 16bit Windows
compiler to develop 16bit applications that run on Windows 95.
 
:The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and   
:furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements   
:to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code. 

No, GDi is partially 16bit and partially 32bit. User is mainly 16bit, while
Kernel is mainly 32bit. (Of course you can call all of them using only 32bit
or only 16bit calls. The system just thunks to the other side).
 
Regards,
Steffen

What type SPARCstation? (What speed were the simms?)
	--Ken Mitton
	mit...@bvsd.k12.co.us
===============================================
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
 Drink deeply, or taste not the Pierian spring." 
			-- Alexander Pope

			WHAT???

>. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
>: hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
>: pointless to argue with them.

>: I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
>: sloughing in their so called os/2
>:  systems.

>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...


No, this is not the case. I have been running under Windows 95 for quite a 
while now, and have not had any compatibility issues. All of my Win31 programs 
(with a few exceptions for specialty applications) work just fine.

Craig Sparks
Norton Utilities for Win95 Support
Symantec Corp

> > I've had so many bad expeiriences with warp it's not even   
> > funny.  
> 
> I must be doing something wrong, I have never had a problem.  My guess
> is that you either have weird hardware, a Diamond video card (until
> recently they refused to write drivers, and they told IBM that they
> would sue if they tried to write one), or you don't know what you are

You don't need them anyway there are high colour S3 drivers in there 
anyway which work perfectly with my Diamond Stealth.

-- 
Mark Rogers.  ** Bug Free = Super FPU f*** to Tony **  *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *

In <3n1932$c...@csc.mc.edu>, swil...@csc.mc.edu (Stephen Wilhelm) writes:
> Win95 should run DOS programs about as well
>as OS/2 though.  

It doesn't.  Windows 95, according to the information I have (a comparison
chart of features of OS/2 and Windows 95), runs all 16 bit programs in the
same address space.  So, programs may run as fast or faster than OS/2,
but Win95 shares the same inherent structural flaws as Win 3.1 - the crash
of a single program will bring down every single 16 bit program you're
running at the time, and possibly the whole system.

So, is this running DOS programs as well as OS/2?  Given the notorious
instability of many DOS and Windows apps., it's not better in my opinion.


//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

Mark Bassett <mb...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
>Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
>compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
>better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??

GalCiv is good.  I'll even say that it is great.  However, one game does
not make an operating system great.  Any other good games for OS/2?

/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Lord Soth <c...@aimnet.com>  ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/lordsoth        |
| Check out my ftp directories for X-Wing and TIE Fighter stuff!             |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/

drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu   (Derek Suzuki) wrote:

>>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>>right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
>	Sigh, at least you didn't use the term "ROOLZ".  Anyway, even the
>MS crowd says that NT is the future.

While I won't restate my opinion about the operating system wars (God knows
how many times I've repeated myself), I will say that NT will never be the
future until everybody has P6's.  It has a serious speed deficiency, and
probably won't be able to compete with MS' own Win95.

/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Lord Soth <c...@aimnet.com>  ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/lordsoth        |
| Check out my ftp directories for X-Wing and TIE Fighter stuff!             |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/

: The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
: the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM.  OS/2 does.  It's
: possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
: 95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
: luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
: it's not your term program man, it's the OS.  Windows 95 does simple
: rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
: did.  It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
: no control over it.

So are you saying I wasn't just multitasking Dark Forces with Telix 
earlier tonight?  I could have SWORN I was.  Amazing.  This guy sounds 
like he hasn't even used Win95.

Jeff

In <3n26k9$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>
>: The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
>: the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM.  OS/2 does.  It's
>: possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
>: 95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
>: luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
>: it's not your term program man, it's the OS.  Windows 95 does simple
>: rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
>: did.  It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
>: no control over it.
>
>So are you saying I wasn't just multitasking Dark Forces with Telix 
>earlier tonight?  I could have SWORN I was.  Amazing.  This guy sounds 
>like he hasn't even used Win95.
>
>Jeff

Well I've already pointed out the specific mistake I've made, but I'd like
to publicly make one other point:  usage of a product has nothing to do
with product design and mechanics.  I don't need to drive a car to know
it has a 6 cylinder engine, do I?  I don't need to use Win95 to know it
doesn't multitask 16 bit Windows programs, either.

I'd also like to point out publicly, just so everyone else realizes it, that
switching back and forth between programs is NOT true multitasking
(preemptive multitasking).  Saying you were running DF and Telix at
the same time says nothing.  Of course, you WERE multitasking them, but
this conclusion isn't drawn from the statement you just made; it's drawn
from the publicly disclosed design of the OS.  In other words, in this area 
at least, my knowledge of Win95 without even having used it is greater 
than yours using it every day.  I don't think you should be calling anyone
else computer illiterate (in a previous post)...

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

sch...@Direct.CA wrote:
: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
: >Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
: >
: >: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: >: : I tried it and didn't like it...
: >
: >: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
: >: time.

:  [snip]


: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
: >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

:   This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy. 

: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.


ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!!  You people have NO CLUE!!!  I can't belive how many 
people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95.  I can 
write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM.  I have 
done it, and it works well.  Please stop spreading untruths about Win95 
when you have not used it yet.  Better yet, get a clue.  You are making 
the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.

Jeff

In article <3n26v0$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
   jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) wrote:
>sch...@Direct.CA wrote:
>: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee 
Woodall) writes:
>: >Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>: >: : I tried it and didn't like it...
>: >
>: >: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>: >: time.
>
>:  [snip]
>
>
>: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>: >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>:   This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy. 

(Oh! If only!)

>
>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>
>ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!!  You people have NO CLUE!!!  I can't belive how many 
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95.  I can 
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM.  I have 
>done it, and it works well.  Please stop spreading untruths about Win95 
>when you have not used it yet.  Better yet, get a clue.  You are making 
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.

I've actually used both OS's and they both seem great - both allowing  
separate configurations for DOS programs, both multi-tasking very well, both 
support Win3.1x applications...  but I think the real question we should be 
asking here is:

   "WHY THE F**K IS THIS STUPID SLAGGING MATCH TAKING PLACE ON THIS FORUM?"

Just thought I'd ask.  Now PISS off :).



David Green ......................... David...@Abacus.org.uk
                                      Gr...@Criterion.canon.co.uk

              "Games:  Networked or nothing!"

   "If you don't have the green, you can't make the scene"

In <3n26v0$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:

>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>
>ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!!  You people have NO CLUE!!!  I can't belive how many 
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95.  I can 
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM.  I have 
>done it, and it works well.  Please stop spreading untruths about Win95 
>when you have not used it yet.  Better yet, get a clue.  You are making 
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.
>
>Jeff

No.  Read what you're replying to.  He said, "for each DOS SESSION."  The
question posed was whether or not Win95 let you customize startup files
for each dos SESSION, not for each dos PROGRAM.  Let me put it to you
again (and *I* am asking now, seriously, I am not saying Win95 does
this or doesn't do it because I don't know and I want to):  Does Windows
95 allow you to run separate DOS SESSIONS concurrently with different
startup options?  In other words, can you run Dark Forces with 8 megs
of DPMI AT THE SAME TIME as running Aces Over Europe with 16 megs
of EMS on a system with 8 megs of total RAM?  This is the question that
nobody has answered yet.

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

In <3n26v0$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>sch...@Direct.CA wrote:
>: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>: >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>:   This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy. 
>
>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!!  You people have NO CLUE!!!  I can't belive how many 
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95.  I can 
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM.  I have 
>done it, and it works well.  Please stop spreading untruths about Win95 
>when you have not used it yet.  Better yet, get a clue.  You are making 
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.

 Perhaps you would like to *reread* my post.   I wasn't flaming Windows 95;
I was merely correcting a statement you had posted earlier saying that OS/2 
did not allow users to "sit down and write separate config.sys and 
autoexec.bats for each DOS program". Does it say anywhere in my post that 
Windows 95 could not do this?

>
>Jeff


======================================================================
Simon Chung 		Go Canucks Go!           
sch...@Direct.CA	Equipe D'OS/deux

Q: How many MS tech supports does it take to change a light bulb?
A: "The light bulb doesn't work? You must be using a non-standard light 
   socket."

Q: How many IBM tech writers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 100. Ten to do it, and 90 to write document number GC7500439-0001
   "Multitasking Incandescent Source System Facility".
=====================================================================

sch...@Direct.CA wrote:

:  Perhaps you would like to *reread* my post.   I wasn't flaming Windows 95;
: I was merely correcting a statement you had posted earlier saying that OS/2 
: did not allow users to "sit down and write separate config.sys and 
: autoexec.bats for each DOS program". Does it say anywhere in my post that 
: Windows 95 could not do this?

Hey, maybe you should re-read my posts.  I never said OS/2 couldn't do that.
I've used Warp, and I am fully aware of its capabilities.

Jeff

In article <3mvrda$q...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
> In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
> 
> >Bullshit.  OS/2 sucks for games, period.  I have tried Warp, and DOS 
> >games do not want to run.  So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere 
> >near as well as Windows 95.  Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has 
> >also been doing the same thing.  
> 
> Windows 3.1 can run about 0.1% of the DOS games OS/2 can.  The only reason
[snip]

Agreed.  I was quite pleased how easy it was to set up games to run under
OS/2.

> 
> By the way, here are the games I play under Warp, with no problems
> whatsoever caused by Warp itself (other than the overhead, which is inherent
> in any 32 bit OS):  Aces Over Europe, Dark Forces, Flight Simulator 5.0,

[snipped list]

...System Shock, Battle Isle 2, Descent, Frontier, Tie Fighter and many more.
(Just to add some of my own.)


> >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
> >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.
> 
> Ooooooh yes it does.  In fact, it lets you specify whatever files you want

Yep.  You can give different memory settings, or if your program's REALLY
picky, you can give it a boot disc or a "virtual" boot disc file.

> >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
> >right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
> 
> I don't disagree, actually, that Windows 95 is the future, and that OS/2 may
> be dead due to nothing but industry standards.  But as a wise man once said,
> "being in the majority only means most others agree with you; it does not
> mean you are right."  OS/2 is technically a better OS than any Windows
> product; always has been and still is (Windows 95 does NOT multitask 16
> bit programs, for instance, nor does it run them in their own separate VDM's).
> If Windows 95 takes over the world, as I, just like you, expect it to, it
> has nothing to do with the stability, power, or features of the OS.  It has
> to do with simple brainwashing, nothing more.

[snip]

I've got my Archimedes at home.  In 1987 when it can out it had a 32-bit
multitasking OS.  It could outrun any PC at the time, and had built-in
support for high-resolution monitors (1152x878 I think), and an 8-bit stereo
sound system.  Nobody bought them.  Why?  "Cos it's not industry standard."
Industry standard's a bullshit term for people in procurement who don't want
to think for a living.  If people were to take systems and OSs on their
relative merits then we'd see good, innovative systems emerging (like
the Archimedes) and actually being used by people.  As it is, Microcack have
the world brainwashed into thinking you can't use a computer unless you have
Winbollocks, which sudddenly makes things so easy, the computer does
everything itself; and Inblob have people thinking that if you don't have
one of their CPU's inside it's not going to work with any software, but if
you do, your 'puter's going to take on a life of it's own and be really
interesting and lifelike.  Crap.  They just have a bigger marketing budget
than everyone else.

If you made it this far, well done.  Now can you tell me how to get
the Strike Commander/Privateer CD to work under OS/2.  It's the only game
I've tried that's failed.

Bye,

Martin.

...welp, here are my experiences with Win 95.  The good point and bad point 
with Win 95 and DOS games is that you pretty much run whatever you are going 
to run from a DOS full-screen prompt.  If things don't work right, there 
really isn't much you can change...unless you are willing to run it in MS-DOS 
mode which basically shelves Win 95 and basically puts you in DOS.  Nothing 
can run in the background of this.  Here are my limited experiences with a few 
games:

Descent:  Ran for a bit, OK.  Left the window, came back, few seconds later, 
full system crash.

Doom II:  Perfectly (on a P5-90)

WC 3: Perfectly....until you switch away....once you switch away, you can't 
come back.

X-com 2, Master of Orion: Perfectly...though sound my drop out after a few 
re-loads in X-com 2.

Mortal Kombat II:  Runs but the screen goes black with the exception of the 
strength bars.

As for Win 3.1 progs...it'll run 'em all...with the exception of those that 
access the HD directly, and those you can often use if you use the LOCK 
command.

Baphometae Organus (jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu) wrote:
: . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
: : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
: : pointless to argue with them.

: : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
: : sloughing in their so called os/2
: :  systems.

: I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
: programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
: would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...

Windows 95 is fully backward compatibile with win 3.1 programs. It does 
this by retaining some of the 16-bit code.

Speed wise so far from what I see it's 16-bit applications are quite fast.

Add another vote in support of Win95.  I have tried both OS/2
and Win95, and clearly, without a doubt, Win95 has less
headache-inducing compatibility than OS/2.  Almost everything
I've ran runs straight out of the box, and that's what I want.  Not
to tinker with OS/2 settings for 2 hours trying to get the
sound effects to work.

OS/2 is for tinkerers.  Windows 95 is for users.
  -John

You know, it really seems to me that OS/2 fanatics find it hard to
believe that Microsoft may have actually developed a comperable
operating system to OS/2.  All those years of "WinDOZE" bashing has 
left a pretty stiff mindset in their heads.  Well, I gotta tell ya, Windows
95 delivers the goods, all this damn near the first attempt.  Practically 
100% compatibility with DOS and Windows 3.1 applications, a kick butt
interface, and improved performance.  And you know the greatest thing,
given Microsoft's marketing power, it will be the dominant OS by this
time next year.  I can play all my previous DOS and Windows games on
it (TIE Fighter, Xcom, Doom, Dark Forces, Harpoon for Windows) without
a hitch.  And there is a definate improvement when I run them too.
Installation was a snap, absolutely no hassles.  I'm not making this
up, it's true.  Windows 95 delivers!

Fulcrum Brown,
University of Washington, aka Bill Gate's big neighbor

Fulcrum Brown (ful...@u.washington.edu) wrote:

: given Microsoft's marketing power, it will be the dominant OS by this
: time next year.  I can play all my previous DOS and Windows games on

NO way ! It will be a dominant 3 weeks before it will be released :)

btw: How much is it gonna cost ?

Artem

kout...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Artem Aleksandrovich Koutchine) wrote:
>
> Fulcrum Brown (ful...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> 
> : given Microsoft's marketing power, it will be the dominant OS by this
> : time next year.  I can play all my previous DOS and Windows games on
> 
> NO way ! It will be a dominant 3 weeks before it will be released :)
> 
> btw: How much is it gonna cost ?
> 
> Artem

I just read that Win95 (or 96), will have a game called
Hover Havok, which is supposed to be Doom-like, but you fly 
a helicopter and pluck flags from opponents...

MS is also comming out with a baseball game, a Godzilla type game
and a fighter pilot simulation game.

Just thought I would pass that along :->

Later,
Tim

In article <3mvqd0$q...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>,
Jeff Williams <jmw...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Try multitasking Dark Forces and Flight Simulator 5.0 while downloading a file
>via ftp with Windows 95.  Can we say "CRASH"?  Can we say "not multitasking
>to begin with, even before the crash"?  I thought we could.

It runs fine on my system.  No crash what so ever.  Geez, what beta have you
been playing on?

In article <sjYhE4C00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, mb...@andrew.cmu.edu says...
>
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim: 17-Apr-95 Re:
>Win95 and games: good n.. by Derek Suzuki@ocf.berkele 
>> >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>> >right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
>
>Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
>Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
>compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
>better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??
>
>Mark

Your good for a laugh yourself.  PC Gamer also rated Galactic Civilizations 
a score of 78 out of 100, which is mediocre.  This from a magazine that has 
4 to 6 Editor's Choice Award winner's(88 out of 100) A MONTH.  Also, I've 
been playing with '95 and the dos-based DOOM runs under it just great.  On 
a 486-33 with 8 MB RAM no less.  I just dbl-click the icon in Explorer and 
away it goes.  No slow-down, no reconfiguring, no rebooting, no special new 
version for my OS, no worries.  I also tried WinDoom, but dumped it because 
the version I have doesn't have multi-play. However, the graphics are good 
and it ran great.

Dale

On 18 Apr 1995, NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS wrote:

> this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in 
> stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first 
> priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 

Speed over stability is not always the best choice if you are concerned 
about loosing data.

> hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> pointless to argue with them.

Listen to who sounds biased here and especially in your following sentence.

> I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> sloughing in their so called os/2
>  systems.

OS/2 is hardly slow if you are running native apps (or even DOS apps for 
that matter); only having to load the Windows kernel slows it down.  
Besides, once you get a Windows program loaded, most run just as fast as 
under Windows 3.x.

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *

>Hi... putting my two bits in:  I'm using OS/2 Warp with a Gravis Ultrasound
>and so far have had problems only when I had a small amount of memory; 
after
>I found a couple of 16MB SIMMs from my old SPARCstation, didn't have any 
speed
>problems at all (and this only on a 486DX2/66 machine).


[Cut out some stuff]
 

>
>  +----------+
>  | ________ |    Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
>  | \      / |    Department of High Energy Physics
>  |  \    /  |    California State University
>  |   \  /   |
>  |    \/    |     COMING TO YOU FROM WONDERFUL WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
>  | USA   G  |    WHERE THE MEN ARE PRETTY AND THE WOMEN ARE STRONG
>  +----------+

[Sarcasm mode on]

Gee, didn't have any speed problems after adding 32 MB of RAM to your 
system????Who would have thought that???  Somebody call IBM and let them 
know!!!  This is ground breaking stuff here.

[Sarcasm mode off]

> Add another vote in support of Win95.  I have tried both OS/2
> and Win95, and clearly, without a doubt, Win95 has less
> headache-inducing compatibility than OS/2.  Almost everything
> I've ran runs straight out of the box, and that's what I want.  Not
> to tinker with OS/2 settings for 2 hours trying to get the
> sound effects to work.
> 
> OS/2 is for tinkerers.  Windows 95 is for users.
>   -John

Well I desparately want OS/2 Warp to succeed so we can have some decent
competition to Microsoft.   I bought Os/2 Warp a few months ago
on it's launch but having tried Win95 I can see it is going to blow 
OS/2 away.  Not because it's much faster/better etc etc but because it's
easy to use with less hassle, less eyestrain and everyone's going to 
bring out software for it.  

Software maketh the operating system. Sorry that's they way it is.

-- 
Mark Rogers.  ** Bug Free = Super FPU f*** to Tony **  *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *

In article <3muf9d$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu   (Derek Suzuki) writes:
[sniped]

>>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>>right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
>	Sigh, at least you didn't use the term "ROOLZ".  Anyway, even the
>MS crowd says that NT is the future.
>
>Derek
>drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu
>
NT isn't suited for PC's as well as Win95 is.  NT is probably the better
network server of the two though. NT isn't suited for the home PC market
like Win95 is. You can run a PC with Win95 on a network with WGFW and NT 
and it will work with them.  As PC's become more and more networked 
eventually the two may blend into one OS.  Right now though as far as 
an OS to replace DOS/Windows on home PC's Win95 is the answer.  The average
user doesn't have the expertise needed to use a system like OS/2 which is still
underpowered compared to Win95.  (Most users get a blank look in their face 
when you talk about DOS's command line interface and ask if they have Internet 
access. A very small percentage of the home pc market actually uses online 
services.) Win95 is simple enough the average pc owner can use it and it has 
significant enough horsepower that expert users can tweak it and have a 
customized OS that will meet their needs and expectations. Thats why OS/2 is 
in trouble: It can't do what Win95 can do, as fast as Win95 can do it, and 
easily enough that anyone can master it.  Win95 is  a lot faster than 
DOS/Windows and much easier to  use.  I have noticed a considerable increase 
in  applications (over DOS and WGFW) on my P-90 since installing Win95.  
_And_ it wasn't difficult to tweak my system and getting it running the 
way I _want_ it to run.  The biggest drawback to Win95 right now, is that there
seem to be significant performance loss on lower speed 386's that don't have at
least 16 megs of RAM.  The 486's and Pentiums with 8megs seem to run fine with
16 megs and up of RAM really flies.  Sorry this is so long.  I'd be happy to
discuss how Win95 has been running games etc...  on my machine.  As far as that
goes though, I don't think anyone with Win95 is going to have to worry about
being able to run their favorite games.

-----Tom

In article <3n15kn$9...@stud.Direct.CA>, sch...@Direct.CA writes:
>In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>>
>>: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>>: : I tried it and didn't like it...
>>
>>: 	Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>>: time.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>  This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy. 
>
>BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device 
>statements for *E A C H* DOS session.

You don't need a "dos session" in Win95.  You click on the icon of Doom or
whatever and it runs.  So far I've found it best to let Win95 run it the way it
wants but if you have a quirky game, you can edit the properties of the icon
and specify a config.sys and autoexec.bat. Win95 will use these settings to run
that application but it doesn't affect memory for everything running.

---------Tom

>
==========================================================================
>Simon Chung		Go Canucks Go!
>sch...@Direct.CA        Equipe d'OS/deux
>
>Q: How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?    
>		    	 
>A: 563. Four to announce the news to the press 2 years in advance, 400 to 
>   design a new plug'n'play 32-bit version of the light bulb, 150 to 
>   supervise 2,000 beta testers for the 8 months, 8 to announce the install-
>   ation of the bulb will be four months late, and one to change it. 
>==========================================================================
>

> OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
> Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
> little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

You haven't messed with it long enough.  You can have seperate files
for each and every DOS session out there.  I have seperate
AUTOEXEC.BAT files for most of the games out there.  Also, most
everything can be handled with those plentiful and annoying DOS
settings, which are just different dos CONFIG.SYS options for each DOS
session.  There are no settings in OS/2 that aren't a part of DOS
itself, you probably just never knew that they were all there.  And,
just like under OS/2, you can speed up DOS programs greatly by messing
with them.  By the way, most of the settings aren't mentioned in the
DOS help files or in the manual, and it is real hard to find out how
to use them.

I wish OS/2 didn't have all those settings as well, but they are a
built in part of DOS (and, by the way, a built in part of Win95 as
well).  They are all things that Microsoft invented, not IBM.


-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

Mark you did not post the truth about PC gammer and their comments on OS/2.
They said it might be a choice if you do not favor action games but 
rather strategy games like chess etc. They are well aware that basically 
os/2 is a slug when it comes to running anything but os/2 progams. There 
is only one quality os/2 only game.. GAlitic Civilization and I bet it 
will be ported to W95 in a few years if those folks want to make any real 
money. 

Just to show you the difference if you have a copy of both Warp and W95 
final release try this.

Run the best video that os/2 has. I remember the one that had the two 
parrots necking, another with fish, a multimedia flight thru a city.
Look at the size of the orginal files. Look at how jerky they are if you 
are doing anything else. Notice that they run in a relativle small box 
and last note you can only run ONE of them in this multi tasking OS.

Look at the W95 CD and find FUNSTUFF, go to videos and then pick my 
favorite "Goodtimes". Small box ?  Grab the side and pull. Did you notice 
you can make that thing full screen and it still works! I ran that last 
night at a programers house after we installed W95 on his machine while 
he was running scandisk on his C: drive. Didn't miss a beat on his machine.

But what really is interesting is that you can run more then one video 
or several copies of the same video. Obviously this works best if you try 
running them from a scsi hard drive as the disk i/o is pretty intense.
Now personally I think that is neat! That is what I expect of a multi 
tasking, multi threading os on the expensive hardware I have. WARP just 
isn't as polished IMHO.

VGH

Funny how you say MS dosn't know that NT is the future. I have a 
reference book on W95 and it quite clearly states that as the capability 
of the home PC grows that cutting edge features of NT will migrate down 
to W95. The interface, look and feel etc as well as plugand play has 
already be migrated up to NT 3.51 beta I understand from another betazoid.
So NT and 95 make a more viable future OS then OS/2 IMHO. I have both and 
combined they do far more then OS/2 can on the same hardware. I deleted 
OS/2 recently since I fear that it has the potential to corrupt valuable 
information used by the other OS's. It just doesn't have a place on the 
new PC IMHO.

BTW this betazoid ( a college prof in computer science)  told me he is 
using 32 bit doublespace in NT and has been able to move entire CD-rom's 
to a scsi hard disk where they compress down quite nicley and fly like 
the wind. NEAT!

He also thinks OS/2 is doomed unless it radically improves before August.
I sorta wish I had back all the money and time I wasted on OS/2 these 
last two years. It wasn't worth it!

In article <3n5u8l$d...@hq.hq.af.mil>, bam...@gaps32.comm.hq.af.mil (Dale McPherson) writes:
>In article <sjYhE4C00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, mb...@andrew.cmu.edu says...
[sniped]
>Your good for a laugh yourself.  PC Gamer also rated Galactic Civilizations 
>a score of 78 out of 100, which is mediocre.  This from a magazine that has 
>4 to 6 Editor's Choice Award winner's(88 out of 100) A MONTH.  Also, I've 
>been playing with '95 and the dos-based DOOM runs under it just great.  On 
>a 486-33 with 8 MB RAM no less.  I just dbl-click the icon in Explorer and 
>away it goes.  No slow-down, no reconfiguring, no rebooting, no special new 
>version for my OS, no worries.  I also tried WinDoom, but dumped it because 
>the version I have doesn't have multi-play. However, the graphics are good 
>and it ran great.
>
>Dale
>

Dale, next time drag the icon from Explorer onto the desktop.  This creates a
shortcut and you can edit the properties.  Then you just click on the icon on
the desktop rather than go through Explorer.  Real simple, real fast, and real
easy.  Gotta love it! :)

I have been using both OS/2 Warp and Win95 and can say that each has its 
own strengths and weaknesses.  Know that both of them provide an option 
to go to a true DOS prompt.  With Win '95 you press F4 during bootup and 
it loads the 'previously installed version of DOS' in my case 6.0.  OS/2 
handles it a bit differently in that you select to boot either OS/2 or 
DOS(which in my case resides on a separate partition) from a menu which 
will boot OS/2 by default after 30 seconds.  It seems that both 
OS's perform equally well when running 16-bit non protected mode apps in 
that they performed without crashing at all.  Getting games to run under 
OS/2 is simply a matter of understanding memory requirements and how to 
use this knowledge to configure the application to run.  Win '95 is a 
little easier to configure but seems to be quite a bit slower than OS/2 when 
running apps in a DOS session.  It is when you get into 32-bit protected 
mode stuff that things start getting quirky.  Of the few 32 bit products I have tried to run under 
each OS neither shined as the winner.  For a frame of reference, I will 
use Dynamix' Metaltech Earthsiege.  This game did get a little further 
under Win '95 than under OS/2 but the end result was essentially the 
same-CRASH!!.  OS/2 emerges better in the area of crash recovery.  When 
you get a misbehaved app  blowing up under OS/2 its as easy as killing 
the session.  Several times using Win '95 I was forced to cold boot the 
machine to recover.  




In <D77DB...@cdf.toronto.edu> a260...@cdf.toronto.edu (Galasso Emilio N) writes:

>In article <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
>Jeffrey Lee Woodall <jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>>
>>Bullshit.  OS/2 sucks for games, period.  
You obviously didn't give it enough time.

I have tried Warp, and DOS 
>>games do not want to run.  So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere 
>>near as well as Windows 95.  Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has 
>>also been doing the same thing.


>One problem with OS/2 is that it does take a lot of getting used to.  You
>really have to learn how to "tweak" your system by learning, and basically
>understanding, some of of the options in the DOS properties.  Out of the many
>games that I have tried, I've yet to encounter one that worked under Win95
>that wouldn't work under OS/2... though I'm sure they exist, because even I
>feel the DOS compatibility is somewhat better in Win95 -- though Win95 does
>have far closer ties to DOS than OS/2 does.

>>
>>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
>>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.  Instead it offers nice 
>>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Actually OS/2 offers what is called a 'Virtual Machine Boot' which is 
created using a DOS bootable diskette.  What essentially happens is and 
image of the bootable diskette is used when you start the app it is tied 
to.  When you go to load the app it loads MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS as well as 
CONFIG.SYS and Autoexec.bat provided they existed on the image of the 
boot disk.  This is essentially like booting a full native DOS session 
from within OS/2.

>Ok, now it sounds like you installed it... moved a few icons around, tried
>to launch a game, and said it sucked.  One of OS/2's strongest DOS-           
>compatibility features was the fact that you could configure each DOS session
>individually... each processing their own autoexec.bat and config.sys.  This
>is definately not an original Win95 concept!  In fact, this feature was not
>available until the later Win95 betas if I'm not mistaken.  Doesn't really
>matter though, it has it now, and it's a useful feature.  However, OS/2 has
>it as well... in fact, it offers far more control over a DOS session than
>the current Windows 95 betas offer.


>>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
>>right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.


>I sort of agree with you here.  I just came from the OS/2 platform, and I must
>say that I'm liking Windows 95 more and more.  It definately runs Windows (go
>figure) and DOS apps much faster, and that's why I have switched over.  I
>chose speed over better multitasking.  OS/2, in my opinion, was a much better,
>stronger, multitasker.  I don't know if I would say that Windows 95 is 5 times
>faster though...
> 
>Games run exceptionally well under Windows 95... but I never really had any
>trouble running games under OS/2 either.  I do find they run faster under
>Windows 95 (Doom and Dark Forces feel just as smooth as under DOS in my
>opinion... though their loading times are increased by quite a bit).  On the
>other hand, background file transfers are easily affected by games under
>Windows 95 whereas OS/2 mananged to keep the transfers going strong... though
>games did run a little "choppier".  Nonetheless, I don't know of any decent
>32-bit Win95 terminal programs so it's probably not fair to compare 
>multitasking a 16-bit Windows term program to a native 32-bit OS/2 term
>program (Procomm and Livewire in this case).

>I think OS/2 will still have its place, but I can't see the average user
>"liking" OS/2 over Windows 95.  I think OS/2 needed more improvements over
>what Warp delivered.  Windows 95 is far prettier, and in my opinion "feels"
>better... the fact is, people WILL judge a book by its cover, and OS/2 is
>definately not dazzling to look at.

>I should also add that I am far more likely to run a game under Windows 95
>(without dropping to straight DOS) than I ever was while running OS/2.
>Nonetheless, I usually run games in a straight DOS session no matter what
>OS I'm using...
> 

> 

>-- 

>Emilio Galasso
>a260...@cdf.toronto.edu
>University of Toronto, Computer Science.

Victor Healey (vhe...@crl.com) wrote:

> Just to show you the difference if you have a copy of both Warp and W95 
> final release try this.

> Run the best video that os/2 has. I remember the one that had the two 
> parrots necking, another with fish, a multimedia flight thru a city.
> Look at the size of the orginal files. Look at how jerky they are if you 
> are doing anything else. Notice that they run in a relativle small box 
> and last note you can only run ONE of them in this multi tasking OS.

I have done this for an OS/2 demo.  You can resize the pictures
(loosing picture sharpness), and I have been able to run 5 at a time
without any video slowdown.  The ones that come with OS/2 aren't
great, but there are others out there.  At the same time I was
printing from AmiPro/2 and formating a floppy (typical OS/2
propaganda).  No real slowdown.  I have a 486SX-33 with 16MB of RAM
and a 420MB IDE drive (nothing flashy).

> Look at the W95 CD and find FUNSTUFF, go to videos and then pick my 
> favorite "Goodtimes". Small box ?  Grab the side and pull. Did you notice 
> you can make that thing full screen and it still works! I ran that last 
> night at a programers house after we installed W95 on his machine while 
> he was running scandisk on his C: drive. Didn't miss a beat on his machine.

I haven't tried this, I think I will, just for comparison sake  :)

> But what really is interesting is that you can run more then one video 
> or several copies of the same video. Obviously this works best if you try 
> running them from a scsi hard drive as the disk i/o is pretty intense.
> Now personally I think that is neat! That is what I expect of a multi 
> tasking, multi threading os on the expensive hardware I have. WARP just 
> isn't as polished IMHO.

Same with OS/2.  I agree with the SCSI part.  After a while you start
slowing down with IDE.  I have seen SCSI in action, and the
improvement is great!  I highly recommend it whether you are running
Win95, OS/2, NT, or any other multithreaded OS out there.  I have done
quite a bit of multimedia with Warp, and I have not noticed any of the
slowness you have.  My assumption is that you have 8MB of RAM.  In my
opinion, that is too little for MMOS/2, way too little (I don't care
what IBM claims, it is too little).  It may be that Win95 does a
better job of multimedia at 8MB.  As I said, I will definately have to
try it and see.  I do know that there are a few things that OS/2 does
better than Win95 at 8MB, and visa versa.  From what I have seen, I
recommend 16MB for both.  But, in all honesty, if I had an 8MB
machine, I would seriously consider Win95.  At 16, I think OS/2 is
better.  Its your decision.
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu