🚀 go-pugleaf

Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) 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...

Windows would have done this a long time ago too, if Microsoft hadn't 
have split with IBM over the OS/2 issue.  BTW- kudos to IBM for OS/2 Warp 
and a great operating system, but I find that I'll be going with Win '95 
(at least this time around the OS game), they are finally getting it 
right and the vendor support issues far outweigh 'technical reasons' to 
go with OS/2.

To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
that was chosen at start-up.  If it's any configuration but the Windows
one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!).  I 
then have full access to all the DOS I could ever want (makes you want to 
puke!!). I have not found any compatibility problems with this DOS and 
any of the games I've run under it (PAW, FD, AW, Privateer, SC, AF, etc), 
so far. 

I still use QEMM 6.02 (last version not riddled with bugs!!) and Smartdrv 
caching (works great for me), they seem to work great too.

--

    James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com

********************************************************
*               Caprica Internet Services              *
*      "LA Basin's Responsible Internet Provider"      *
*     Voice: (213) 266-0822   Data: (213) 526-1195     *
********************************************************

I'm cross-posting this message into comp.os.os2.games, because OS/2 is 
beginning to get bad-mouthed in this thread (not by James, below, so 
don't berate him), and I thought it reasonable to try to achieve some 
balance here.

On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, James Lummel wrote:

> To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
> multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
> that was chosen at start-up.  If it's any configuration but the Windows
> one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!).  I 

Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
tailor the settings for each program individually.  

Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
currently do in DOS. 

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       *                            *

In <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> John
Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> writes: 

>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then
>drops back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why
>should I penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one
>program by increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95
>handle this example?  From what I understand, it would require that I
>use FILES=50 system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is
>that correct?  If so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over
>what many people currently do in DOS.

It's a hard call, because I haven't found any exceptions to what I'm
about to say.

As I've mentioned previously, I run Win95 with NO CONFIG.SYS and a
streamlined AUTOEXEC.BAT (just a few SET statements, and a path or
two), and not one thing (that's going to run under Win95 directly) has
a problem with this, and in general, runs better.  And this includes
such things as programs that require X amount of FILES, etc. (like
WordPerfect--it runs fine).  As far as games go, no complaints from
them either.  They don't need the sound driver TSRs, mouse TSRs, etc.
like they do in straight DOS (which is nice).  The few games that burp
under Win95 (and require a reboot setup) are usually the ones with
proprietary memory managers (like Ultima 7 & Strike Commander, I
believe).

So, yes, if you have startup files with settings like that, then yes,
it will affect everything globally (loading SMARTDRV appears to
supersede the Win95 caching, which is faster; loading any CD-ROM device
drivers disables 32-bit file access (I think) in Win95).. so you're
better off just letting Win95 handle everything.

EVERYTHING. ;)


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 <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...

>Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
>tailor the settings for each program individually.  
>
>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>currently do in DOS. 

Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
absolutely nothing about.

Thanks,

	 - Rich
>
>JOHN
>

>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>currently do in DOS. 
>
>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>	 - Rich
	Likewise, quit wasting bandwidth on a stupid retort to a legitimate question.
Do try and answer the question before spewing childish putdowns.

	Does or does not Win95 allow the user to change the number of files
for each session?  Incidentally, OS/2 does not require a certain # of "files".  The "files"
parameter is only used by the DOS session. (ie, when you close the session, the
memory dedicated to "files" is released) (or so the Command Reference says...)

----------
Alson Kemp		kem...@ece.orst.edu

"Gambled once and won,
 Never made a dollar."
	-Uncle Tupelo

In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
>jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
>
>>Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
>>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
>>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
>>tailor the settings for each program individually.  
>>
>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>currently do in DOS. 
>
>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	 - Rich

Rich,
  I don't think you provided any insite as to why John is wrong.  If you
are concerned about wasting bandwidth, please, by all means, explain to
him and the rest of us why and where he is incorrect.  As far as I am
concerned John has proven his grasp of what he does know (concerning the
way OS/2 works in this situation) and questions the way Win9X will work
under the same situation.  You, in turn, have demonstated nothing more
than your ability to type and post a reply, and maybe your skill at
being rude and in instigating an arguement.  Be proud.

>>
>>JOHN
>>

No worries!

Imp.
__________________________________________________________________________
Ian M. Patterson                        "The hurting stops NOW!!!"
Computer Engineer                               - Bill, The Terrible
AT&T Global Information Solutions                         Thunderlizards
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	 - Rich

Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story regarding
Windows 95 and configuration changes?  For instance, can you run 2 separate
DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. with
one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
instance)?

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

Jeff Williams (jmw...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
: >Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
: >absolutely nothing about.
: >
: >Thanks,
: >
: >	 - Rich

: Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
: like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story regarding
: Windows 95 and configuration changes?  For instance, can you run 2 separate
: DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. with
: one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
: instance)?

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

In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...

>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story 
regarding

Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.

Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.

There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache, 
doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session. 
 Just click on the choices.  For any other devices, it's simple to add the 
lines into your custom config.

It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although 
I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter.  The really cool 
stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using 
the WING libraries.  I really couldn't live without the backward 
compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read: 
games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.

	- Rich

>Windows 95 and configuration changes?  For instance, can you run 2 separate
>DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. 
with
>one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
>instance)?
>
>//  Jeff Williams
>//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
>//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu
>

In <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>>like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story 
>regarding
>
>Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.
>
>There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess this must mean that only idiots will use Win95?  

The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.

Since it won't be able to run several  Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least.  and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications,  consider this.  NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW.  And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.

  
>doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session. 
> Just click on the choices.  For any other devices, it's simple to add the 
>lines into your custom config.
>
>It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although 
>I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter.  The really cool 
>stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using 
>the WING libraries.  I really couldn't live without the backward 
>compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read: 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So it looks like people that want to play will use Win95 and those that want to work will use WARP.  And since Win95 will be MSFT keyboard enabled you'll be able to press the GPF key to increase your GPF's without the hassles of actually running a program.  How convenient.<G>.


Chris

Warping... NOT Waiting...

or should that be

Working... NOT Playing...

>I guess this must mean that only idiots will use Win95?  

Very funny; NOT!

>The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.
>
>Since it won't be able to run several  Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least.  and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications,  consider this.  NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have
 have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW.  And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.

Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

>Warping... NOT Waiting...
>Working... NOT Playing...

And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
writing for it.  

Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              /-----------\         No matter where yo go
             |  |------|  |             There you are
             |  |  __  |__|  __

I have:

Betrayal At Krondor
Ultrabots
Simcity 2000
Zork Anthology
King Quest VI
Doom Companion
Myst
Magic Carpet
Ultima I-VI
Spaceship Warlock
Spear of Destiny
Spectre VR 
Jetfighter II
Quantim Gate
Sherlock Holmes
PC Computing:How Multimedia Computers Work (CD-ROM+BOOK)
Home Medical Advisor
Microsoft Multimedia Jumpstart
Battle Chess
Arts&Letters WarBirds
Iron Helix
7th Guest
Earth Siege
Return to Zork
Mega Race
Spectre VR CD Enhanced
The Shareware Colection For Windows
The Shareware Coloction Platnium
The Shareware Colection Games
Armorware Over 600 Games


All are on CDROM I would like to trade them but will sell them.

TheDruid


thed...@ix.netcom.com

law3...@leonis.nus.sg (NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS) wrote:
>
> Derick J.R. Qua-Gonzalez (dq...@Prometheus.EarthLink.Net) wrote:
> : In article <ptnal4TV...@crl.com>, sca...@crl.com (Scott Alter) says:
> : >
> : >Did you notice any speed loss?
> : >
> 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 used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2.  Not to 
mention that my hard drive wouldn't stop accessing.  I am now running
under the pre-release version of Windows 95 (1-800-95PREVIEW for $27).
It is the best operating system I have ever seen.  My windows apps
actually run faster (I have 8 megs ram BTW) then they did under Win 3.1
The cool thing is WIN95 actually changes the look of your win3.1 apps
to conform with the overall scheme of things.. makes it much easier to
use.  Windows 95 is going to be the most successfull operating system
because so many people already use windows... Try out the pre-release,
it's a beautiful thing. 
 
Just my humble opinion.......... :)

On 20 Apr 1995, Wulfgar wrote:

> I used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
> I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
> support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
> Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2.  Not to 

Finally -- back to games :-).  Obviously, you mustn't have been doing 
something correctly.  The only game I've not been able to get running 
under OS/2 is The Farm, since it uses Win32s version 1.2, and OS/2 
currently supports an earlier version.  I can run Descent, DOOM, Reader 
Rabbit1, Math Rabbit, all Borderbund's Living Books, among others (okay, 
so my kids have more games than I do :-).  OS/2 also supports joysticks; 
however, I don't own one, so I can't really say more on the topic, except 
I wonder if the stick(s) in question above were supported by OS/2.  

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       *                            *

There is one important point that seems to have been ignored in this
argument about OS/2 and Windows 95. OS/2 exists *NOW* while Windows 95
is still a (relatively buggy) beta.

Both have against them the past track records of the companies making
them. I mean, how can you trust a product coming from the company
which gave us DOS and Windows? Let's face it they suck! Why anyone
should want an operating system that resembles them is beyond me!

Personally, updating to either at the moment is completely
uninteresting. I use DOS to play games on, my wife uses Windows for
word processing and my kids Windows for some games. For *real work* I
use a *real operating system*, Linux.

-- 
Robert Virding                                  Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
Computer Science Laboratory                     Tel: +46 8 727 34 52
Ellemtel Telecommunications Systems Laboratories
Box 1505, S-125 25 �LVSJ�, SWEDEN

In article <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu>, jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu 
says...
>
>
>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...
>

I have had trouble with some w3.1 applications, games and other stuff when 
running Win95. I'm going to kick it right out of my machine unless the 
final commercial version is a lot better than the final beta.

/Mattias Martinsson

On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

> Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
same time.

> 
> >Warping... NOT Waiting...
> >Working... NOT Playing...
> 
> And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
> scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
> you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
> wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

I will say that I run OS/2 and do not run any win3.1 apps with it.  I use 
Lotus Smart Suites.  I've seen Microsoft's Office, and it didn't impress 
me.  Everything I run, I can get an OS/2 version of it.  True, it may not 
have ALL the bells & whistles as the Window version, but 99% of those I 
don't care about - ie: Bubble help if AMI Pro 3.1  -- What a waste of 
code, bloating the programs and causing me to run out of drive space.

There are many other OS/2 native apps out there: Corel Draw, Microsoft 
Word (and they said OS/2 was dead) Word Perfect (I think they dropped 
it) and others which do not come to my mind at this early hour of the day.  
 
> 
> Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
> platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
> writing for it.  

>From my experience, Window games suck.  The much talked about Myst is an 
example - NO smooth scrolling amimation (except if you count that 30X30 
window in the maze), you hear moving water, but everything is still 
frames.  

> Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
> believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
> unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
> if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  

 If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
repackaged.


Mike W. Stone

The Stoner (mxs...@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

: > Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

: Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
: coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
: doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
: calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
: control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
: the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
: currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
: same time.


You are wrong.  It is a 32bit OS, with DOS built in.  I have had ONE 
application lock up, and only one time.  It didn't take the entire system 
down, as I was able to terminate that program, and everything else just 
kept chugging along.  And if you want my opinion, whats the difference 
between the hourglass and the OS/2 clock icon?  So you know, there is a 
new pointer in Win95.  Have you used the newer Mosaic?  There is a combo 
hourglass/pointer.  You can still move windows around and do work in 
another app while the other app is busy.  

You have not even seen Win95 yet, have you?

:  If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
: before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
: capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
: repackaged.

tsk tsk... Have fun!
While you are sweating with your OS, I'll be working and ENJOYING my 
computer.

 Jeff

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.

If the beta is anything to go by, OS/2 beats Win95 in speed by a long
shot.  Not just in multitasking either.  Win95 still has some of the
problems of Windows, and Win95 loads Windows apps slower than OS/2
does, which is about as fast as under Windows (must use fastload and
fool with some settings).  And DOS games run much faster under OS/2
than under DOS, especially video (Doom is smooth on my 486 under OS/2
and choppy under DOS).

> 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...

Win95 is backwards compatable.  What you heard is probably that Win95
still does cooperative multitasking with Windows apps.  Which means
that they multitask about as well as under Windows.  In my experience,
Win95 does a semi-decent job of multitasking (not as good as OS/2),
until you throw a 16bit Windows app into the picture, then the system
slows to a crawl.  

Technobabble:  Win95 still has a 64K heap space (limiting number of
apps that can be run at a time to about 8), FAT filesystem (sucks,
sucks, sucks...), multiple directory entries for long filenames
(causes some serious problems with older software, especially disk
utilities like disk defragmentors), 640K barrier (cleverly disguised,
but it is possible to run out of conventional memory), the kernel is
basically unchanged from DOS 6.22 (recompiled 32-bit, but system calls
are the same, as are BIOS calls), and Win95 will let you use 16-bit
device drivers (sucks, sucks, sucks....).  In addition, OS/2 won't let
you directly access the hardware, while Win95 lets programs do
whatever they want to (viruses really only affect DOS/Windows
computers, they never appear in OS/2 and NT computers).  Granted,
there are some nice things in Win95, and it isn't very cut and dry as
to which is better (some may like one interface over the other), but
the underlying technology is better in OS/2, while Win95 is tweaked
DOS and Windows code that works together as if it was one operating
system.  
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

Mattias Martinsson (ma...@styx.tripnet.se) wrote:
: In article <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu>, jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu 
: says...
: >
: >
: >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...
: >

: I have had trouble with some w3.1 applications, games and other stuff when 
: running Win95. I'm going to kick it right out of my machine unless the 
: final commercial version is a lot better than the final beta.

: /Mattias Martinsson

how about some insight as to what you have not got working? I'm just curious.

nos4a2

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"60 seconds to Midnight. 60 seconds to Nowhere! You have all become victims 
 of The Mad Bomber What bombs at...?!�� HEY! Pay Attention!"   
                                              -Mad Bomber "The Tick"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Stoner <mxs...@hertz.njit.edu> writes:

>On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

>> Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

>Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
>coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
>doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
>calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
>control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
Only Windows 3.x apps are copperatively multitasked and they all run in their
own VM which is pre-emptively multitasked with Win32 apps and DOS VMs .
If a Windows 3.x app hangs, it only hangs the other Windows 3.x apps, not the
Win32 or DOS apps.

I can provide the exact section of the Windows 95 Resource Kit documentation
explaining the architecture of WIn95 if you like.

Cheers,
Bill
--
Bill Arnette                      sas...@unx.sas.com
Portable Debugger Development     ...!mcnc!sas!saswta
SAS Institute Inc.                (919)677-8000 x6193  
SAS Campus Drive - R2275          (919)677-4444 (fax)  
Cary, NC 27513                    

	Greetings everyone,

	The "Win95 vs. OS/2" case is resulting again in endless thread.
This thread has *again* drifted far beyond this newsgroup's meaning.

	The reason is obvious: the religious war between those who likes
OS/2 and likes MicroSoft's OSes is raging anew.

	The obvious solution is this: use what you like. Don't flame in the 
newsgroups not dedicated to flaming. Save your nerves!

	I belong myself to OS/2 fans. I *have* tested both MS' and IBM's
products, this is why I chose OS/2 Warp. But it is not only the
quality of OS/2 that attracted me; this is also the policy of
MicroSoft that repulsed me, too. Several of the reasons why I dislike
MicroSoft altogether are stated below. If you are a compromiseless
fan of MicroSoft, don't bother reading. I *won't* answer offensive
postings/eletters any more. Besides, my thoughts are based upon *facts*, not 
emotions. I can hardly expect you can find reasonable objections...

	I address OS/2 team: do *not* fall to offenses, like calling MS
products names and teasing MS fans. This is childish. The time will
show which OS is better and I am undoubtedly convinced that MicroSoft
deserves downfall for all its doings and that its Windowslings
have no future. Do not use MS products, oppose it wherever possible, create 
alternate software. That's much more positive.

	Let's be reasonable! Let's stop that endless thread!
















	[This article was posted in alt.lang.asm etc. several days
before]

	Below I explain why I dislike MicroSoft. The exact *numbers* can be 
not very correct... but the difference is not that dramatic...

	* MicroSoft's policy is based upon rough force and deceit. The
first - world-famous now - contract between IBM and MicroSoft obliged
all IBM-compatible producers to pay MicroSoft $45 *from each computer
sold*, just because MS-DOS was installed there. IBM tried to cancel
that contract, but with no result. MicroSoft tricked it, in fact, and
this is the reason why MS-DOS is so conservative, useless, patched
all over it and strange. Why bothering modifying it if money come to
you effortlessly?..

	* MicroSoft tends to hold monopoly on everything it touches. This
is why it is so hostile to all DOS clones, this is why its technical
support is quite pathetic and absurdly expensive, this is why its
products are all weird, clumsy, resource-consuming. Do you know that
in Windows there was code that detected third-party [D]OSes and
aborted execution?..

	* MicroSoft falsifies facts when persuading customers into using
MicroSoft products. Have you ever heard about a clause in beta-tester
contracts (for Win95, for example) that *forbids* spreading any
negative information about product being tested without prior
permission by MicroSoft? Have you not know that Gates used quite
doubtful reasons when "proving" that Windows runs its applications
much faster than OS/2 (he used MicroSoft, not third-party's tests
with ancient OS/2 Windows emulator to "prove" that)? Have you not
know that MicroSoft filters carefully all people before allowing them
to participate in MicroSoft public-oriented activities? And so on,
and so forth.

	* MicroSoft is outright hostile to customers. Try to count
articles and so on about technical support, for example. I live in
Russia. For us MicroSoft invented disk copy protection, installation
counters, no chance of upgrade/technical support and other nice
improvements.  Do you know when MS-DOS started to support Russian
language? Since version 6.22... Do you know how?  By loading more
than ~40Kb of residents. To compare:  DR-DOS supports Russian
language since version 5.00, as regular codepage, with no special
overhead.

	And so on.

Konstantin.
m...@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su

On 17 Apr 1995, Scott Alter wrote:

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

Come on, either you don't know what you're talking about (i.e., have never
actually used OS/2) or didn't know what you were doing when you set up
OS/2.  OS/2 handles sound from DOS and Windows programs (and, of course,
OS/2 programs).  Some of the games I run under OS/2 -- complete with sound
-- included:  Descent, Borderbund's Living Books, Math Rabbit, and Reader
Rabbit1 (so my kids have more games than I do -- sue me). 

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       *                            *

The Stoner (mxs...@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

: > Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

: Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
: coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
: doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
: calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
: control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
: the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
: currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
: same time.

: > 
: > >Warping... NOT Waiting...
: > >Working... NOT Playing...
: > 
: > And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
: > scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
: > you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
: > wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

: I will say that I run OS/2 and do not run any win3.1 apps with it.  I use 
: Lotus Smart Suites.  I've seen Microsoft's Office, and it didn't impress 
: me.  Everything I run, I can get an OS/2 version of it.  True, it may not 
: have ALL the bells & whistles as the Window version, but 99% of those I 
: don't care about - ie: Bubble help if AMI Pro 3.1  -- What a waste of 
: code, bloating the programs and causing me to run out of drive space.

: There are many other OS/2 native apps out there: Corel Draw, Microsoft 
: Word (and they said OS/2 was dead) Word Perfect (I think they dropped 
: it) and others which do not come to my mind at this early hour of the day.  
:  
: > 
: > Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
: > platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
: > writing for it.  

: From my experience, Window games suck.  The much talked about Myst is an 
: example - NO smooth scrolling amimation (except if you count that 30X30 
: window in the maze), you hear moving water, but everything is still 
: frames.  

: > Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
: > believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
: > unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
: > if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  

:  If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
: before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
: capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
: repackaged.


: Mike W. Stone

You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Derrik Pates
dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu

Derik Pates <dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:

>You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
>various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
..
>IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
>I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Sounds like your mind is already made up before seeing the product.
 _______________________________________________________________________
|\ ______________________________________________________________________\
| |                                                                       |
| | John H. Kim          "Just try telling the IRS you don't feel like    |
| | jo...@mit.edu        'contributing' this year come April" - Bob Dole  |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu   on Bill Clinton's avoidance of the word "taxes." |
 \|_______________________________________________________________________|

In article <mbo.51....@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su>, m...@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su
(Konstantin Boyandin) wrote:

>         Greetings everyone,
> 
>         The "Win95 vs. OS/2" case is resulting again in endless thread.
> This thread has *again* drifted far beyond this newsgroup's meaning.
> 
>         The reason is obvious: the religious war between those who likes
> OS/2 and likes MicroSoft's OSes is raging anew.
> 
>         The obvious solution is this: use what you like. Don't flame in the 
> newsgroups not dedicated to flaming. Save your nerves!
> 
>         I belong myself to OS/2 fans. I *have* tested both MS' and IBM's
> products, this is why I chose OS/2 Warp. But it is not only the
> quality of OS/2 that attracted me; this is also the policy of
> MicroSoft that repulsed me, too. Several of the reasons why I dislike
> MicroSoft altogether are stated below. If you are a compromiseless
> fan of MicroSoft, don't bother reading. I *won't* answer offensive
> postings/eletters any more. Besides, my thoughts are based upon *facts*, not 
> emotions. I can hardly expect you can find reasonable objections...
> 

... Microsoft Flame Deleted ...


So you want to stop this discussion, but you post a loonng message just
begging any MS fanatic to respond to your flame of the company?!?  Not a
very good tactic to stop a flame war, do you think?  You just added more
fuel to the fire.  Don't ever become a diplomat, OK?  Thanks, I really
would appreciate that.

Chris


Here's what would have happened if Konstantin was sent to Haiti instead of
Jimmy Carter:

Konstantin - "Hey all you oppressed people out there!  We really need to
get the President Arastin back into power, OK?  But before we do that,
just let me say one thing... 'You all SUCK!'"  OK, can we just stop this
little tif now and get back to normal?"

In <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>32-bit code now. 

You're only slightly right too. The part you're missing is that the 
16-bit parts that are left are USER and GDI code which are some of the 
most critical portions of win95.

>It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and
>various other features. 

The pre-emptive multitasking is definitely hurt by win16lock which was 
made necessary by the decision to keep the USER and GDI 16-bit code. 
This was a calculated tradeoff for MS since keeping them was necessary 
in order to be able to use existing windows drivers, but the net result 
is that win95 does not come anywhere near the multitasking, 
multithreading performance of os/2 or NT.

Not to mention that win95's memory protection model is seriously 
compromised even for 32bit apps in order to bridge compatibility between
dos, win16, and win32 apps.

>Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. 

This will indeed be better than what os/2 warp can do.  Of course, warp
was released almost a year before win95 is expected to come out.  Expect
warp 4 out next year to have PnP in time for the arrival of PnP systems
and devices.

>I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Perhaps win95 will be the right os for you, but it definitely is not a
very good os from an architectural point of view.  In fact, it's just a
bad hack.

                                                        -Ben

  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Team OS/2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 | "Don't marry a person you can live with, // "Imagination is more important |
 |  marry someone you can't live without." //   than knowledge..." - Einstein |
  '''''''''''''''''''' Bye BYe BYle BYLe BYLee BYLEe BYLEE '''''''''''''''''''

In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:

[stuff from previous postings deleted ...]

|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
|> various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
|> love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
|> machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
|> Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
|> average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
|> IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
|> I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
|> I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.
|> 
|> Derrik Pates
|> dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu

Plug and Play sounds real nice, but I think nobody needs it. Why? There are
basically two kinds of computer users. The first kind knows all IO port addresses
and stuff, and as such doesn't need P&P. The second kind knows next to nothing
about the inside of a computer, and they probably buy a computer that has
everything installed. Even if they buy something new (say a soundcard or CDROM),
the suppliers of the hardware usually want to install the new item for them at
a minimal charge. Therefore they don't need P&P either. A very small group of
computer users may not fit in either catagories, but why not let 'the
professional' handle your stuff if you're not completely sure what you need to
do? Installing a P&P device still means opening your PC and inserting it, so it'll
probably be too difficult for somebody without some knowledge on the hardware
itself.
And what if two P&P devices do not work together for some reason? Surely you can't
change jumpers or something, as they're meant to configure themselves. The only
solution would be to remove one of them and buy another one, defeating the entire
idea of P&P.

In short, I don't thing P&P is that big an issue, and we don't need it either. If
you don't like looking at the inside of your computer, don't mess with it I say.
Leave the upgrading to people who know what they're doing (by the way, personally
I know my way around the inside of my PC quite well).


Just my HFl 0.02

Richard van Meurs (vme...@cs.utwente.nl)

In article <3n1qls$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, kem...@ucs.orst.edu says:
>
>>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>>currently do in DOS. 
>>
>>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>>absolutely nothing about.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>        - Rich
>        Likewise, quit wasting bandwidth on a stupid retort to a legitimate question.
>Do try and answer the question before spewing childish putdowns.
>
>        Does or does not Win95 allow the user to change the number of files
>for each session?  Incidentally, OS/2 does not require a certain # of "files".  The "files"
>parameter is only used by the DOS session. (ie, when you close the session, the
>memory dedicated to "files" is released) (or so the Command Reference says...)
>
>----------
>Alson Kemp              kem...@ece.orst.edu
>
>"Gambled once and won,
> Never made a dollar."
>        -Uncle Tupelo
Well, since I have been using the beta copy for the last few weeks, and as far
as I can tell, you simply tell windows 95 what config.sys and autoexec.bat files
should be used when you run a certain dos program.  You can do this by
setting up a shortcut for a program in the file explore area (something like the
file manager in windows 3.1).  I hope this helps.

Edward Letendre.

In article <3o2jqr$g...@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl>,
Richard R. van Meurs <vme...@cs.utwente.nl> wrote:
>In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>
>Plug and Play sounds real nice, but I think nobody needs it. Why? There are
>basically two kinds of computer users. The first kind knows all IO port 
>addresses and stuff, and as such doesn't need P&P.

I remember figuring out the jumper settings on my I/O card by trial-and-error,
because the damn manual lied about what they did.  Many people who know about 
IO port addresses and such very much want PnP.  I look forward to the day when
you can just plug in a card, rather than fiddling with it for a half-hour or 
more.

BTW, I don't talk for anybody but me.

BDR

vme...@cs.utwente.nl (Richard R. van Meurs) wrote:
>In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>
>[stuff from previous postings deleted ...]
>
>|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
>|> various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
>|> love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
>|> machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
>|> Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
>|> average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
>|> IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
>|> I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>|> I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.
>|> 
>|> Derrik Pates
>|> dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu
>
>Plug and Play sounds real nice, but I think nobody needs it. Why? There are
>basically two kinds of computer users. The first kind knows all IO port addresses
>and stuff, and as such doesn't need P&P. The second kind knows next to nothing
>about the inside of a computer, and they probably buy a computer that has
>everything installed. Even if they buy something new (say a soundcard or CDROM),
>the suppliers of the hardware usually want to install the new item for them at
>a minimal charge. Therefore they don't need P&P either. A very small group of
>computer users may not fit in either catagories, but why not let 'the
>professional' handle your stuff if you're not completely sure what you need to
>do? Installing a P&P device still means opening your PC and inserting it, so it'll
>probably be too difficult for somebody without some knowledge on the hardware
>itself.
>And what if two P&P devices do not work together for some reason? Surely you can't
>change jumpers or something, as they're meant to configure themselves. The only
>solution would be to remove one of them and buy another one, defeating the entire
>idea of P&P.
>
>In short, I don't thing P&P is that big an issue, and we don't need it either. If
>you don't like looking at the inside of your computer, don't mess with it I say.
>Leave the upgrading to people who know what they're doing (by the way, personally
>I know my way around the inside of my PC quite well).
>
>
>Just my HFl 0.02
>
>Richard van Meurs (vme...@cs.utwente.nl)
No way.  Just because of a) the people who know computers know about dma and io, doesn't mean they 
have to go through the same pain in the ass to configure a device.  And b)people who don't know, 
how in the hell do you think they learn about the inside of the computers and dma and io, and not 
to mention learn how to save thier money?  Do you think they buy some cutesy little cdrom that 
says "see inside of computer.  see disk spin", or maybe, just maybe, they actually try to tough it 
out themselves, and get it right, and get a great satisfaction + knowledge?  Jeesh, "I think P&P 
is useless".how dumb
-- 

[][][][] [][][][]  [][]  [] / Jon Reinberg
   []    []    []  [] [] [] /    "What"
[] []    []    []  []  [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
  []     [][][][]  []    [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html

In <D82n4...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 20:56:44 GMT
>
>vme...@cs.utwente.nl (Richard R. van Meurs) wrote:
>>In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>>
>>[stuff from previous postings deleted ...]
>>
>>|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>>|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 


WAIT A MINUTE!!! - I thought preemptive multitasking was one of the things
that WIN95 was not going to include....I've run the beta and was not
too impressed with the speed of thread changing, if it's preemptive...

HMMMMM.






>>|> various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
>>|> love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
>>|> machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
>>|> Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
>>|> average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
>>|> IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
>>|> I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>>|> I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.
>>|> 
>>|> Derrik Pates
>>|> dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu
>>
>>Plug and Play sounds real nice, but I think nobody needs it. Why? There are
>>basically two kinds of computer users. The first kind knows all IO port addresses
>>and stuff, and as such doesn't need P&P. The second kind knows next to nothing
>>about the inside of a computer, and they probably buy a computer that has
>>everything installed. Even if they buy something new (say a soundcard or CDROM),
>>the suppliers of the hardware usually want to install the new item for them at
>>a minimal charge. Therefore they don't need P&P either. A very small group of
>>computer users may not fit in either catagories, but why not let 'the
>>professional' handle your stuff if you're not completely sure what you need to
>>do? Installing a P&P device still means opening your PC and inserting it, so it'll
>>probably be too difficult for somebody without some knowledge on the hardware
>>itself.
>>And what if two P&P devices do not work together for some reason? Surely you can't
>>change jumpers or something, as they're meant to configure themselves. The only
>>solution would be to remove one of them and buy another one, defeating the entire
>>idea of P&P.
>>
>>In short, I don't thing P&P is that big an issue, and we don't need it either. If
>>you don't like looking at the inside of your computer, don't mess with it I say.
>>Leave the upgrading to people who know what they're doing (by the way, personally
>>I know my way around the inside of my PC quite well).
>>
>>
>>Just my HFl 0.02
>>
>>Richard van Meurs (vme...@cs.utwente.nl)
>No way.  Just because of a) the people who know computers know about dma and io, doesn't mean they 
>have to go through the same pain in the ass to configure a device.  And b)people who don't know, 
>how in the hell do you think they learn about the inside of the computers and dma and io, and not 
>to mention learn how to save thier money?  Do you think they buy some cutesy little cdrom that 
>says "see inside of computer.  see disk spin", or maybe, just maybe, they actually try to tough it 
>out themselves, and get it right, and get a great satisfaction + knowledge?  Jeesh, "I think P&P 
>is useless".how dumb
>-- 
>
>[][][][] [][][][]  [][]  [] / Jon Reinberg
>   []    []    []  [] [] [] /    "What"
>[] []    []    []  []  [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>  []     [][][][]  []    [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html
>


-----------------------------------------------
*     Davion Faustus		dfa...@xmission.com	      *
*   http://www.xmission.com/~dfaust	              *
*     							      *
*  Three cheers for Judge Sporkin!!!			      *

In <3of2ea$6...@news.xmission.com>, dfa...@xmission.com writes:
>In <D82n4...@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jon <rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>>Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 20:56:44 GMT
>>
>>vme...@cs.utwente.nl (Richard R. van Meurs) wrote:
>>>In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>>>
>>>[stuff from previous postings deleted ...]
>>>
>>>|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly
>>>|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and
>
>
>WAIT A MINUTE!!! - I thought preemptive multitasking was one of the things
>that WIN95 was not going to include....I've run the beta and was not
>too impressed with the speed of thread changing, if it's preemptive...
>
>HMMMMM.

It still cooperatively multitask Win16 apps, and due to the
Win16mutex(sp?), a single Win16 apps can slowdown the whole system
just like in Win3.x.  So, unless you mainly run DOS apps in
Windows or buy a whole bunch of new apps, you won't get much
benefit in terms of multitasking.  I heard that the performance of
DOS apps is improved compared to running them in Win3.x.

[rest deleted]

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>>>>|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's 
mostly
>>>>|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, 
and
>>
>>
>>WAIT A MINUTE!!! - I thought preemptive multitasking was one of the 
things
>>that WIN95 was not going to include....I've run the beta and was not
>>too impressed with the speed of thread changing, if it's preemptive...
>>
>>HMMMMM.
>It still cooperatively multitask Win16 apps, and due to the
>Win16mutex(sp?), a single Win16 apps can slowdown the whole system
>just like in Win3.x.  So, unless you mainly run DOS apps in
>Windows or buy a whole bunch of new apps, you won't get much
>benefit in terms of multitasking.  

I am not sure how much they plan to change on the Beta for Win 95 now but 
I do know that MS is planning to make NT and win 95 come closer and closer 
until they become one product.  Windows NT is a much better Multi-tasker 
than Windows 3.1, OS/2, or Windows 95... but if Windows 95 begins to act 
more and more like NT, we will see true benefits of multitasking and 
multithreading.


I heard that the performance of
>DOS apps is improved compared to running them in Win3.x.

DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
I have seen.


John Marconi
UIUC Computer Science

In <3ogvov$7...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:
>>>>>|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's
>mostly
>>>>>|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading,
>>>
>>>WAIT A MINUTE!!! - I thought preemptive multitasking was one of the things
>>>that WIN95 was not going to include....I've run the beta and was not
>>>too impressed with the speed of thread changing, if it's preemptive...
>>>
>>>HMMMMM.
>>It still cooperatively multitask Win16 apps, and due to the
>>Win16mutex(sp?), a single Win16 apps can slowdown the whole system
>>just like in Win3.x.  So, unless you mainly run DOS apps in
>>Windows or buy a whole bunch of new apps, you won't get much
>>benefit in terms of multitasking.
>
>I am not sure how much they plan to change on the Beta for Win 95 now but
>I do know that MS is planning to make NT and win 95 come closer and closer
>until they become one product.  Windows NT is a much better Multi-tasker
>than Windows 3.1, OS/2, or Windows 95... but if Windows 95 begins to act
>more and more like NT, we will see true benefits of multitasking and
>multithreading.

Not quite from what I heard.  From all accounts in c.o.o.a, Win95
is a dead end (even Win advocates there don't deny it), and NT is
the way MS wants you to go.  That's why they are forcing NT
compatibility on Win95 developers (you need to make sure you Win95
apps runs in NT in order to get the Win95 sticker), and that's why
they will put Win95's interface in NT a year or two later (Isn't
it great to have you guys pay to test the new interface for MS?).

Changing the Win16 subsystem in Win95 from cooperative to
preemptive is too big a change to do in beta, and they have only
a few months to so even if they want.  No, the cooperative nature
of Win16 system is not going to change in Win95.  Expect to
upgrade again to NT a year or two later if you buy Win95 now.

As for NT being a better multitasker than OS/2, I don't think so.
It's probably more robust (thus resulting in less DOS/Win and
hardware compatibility than OS/2), but the efficiency in
multitasking is probably similar for both.

*** And back to the whole point of this thread: GAMES ***

NT is not a games platform (at least for a couple more years),
Win95 is not available yet, no Win95 games is available yet.
OS/2 is here, OS/2 games are here, and more OS/2 games are coming
(and they are multithreaded too).

>I heard that the performance of
>>DOS apps is improved compared to running them in Win3.x.
>
>DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
>I have seen.

Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>>I am not sure how much they plan to change on the Beta for Win 95 now 
but
>>I do know that MS is planning to make NT and win 95 come closer and 
closer
>>until they become one product.  Windows NT is a much better Multi-tasker
>>than Windows 3.1, OS/2, or Windows 95... but if Windows 95 begins to act
>>more and more like NT, we will see true benefits of multitasking and
>>multithreading.
>
>Not quite from what I heard.  From all accounts in c.o.o.a, Win95
>is a dead end (even Win advocates there don't deny it), and NT is
>the way MS wants you to go.  That's why they are forcing NT
>compatibility on Win95 developers (you need to make sure you Win95
>apps runs in NT in order to get the Win95 sticker), and that's why
>they will put Win95's interface in NT a year or two later (Isn't
>it great to have you guys pay to test the new interface for MS?).

Well, from what I've heard, MS needs to bring the current state of the 
average computer up to the standards that NT expects.  Win 95 is a pretty 
good way to do that.  Then, if people get better, more powerful computers, 
the jump from Win 95 or its successors to NT will be minimal.  As is seen 
by the Win 95 interface that NT will employ (a few months later), they are 
already gearing up for people to make the move. 


>Changing the Win16 subsystem in Win95 from cooperative to
>preemptive is too big a change to do in beta, and they have only
>a few months to so even if they want.  No, the cooperative nature
>of Win16 system is not going to change in Win95.  Expect to
>upgrade again to NT a year or two later if you buy Win95 now.

I think upgrading from Win95 to NT is exactly what MS wants.  That is why 
they are trying to make the differences between them very minimal.  
Perhaps Win95 won't be preemptive but perhaps Win96 (or whatever) will.  


>As for NT being a better multitasker than OS/2, I don't think so.
>It's probably more robust (thus resulting in less DOS/Win and
>hardware compatibility than OS/2), but the efficiency in
>multitasking is probably similar for both.

I don't think that that is true.  I run both of them now and I firmly 
believe that NT can handle many more programs simultaneously than can 
OS/2.  And, even with NT's vast hardware requirements, it seems to be much 
quicker at loading them simultaneously.  OS/2 also has some serious other 
problems that don't seem to make it practical for many users.  For 
instance, using the modem while multitasking another program causes severe 
problems (at least for me it did).  Also, from what I've seen, NT has very 
similar hardware compatibility as does OS/2.  


>*** And back to the whole point of this thread: GAMES ***
>
>NT is not a games platform (at least for a couple more years),
>Win95 is not available yet, no Win95 games is available yet.
>OS/2 is here, OS/2 games are here, and more OS/2 games are coming
>(and they are multithreaded too).

OK, stick to OS/2 games... In a few years, after the onslaught of Win95, I 
doubt many people will be sticking with OS/2 or its games.  I don't even 
see how OS/2 can compete - It has been out for many years as a 32 bit 
multitasking OS with minimal impact on the market (especially against the 
buggy Windows 3.xx).  Windows 95's impact is going to be huge whether it 
is better than OS/2 or not.  And, it will get 90% of the market of games. 
Not to mention that 0% of the new Windows 95 games will be compatible with 
OS/2.

>>I heard that the performance of
>>>DOS apps is improved compared to running them in Win3.x.
>>
>>DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
>>I have seen.
>
>Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
>testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.

When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!  
It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves 
its purpose.  

John Marconi
UIUC Computer Science

I have:

CD-ROM With Boxes
_______________________________________________________________________
Betrayal At Krondor
Myst
Critical Path
Doom Companion
Zork Anthology
UltraBots
Spectre VR Enhanced For Windows
MegaRace

CD-ROM OEM
_______________________________________________________________________
Sim City 2000
King Quest V
Spear Of Destiny
Knowlege Adventure Colection
    Speed
    Space
    Undersea Adventure
7th Guest
Iron Helix
Power Graphics (graphics program)
Grolier's
Share Ware Disks
    Windows
    Platinum
    games
The Games People Play II 600+ Shareware Games

Disk Boxed 3.5
_______________________________________________________________________
Tie Fighter
Strike Comander
Gunship 2000

Disk OEM 3.5
_______________________________________________________________________
Future Wars
Crime Wave
Railroad Tycoon

Disk Boxed 5.25
_______________________________________________________________________
Spell Jammer

E-mail Me 

TheDruid

thed...@ix.netcom.com

In <3oj8vk$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:
>
[delete]

>>Changing the Win16 subsystem in Win95 from cooperative to
>>preemptive is too big a change to do in beta, and they have only
>>a few months to so even if they want.  No, the cooperative nature
>>of Win16 system is not going to change in Win95.  Expect to
>>upgrade again to NT a year or two later if you buy Win95 now.
>
>I think upgrading from Win95 to NT is exactly what MS wants.  That is why
>they are trying to make the differences between them very minimal.

Exactly my point, NT is what MS wants people to buy, Win95 is a
stepping stone.

>Perhaps Win95 won't be preemptive but perhaps Win96 (or whatever) will.

There won't be a Win96, unless Win95 slips past Dec.  NT is the
upgrade for Win95.

>>As for NT being a better multitasker than OS/2, I don't think so.
>>It's probably more robust (thus resulting in less DOS/Win and
>>hardware compatibility than OS/2), but the efficiency in
>>multitasking is probably similar for both.
>
>I don't think that that is true.  I run both of them now and I firmly
>believe that NT can handle many more programs simultaneously than can
>OS/2.  And, even with NT's vast hardware requirements, it seems to be much
>quicker at loading them simultaneously.  OS/2 also has some serious other
>problems that don't seem to make it practical for many users.  For
>instance, using the modem while multitasking another program causes severe
>problems (at least for me it did).  Also, from what I've seen, NT has very
>similar hardware compatibility as does OS/2.

Using modem while multitasking is *exactly* what many OS/2 users
switch to OS/2 for!  I routinely do 14.4k download while
multitasking without *any* problems.  E.g. I started The 7th Guest
while reading someone is having problems with it, switched back
and forth to respond, no problems. Tell my what problems you have,
I will see if my system can handle who you are trying to do.

>>*** And back to the whole point of this thread: GAMES ***
>>
>>NT is not a games platform (at least for a couple more years),
>>Win95 is not available yet, no Win95 games is available yet.
>>OS/2 is here, OS/2 games are here, and more OS/2 games are coming
>>(and they are multithreaded too).
>
>OK, stick to OS/2 games... In a few years, after the onslaught of Win95, I
>doubt many people will be sticking with OS/2 or its games.  I don't even

Oh, yeah.  I have heard this a couple years before, with NT, I
won't believe it until I see it.

>see how OS/2 can compete - It has been out for many years as a 32 bit
>multitasking OS with minimal impact on the market (especially against the
>buggy Windows 3.xx).  Windows 95's impact is going to be huge whether it
>is better than OS/2 or not.  And, it will get 90% of the market of games.
>Not to mention that 0% of the new Windows 95 games will be compatible with
>OS/2.

I look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
to buy Win95 though).  While you wait, I will be happily playing
both DOS and OS/2 games, and I may have already got a few
*multithreaded* OS/2 games (GalCiv, Avarice, Entrepretner, thanks
to SDS) before Win95 is even available.  BTW, 0% of them will be
compatible with Win95.

If on the slim chance that your prediction is correct, I will buy
Win95 *then* (most bugs are probably patched by then).  What do I
lose?  Nothing.

>>>DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
>>>I have seen.
>>
>>Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
>>testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.
>
>When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!
>It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves
>its purpose.

Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
*Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
system slowing down.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>Exactly my point, NT is what MS wants people to buy, Win95 is a
>stepping stone.
>
>>Perhaps Win95 won't be preemptive but perhaps Win96 (or whatever) will.
>
>There won't be a Win96, unless Win95 slips past Dec.  NT is the
>upgrade for Win95.

That is what I have said from the beginning.  I just know though that NT will undergo a 
few more changes before it becomes the NT that MS wants people to go from Win95 to.  In 
its present state, there is a 30% chance of getting a dos game to run without sound and a 
60% chance of getting a windows game to work.  They would be stupid to have users go to 
NT at this point.



>Using modem while multitasking is *exactly* what many OS/2 users
>switch to OS/2 for!  I routinely do 14.4k download while
>multitasking without *any* problems.  E.g. I started The 7th Guest
>while reading someone is having problems with it, switched back
>and forth to respond, no problems. Tell my what problems you have,
>I will see if my system can handle who you are trying to do.

Perhaps the problem was that I was using Windows Communications apps while trying to run 
a dos game on top of it.  




>I look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
>market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
>to buy Win95 though).  

It has already been announced that Falcon 4.0 which will be a major
upgrade from Falcon 3.0 will be Win95 ONLY.  This is fairly significant
because Win95 has not even become commmercial yet.  Are they placing a
large bet the Win95 will make it as an OS?  Probably not.  But, if you
have been a loyal OS/2 user for a while, you will realize that it has
only been recently that it has gotten any games developed for it.  I
sometimes walk into computer software stores to ask what kind of software
they have for OS/2 and they ususally say... Well, we have OS/2 Warp.


>While you wait, I will be happily playing
>both DOS and OS/2 games, and I may have already got a few
>*multithreaded* OS/2 games (GalCiv, Avarice, Entrepretner, thanks
>to SDS) before Win95 is even available.  BTW, 0% of them will be
>compatible with Win95.

How many games can Stardock Systems make though?  Realistically, if they are
the only company making games for OS/2 as it has appeared to me that they are,
then OS/2 really does not have any support or chance to become a major
market contender for games.  I can already see how compilers and other 
development tools are becoming 32bit and will only compile for Win 32s 
(which will be dead soon) and Win95 or Windows NT.  This is going to be a major
problem for OS/2 unless they license the Windows 95 technology.  

At this point, I have seen maybe 5 or 6 games in development 
specifically for OS/2.  I've tried GalCiv and it was pretty good.
The point is though that I can count the number of developers for
strictly OS/2 games on one hand.  Sure, there might be conversions 
like Sim City (which is a few years old) but you can get them for
other systems too.  My point is that without OS/2 having a more 
significant market share than do MS OS's, there won't be much development
for it.  I am not saying that OS/2 will always have this lack of
market share just that at this point it does.  

>If on the slim chance that your prediction is correct, I will buy
>Win95 *then* (most bugs are probably patched by then).  What do I
>lose?  Nothing.

Do you honestly think that the chance is that slim?  Most people know
that NT is going to be the future OS... It has jumped across many 
platforms and now onto Power PC (OS/2 was supposed to do that quite
a while ago I thought).  MS is not going anywhere in terms of market
share.  And, you and I both know that there will be a huge amount of
games developed for Win95.  

>>>>DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
>>>>I have seen.
>>>
>>>Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
>>>testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.
>>
>>When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!
>>It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves
>>its purpose.
>
>Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
>*Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
>with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
>system slowing down.

And you can't do that in Win95.  It just takes a little bit of
setting up to do.  But then again OS/2 never takes any setting up
to make DOS games work, does it?

John Marconi
UIUC Computer Science  

In <3oler0$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:

[deleted]
>
>>Using modem while multitasking is *exactly* what many OS/2 users
>>switch to OS/2 for!  I routinely do 14.4k download while
>>multitasking without *any* problems.  E.g. I started The 7th Guest

[delete]

>Perhaps the problem was that I was using Windows Communications apps while trying to run
>a dos game on top of it.

I have read about people running Windows comm in OS/2 without
problems, ask in c.o.o.misc.  I use Telemate (DOS comm) to do
14.4k download in OS/2 while multitasking without any CRC errors,
CPU load roughly 15-20%.

>>I look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
>>market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
>>to buy Win95 though).
>
>It has already been announced that Falcon 4.0 which will be a major
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>upgrade from Falcon 3.0 will be Win95 ONLY.  This is fairly significant

That's the key word here, "announced", still more vaporware.  As I
said, I will believe it when I see it.  Tell me about them when
you can buy them.

[delete]

>At this point, I have seen maybe 5 or 6 games in development
>specifically for OS/2.  I've tried GalCiv and it was pretty good.
>The point is though that I can count the number of developers for
>strictly OS/2 games on one hand.  Sure, there might be conversions

So what?  I can also count the number of developers for *strictly*
Win95 games on one hand (perhaps even no hand, did those
developers said they won't do DOS anymore?).  You can just find a
new game annoucement here or there, but the companies are not
abandoning DOS.

[delete]

>>If on the slim chance that your prediction is correct, I will buy
>>Win95 *then* (most bugs are probably patched by then).  What do I
>>lose?  Nothing.
>
>Do you honestly think that the chance is that slim?  Most people know

Yes, I do think that the chance for Win95 games dominating
completely as DOS games do now is slim.  A sizable chunk is
possible (50-60%), but >90%? not likely.

>that NT is going to be the future OS... It has jumped across many
>platforms and now onto Power PC (OS/2 was supposed to do that quite
>a while ago I thought).  MS is not going anywhere in terms of market
>share.  And, you and I both know that there will be a huge amount of
>games developed for Win95.

No, I don't know that there will be a huge amount of games
developed for Win95, I have yet to see even *one* that is more
than just a DOS port.  Perhaps you have a crystal ball showing you
the future, I don't have one.

Any Win95 games available?  Even Win95 is not available!  What's
the point of talking about Win95?  I can buy Win95 *if* it becomes
dominant.  I don't get any advantage buying Win95 this year (or
the next) except the satisfaction of being an unwilling beta
tester for MS.  You and I (and most gamers) know that 1.0 releases
are buggy, at least wait for the first patch before buying.

I use OS/2 now, because it's the best (IMHO) *now*, there are
games (both DOS and OS/2) available *now* that I can play.  When
OS/2 died and Win95 becomes dominant, I will buy it then to play
those *available* games, and I lose nothing in the process.

>>>When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!
>>>It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves
>>>its purpose.
>>
>>Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
>>*Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
>>with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
>>system slowing down.
>
>And you can't do that in Win95.  It just takes a little bit of
>setting up to do.  But then again OS/2 never takes any setting up
>to make DOS games work, does it?

But then again, DOS never takes any setting up to make DOS games
work, does it?

The point is it takes *less* work in OS/2 to set up a game than
DOS: no bootdisk, no messing around to get that little bit more
conventional memory (I get 638704 bytes of conventional memory in
OS/2's DOS box by just loading DOS high), I can even run a game
that requires *more* memory than I physically have.  And once set
up, I can run it (and multitask) any time without rebooting.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>>>I look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
>>>market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
>>>to buy Win95 though).
>>
>>It has already been announced that Falcon 4.0 which will be a major
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>upgrade from Falcon 3.0 will be Win95 ONLY.  This is fairly significant
>
>That's the key word here, "announced", still more vaporware.  As I
>said, I will believe it when I see it.  Tell me about them when
>you can buy them.

Why would you think that this is vaporware?  I have seen pictures of the 
game about 4 or 5 months ago.  As of this point, all Win95 games have to 
be vaporware because it would be silly to sell them before the OS is out. 
And, in this case, there is only ONE OS/2 only game which is not vaporware 
being GalCiv.  All of the others have pics or problematic betas.  So, tell 
me all about the vast amounts of games coming to OS/2 when they arrive or 
are anounced.


>>At this point, I have seen maybe 5 or 6 games in development
>>specifically for OS/2.  I've tried GalCiv and it was pretty good.
>>The point is though that I can count the number of developers for
>>strictly OS/2 games on one hand.  Sure, there might be conversions
>
>So what?  I can also count the number of developers for *strictly*
>Win95 games on one hand (perhaps even no hand, did those
>developers said they won't do DOS anymore?).  You can just find a
>new game annoucement here or there, but the companies are not
>abandoning DOS.

How about any company that produces Windows games?  I am sure that they 
will be very happy to move right on to programming Windows 95 games.  It 
in fact will not be that hard to port old or new games to 95.  As for DOS 
games, sure they are still in production... companies are waiting to see 
how good Win95 will be.  Companies have seen OS/2 for years and there are 
barely any games to show for it.

>>>If on the slim chance that your prediction is correct, I will buy
>>>Win95 *then* (most bugs are probably patched by then).  What do I
>>>lose?  Nothing.
>>
>>Do you honestly think that the chance is that slim?  Most people know
>
>Yes, I do think that the chance for Win95 games dominating
>completely as DOS games do now is slim.  A sizable chunk is
>possible (50-60%), but >90%? not likely.

If you count all of the DOS and Windows game on the market now, there is 
probably around 99% market share.  This is because these two OS's are 
dominant.  I am saying that the dominant OS will get most of the games.  
As long as Win95 dominates, I am willing to bet that Win95 games will 
dominate.  And, as far as I can tell, it is going to be a good year for 
Microsoft.  



>>that NT is going to be the future OS... It has jumped across many
>>platforms and now onto Power PC (OS/2 was supposed to do that quite
>>a while ago I thought).  MS is not going anywhere in terms of market
>>share.  And, you and I both know that there will be a huge amount of
>>games developed for Win95.
>
>No, I don't know that there will be a huge amount of games
>developed for Win95, I have yet to see even *one* that is more
>than just a DOS port.  Perhaps you have a crystal ball showing you
>the future, I don't have one.

If the current state of OS/2 development of games does not change, Win95 
will have a huge amount of games for it in the future.  Certainly in a few 
years, no companies will develope for DOS anymore and I am sure that those 
game companies will not just die out of business.  They will most likely 
move on to Win95 if they haven't already.  There are hordes of people 
waiting to buy Win95 when it is released and there will be hordes of 
companies attempting to get new games out for Win 95.


>Any Win95 games available?  Even Win95 is not available!  What's
>the point of talking about Win95?  I can buy Win95 *if* it becomes
>dominant.  I don't get any advantage buying Win95 this year (or
>the next) except the satisfaction of being an unwilling beta
>tester for MS.  You and I (and most gamers) know that 1.0 releases
>are buggy, at least wait for the first patch before buying.

I hardly think that this is true by now.  There are roughly 500,000 beta 
testers now which is the largest testing program for a piece of software 
ever.  I believe that there will be very few bugs by the release of the 
software.  Most bugs have probably already been found by those beta 
testers.  These are not just run of the mill testers though, these are 
testers who pay $32 to hack the crap out of the system to find problems.  
I am sure it won't be as buggy as you think.


>I use OS/2 now, because it's the best (IMHO) *now*, there are
>games (both DOS and OS/2) available *now* that I can play.  When
>OS/2 died and Win95 becomes dominant, I will buy it then to play
>those *available* games, and I lose nothing in the process.

Fine, now OS/2 is the best for games and I will agree with you.  But, to
me at least, the future for OS/2 looks bleak.  I can't realistically see
them gaining any sort of dominance in the market and don't think that
there will be nearly as many OS/2 only games as Win95 games.  I don't 
understand why a company would produce games for a lesser audience.


>>>Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
>>>*Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
>>>with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
>>>system slowing down.
>>
>>And you can't do that in Win95.  It just takes a little bit of
>>setting up to do.  But then again OS/2 never takes any setting up
>>to make DOS games work, does it?
>
>But then again, DOS never takes any setting up to make DOS games
>work, does it?
>
>The point is it takes *less* work in OS/2 to set up a game than
>DOS: no bootdisk, no messing around to get that little bit more
>conventional memory (I get 638704 bytes of conventional memory in
>OS/2's DOS box by just loading DOS high), I can even run a game
>that requires *more* memory than I physically have.  And once set
>up, I can run it (and multitask) any time without rebooting.

That is not really true though.  Have you ever gotten Under a Killing
Moon to work in OS/2?  There are games that do not work for OS/2 and you
have to reboot anyway.  In Dos, the worst that you have to do is get QEMM, 
and reboot if a program doesn't like memory managers. 

John Marconi 
UIUC Computer Science 

In article <3olve9$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
John Marconi <mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I don't 
>understand why a company would produce games for a lesser audience.

Because at least initially, there's no competition.  If you're writing a
DOS or Windows game, you're going to need tons of money to even put it in a
box that will stand out on the shelf, or you'd better make the "first hit
free" (e.g. Doom), in which case, it'd better be a *damn* good game (like
Doom).  And if you're a small company, it's getting pretty hard to compete
with the likes of Lucas Arts.

Whereas, the OS/2 game market is empty--if you write a game, you have a
smallish market, sure, but you also have almost no competition.  People
will hear about your game, people will play it, and you'll sell (quite
possibly) more copies than you would have writing for a much bigger, but
overcrowded, market.

Adam

-- 
ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
64,928 | TEAM OS/2 |   "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!"   |  Linux  | Fnord
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.

In <3olve9$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:
>
>>>>I look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
>>>>market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
>>>>to buy Win95 though).
>>>
>>>It has already been announced that Falcon 4.0 which will be a major
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>>upgrade from Falcon 3.0 will be Win95 ONLY.  This is fairly significant
>>
>>That's the key word here, "announced", still more vaporware.  As I
>>said, I will believe it when I see it.  Tell me about them when
>>you can buy them.
>
>Why would you think that this is vaporware?  I have seen pictures of the
>game about 4 or 5 months ago.  As of this point, all Win95 games have to

Announced but unrelease software *is by definition* vaporware.
E.g. Win95 screen shots have been seen at least a year ago now.

>be vaporware because it would be silly to sell them before the OS is out.
>And, in this case, there is only ONE OS/2 only game which is not vaporware

At least I have one, that's my point.

>being GalCiv.  All of the others have pics or problematic betas.  So, tell
>me all about the vast amounts of games coming to OS/2 when they arrive or
>are anounced.

Sure, no problem.  But please keep in mind that I am not the one
saying "OS/2 will get 90% of games market".  Having a few nice
game for it is a fine addition to the available DOS games.

>>>At this point, I have seen maybe 5 or 6 games in development
>>>specifically for OS/2.  I've tried GalCiv and it was pretty good.
>>>The point is though that I can count the number of developers for
>>>strictly OS/2 games on one hand.  Sure, there might be conversions
>>
>>So what?  I can also count the number of developers for *strictly*
>>Win95 games on one hand (perhaps even no hand, did those
>>developers said they won't do DOS anymore?).  You can just find a
>>new game annoucement here or there, but the companies are not
>>abandoning DOS.
>
>How about any company that produces Windows games?  I am sure that they
>will be very happy to move right on to programming Windows 95 games.  It

I am not quite sure, as they will be abandoning the current
millions of Win3.x users.  I will wait until most of them have
upgraded before jumping on, which takes a couple years at *least*.

>in fact will not be that hard to port old or new games to 95.  As for DOS
>games, sure they are still in production... companies are waiting to see
>how good Win95 will be.  Companies have seen OS/2 for years and there are
>barely any games to show for it.

Of course, until Warp, the user base of OS/2 is not big enough to
support commercial games nor did IBM take any effort to advertise
OS/2.  Some IBMer have taken a hostile view of somebody developing
games for their mission critical platform!  But things have
changed now, although I don't think everybody under the sun will
develop games for OS/2, but it's a viable game platform now.

>>>Do you honestly think that the chance is that slim?  Most people know
>>
>>Yes, I do think that the chance for Win95 games dominating
>>completely as DOS games do now is slim.  A sizable chunk is
>>possible (50-60%), but >90%? not likely.
>
>If you count all of the DOS and Windows game on the market now, there is
>probably around 99% market share.  This is because these two OS's are
>dominant.  I am saying that the dominant OS will get most of the games.

Most != 99%.  I highly doubt DOS/Win have 99% of games market,
what happened to the Mac?  I trust about 80% is closer.  And the
point is, even DOS/Win is dominant now, Mac is still a viable
platform.  In the same way, even if Win95 dominates, OS/2 will
still be a viable platform.  And porting from Win95 to OS/2 is
*much* easier than DOS/Win to OS/2, due the similarities in design
(flat application address, multithreading, etc).

>As long as Win95 dominates, I am willing to bet that Win95 games will
>dominate.  And, as far as I can tell, it is going to be a good year for
>Microsoft.

We will see, I say 1995 a bad year for MS.

>>>share.  And, you and I both know that there will be a huge amount of
>>>games developed for Win95.
>>
>>No, I don't know that there will be a huge amount of games
>>developed for Win95, I have yet to see even *one* that is more
>>than just a DOS port.  Perhaps you have a crystal ball showing you
>>the future, I don't have one.
>
>If the current state of OS/2 development of games does not change, Win95
>will have a huge amount of games for it in the future.  Certainly in a few

I don't think OS/2 games development will not change, IBM is
starting to push game developments in OS/2, released a game
development kits, more advertising, etc.

>years, no companies will develope for DOS anymore and I am sure that those
>game companies will not just die out of business.  They will most likely
>move on to Win95 if they haven't already.  There are hordes of people
>waiting to buy Win95 when it is released and there will be hordes of
>companies attempting to get new games out for Win 95.

More wishful thinking.  As I said, I will believe it *when* I see
it.  Even if (a big if) all the above is true, I can buy Win95
when it happens.  There is no point in buying an OS now so that I
can play games 1-2 years later, I'd rather buy the OS 1-2 years
later along with the games.

>>Any Win95 games available?  Even Win95 is not available!  What's
>>the point of talking about Win95?  I can buy Win95 *if* it becomes
>>dominant.  I don't get any advantage buying Win95 this year (or
>>the next) except the satisfaction of being an unwilling beta
>>tester for MS.  You and I (and most gamers) know that 1.0 releases
>>are buggy, at least wait for the first patch before buying.
>
>I hardly think that this is true by now.  There are roughly 500,000 beta
>testers now which is the largest testing program for a piece of software

Nope, not beta testers.  That 50k copies is called "Preview", it's
for you to *evaluate* Win95, not for you to give bug reports.

>ever.  I believe that there will be very few bugs by the release of the
>software.  Most bugs have probably already been found by those beta
>testers.  These are not just run of the mill testers though, these are
>testers who pay $32 to hack the crap out of the system to find problems.
>I am sure it won't be as buggy as you think.

Many of those tester are not going to "hack the crap out of the
system to find problems", most of them will just install it, play
around with it, and that's it.  Only people who are *paid* to do
so will "hack the crap out of the system to find problems", people
*paying* for the beta is for a "first look".

>>I use OS/2 now, because it's the best (IMHO) *now*, there are
>>games (both DOS and OS/2) available *now* that I can play.  When
>>OS/2 died and Win95 becomes dominant, I will buy it then to play
>>those *available* games, and I lose nothing in the process.
>
>Fine, now OS/2 is the best for games and I will agree with you.  But, to
>me at least, the future for OS/2 looks bleak.  I can't realistically see
>them gaining any sort of dominance in the market and don't think that
>there will be nearly as many OS/2 only games as Win95 games.  I don't
>understand why a company would produce games for a lesser audience.

Even if it's true, fine, I will switch to Win95 *if* and *when*
OS/2 is not longer the best for me.  But I highly doubt if it will
happen, and it's not a concern to me now.

>>The point is it takes *less* work in OS/2 to set up a game than
>>DOS: no bootdisk, no messing around to get that little bit more
>>conventional memory (I get 638704 bytes of conventional memory in
>>OS/2's DOS box by just loading DOS high), I can even run a game
>>that requires *more* memory than I physically have.  And once set
>>up, I can run it (and multitask) any time without rebooting.
>
>That is not really true though.  Have you ever gotten Under a Killing
>Moon to work in OS/2?  There are games that do not work for OS/2 and you
>have to reboot anyway.  In Dos, the worst that you have to do is get QEMM,
>and reboot if a program doesn't like memory managers.

In DOS, you almost always have to reboot to play a game and then
reboot after it.  In OS/2, the worst case is reboot to DOS to play
the game and boot back to OS/2 later, looks similar to me.  BTW, I
don't have UKM, I did played XCOM(CD), Arena, Star Trail(CD), AOE,
LOL, 7th Guest and Descent in OS/2 tho' (and of course GalCiv).

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>Of course, until Warp, the user base of OS/2 is not big enough to
>support commercial games nor did IBM take any effort to advertise
>OS/2.  Some IBMer have taken a hostile view of somebody developing
>games for their mission critical platform!  But things have
>changed now, although I don't think everybody under the sun will
>develop games for OS/2, but it's a viable game platform now.

I have generally heard and thought that Warp was just an inbetween
OS for a lot of people.  DOS/Windows combination is just a pain and
NT is not for everyone (especially gamers).  I am sure that a lot
of companies will wait to see what happens after august when Win95
is out (hopefully).  Then, and only then will anyone be able to 
evaluate how much of a viable platform OS/2 is.





>>If you count all of the DOS and Windows game on the market now, there is
>>probably around 99% market share.  This is because these two OS's are
>>dominant.  I am saying that the dominant OS will get most of the games.
>
>Most != 99%.  I highly doubt DOS/Win have 99% of games market,
>what happened to the Mac?  I trust about 80% is closer.  And the
>point is, even DOS/Win is dominant now, Mac is still a viable
>platform.  In the same way, even if Win95 dominates, OS/2 will
>still be a viable platform.  And porting from Win95 to OS/2 is
>*much* easier than DOS/Win to OS/2, due the similarities in design
>(flat application address, multithreading, etc).


Most == 99% when you are talking about PC games and not including Mac.
Mac is viable, but that isn't where the war is about to begin.  For
anyone with an IBM PC, the choice is between Win95 and OS/2.  OS/2 is
viable presently, but, if Win95 takes over (like MS wants), then IBM
might just give up on OS/2.  I have heard some reports of this happening
in magazines.  The porting problem might not even be an issue though.
How long did it take for Sim City to come out for OS/2?  A lot of
companies want to develope for Win95 and NT and hardly want to waste
any time developing for OS/2.  Porting may be easier from Win95 - OS/2
than from DOS - OS/2 but I hardly think it will be easy.


>>>No, I don't know that there will be a huge amount of games
>>>developed for Win95, I have yet to see even *one* that is more
>>>than just a DOS port.  Perhaps you have a crystal ball showing you
>>>the future, I don't have one.
>>
>>If the current state of OS/2 development of games does not change, Win95
>>will have a huge amount of games for it in the future.  Certainly in a 
few
>
>I don't think OS/2 games development will not change, IBM is
>starting to push game developments in OS/2, released a game
>development kits, more advertising, etc.

Fine, if it changes it changes, it can only promote good competition
across platforms.  We will soon see though how much people believe
enough in OS/2 to develope for it like they now develope for Windows/DOS.


>>I hardly think that this is true by now.  There are roughly 500,000 beta
>>testers now which is the largest testing program for a piece of software
>
>Nope, not beta testers.  That 50k copies is called "Preview", it's
>for you to *evaluate* Win95, not for you to give bug reports.

NOT TRUE.  With Win95 there comes Microsoft Network and special editors
for you to fill in bug reports.  In fact, giving a bug report is just
as easy as going onto MSN, pressing a button and typing in what is wrong.
Anyone who cared enough to get the Beta version surely is considering
the full version when it is released... and if things aren't right in
the Beta, they will submit reports to get them right in the final release.





>>That is not really true though.  Have you ever gotten Under a Killing
>>Moon to work in OS/2?  There are games that do not work for OS/2 and you
>>have to reboot anyway.  In Dos, the worst that you have to do is get 
QEMM,
>>and reboot if a program doesn't like memory managers.
>
>In DOS, you almost always have to reboot to play a game and then
>reboot after it.  In OS/2, the worst case is reboot to DOS to play
>the game and boot back to OS/2 later, looks similar to me.  BTW, I
>don't have UKM, I did played XCOM(CD), Arena, Star Trail(CD), AOE,
>LOL, 7th Guest and Descent in OS/2 tho' (and of course GalCiv).

I don't know what version of DOS you are running, but I had to reboot
DOS only for wierd games such as Ultima 7 or Comanche which don't like
memory managers. I have dozens of other games that all work correctly
on one boot.  Anyway, booting to DOS under OS/2 is a very risky thing in
my encounters.  I once booted to DOS, installed 200 megs on the drive
with OS/2 installed on it, and booted back to OS/2.  My OS/2 would not
find any files it was using previously giving me shared space errors.
Sometimes, OS/2 would get back to its normal desktop and just stop.  The
dual boot for OS/2 needs  a lot of work.  In DOS, you just press reset
and everything is great.

One other thing about OS/2 that upsets me is the fact that they make you
pay for simple utilities.  With competitive gaming against others becoming
so popular, a link to the internet is vital.  I am not saying that the
OS/2 bonus pack isn't good - BUT, they can't even include a simple tcp/ip
startup pack.  You have to buy that for an extra $150.00.  Without it, no
Networking (with ethernet cards) over the Inet is allowed.  For me, that
was a major reason to try alternatives... BTW, MS releases all of their
TCP/IP drives as shareware (so much for being totally monopolistic I 
guess).

John Marconi 
UIUC Computer Science

In <3omb8q$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:

I apologize to other gamers if this is becoming tiring for you, I
will move to email after this unless major mis-information about
OS/2 is concerned (such as IBM is going to drop OS/2).

[deleted]
>
>>Most != 99%.  I highly doubt DOS/Win have 99% of games market,
>>what happened to the Mac?  I trust about 80% is closer.  And the
>>point is, even DOS/Win is dominant now, Mac is still a viable
>>platform.  In the same way, even if Win95 dominates, OS/2 will
>>still be a viable platform.  And porting from Win95 to OS/2 is
>>*much* easier than DOS/Win to OS/2, due the similarities in design
>>(flat application address, multithreading, etc).
>
>
>Most == 99% when you are talking about PC games and not including Mac.
>Mac is viable, but that isn't where the war is about to begin.  For
>anyone with an IBM PC, the choice is between Win95 and OS/2.  OS/2 is


For anyone buying a home computer, the choice is between IBM PC
and Mac (and some others, but I will omit them for simplicity).  I
don't see Mac dying off simply because PC is the dominant
platform.  Similar situation for Win95 & OS/2, one won't die off
simply because the other is dominant.




>viable presently, but, if Win95 takes over (like MS wants), then IBM
>might just give up on OS/2.  I have heard some reports of this happening

This is one thing I firmly believe won't happen.  The simple
reason is that OS/2 is a strategic product for IBM, e.g. They need
to have their *own* PC OS for those PC connected the their
mainframes (big bucks).  And there are a lot of banks and ATM
machines running OS/2, IBM can't just "drop" OS/2 like that.  They
will support OS/2 even if they (and their big corperate clients)
are the only people using it.

>in magazines.  The porting problem might not even be an issue though.

Those mags have been predicting the death of OS/2 for literally
years, at least since around the release of NT (the ex-OS/2-
killer).  They say the same now when Win95 (the current OS/2-
killer) is about to be released.  And they will no doubt say the
same this time next year when MS starts to hype Cairo (the next
OS/2-killer).  When you trace the source of these "predictions",
most likely they are just repeating things from other mags.  The
recent one seems to even come from a MS rep!  And IBM have send a
not so polite letter refuting those "predictions" AFAI remember.

But more importantly, back to ***games*** below...

>How long did it take for Sim City to come out for OS/2?  A lot of
>companies want to develope for Win95 and NT and hardly want to waste
>any time developing for OS/2.  Porting may be easier from Win95 - OS/2
>than from DOS - OS/2 but I hardly think it will be easy.

One company (I forgot which one) reported that porting from Win95
to OS/2 takes 1/5 of the time needed to develop the product.  And
that's an application program where most time is spend on the
actual codes, not a game where time are spend on making beautiful
graphics and sound effects (both are by nature portable already).
Using a 2 year estimate as the time needed for a game, 1/5 of it
is just about 5 months.  Spend 5 months and you reach a roughly 8+
million market (probably more by the end of the year), sounds like
a good deal to me.

>>In DOS, you almost always have to reboot to play a game and then
>>reboot after it.  In OS/2, the worst case is reboot to DOS to play
>>the game and boot back to OS/2 later, looks similar to me.  BTW, I
>
>I don't know what version of DOS you are running, but I had to reboot
>DOS only for wierd games such as Ultima 7 or Comanche which don't like
>memory managers. I have dozens of other games that all work correctly

Not if you use your machine for more than games.  Having a cache
taking up 4M in a 8M machine means that you need to reboot (at
least that's what I needed when I still use DOS a year or two ago)
to resize (or even remove) the cache to run anything that wants
more memory.

>on one boot.  Anyway, booting to DOS under OS/2 is a very risky thing in
>my encounters.  I once booted to DOS, installed 200 megs on the drive
>with OS/2 installed on it, and booted back to OS/2.  My OS/2 would not
>find any files it was using previously giving me shared space errors.
>Sometimes, OS/2 would get back to its normal desktop and just stop.  The

My advice to new OS/2 users:  DON'T USE DUALBOOT, use Boot
Manager.  Keeping the OS/2 system files in a FAT partition where
DOS can mess with is a BAD IDEA.

>dual boot for OS/2 needs  a lot of work.  In DOS, you just press reset
>and everything is great.

Not if you have a cache with lazywrite on.

[About no built-in networking (not related to games) deleted]

Warp Connect is the version for networking, but I don't think this
will interest other gamers.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__

>>Most == 99% when you are talking about PC games and not including Mac.
>>Mac is viable, but that isn't where the war is about to begin.  For
>>anyone with an IBM PC, the choice is between Win95 and OS/2.  OS/2 is
>
>
>For anyone buying a home computer, the choice is between IBM PC
>and Mac (and some others, but I will omit them for simplicity).  I
>don't see Mac dying off simply because PC is the dominant
>platform.  Similar situation for Win95 & OS/2, one won't die off
>simply because the other is dominant.
>
>
>


>One company (I forgot which one) reported that porting from Win95
>to OS/2 takes 1/5 of the time needed to develop the product.  And
>that's an application program where most time is spend on the
>actual codes, not a game where time are spend on making beautiful
>graphics and sound effects (both are by nature portable already).
>Using a 2 year estimate as the time needed for a game, 1/5 of it
>is just about 5 months.  Spend 5 months and you reach a roughly 8+
>million market (probably more by the end of the year), sounds like
>a good deal to me.

I don't know, I will believe it when I see it happen.  It sounds like
those companies might want to add on another 500,000 users of their
games under OS/2.  But, don't you keep saying that IBM wants to keep
OS/2 around for businesses and mainframes?  We will see how well IBM
stays dedicated to the average consumer.



>>I don't know what version of DOS you are running, but I had to reboot
>>DOS only for wierd games such as Ultima 7 or Comanche which don't like
>>memory managers. I have dozens of other games that all work correctly
>
>Not if you use your machine for more than games.  Having a cache
>taking up 4M in a 8M machine means that you need to reboot (at
>least that's what I needed when I still use DOS a year or two ago)
>to resize (or even remove) the cache to run anything that wants
>more memory.

True, that could be a real problem.  What kind of app were you running
where you need that much cache?  In would only advise using over 2M if 
you think the entire program could fit into memory.  The only time I 
tried it was to run Doom right out of the cache memory.


>My advice to new OS/2 users:  DON'T USE DUALBOOT, use Boot
>Manager.  Keeping the OS/2 system files in a FAT partition where
>DOS can mess with is a BAD IDEA.

This tends to be a problem for OS's that don't like to be set up
correctly by teh Boot Manager.  As I remeber, don't you need to set
up a small partition for the Boot Manager anyway?  This would be a
pain for most people having to backup their drives, partition them 
and then reformat them.  If IBM wants the real mass market, they
need to make the system as easy to configure as possible.

>>dual boot for OS/2 needs  a lot of work.  In DOS, you just press reset
>>and everything is great.
>
>Not if you have a cache with lazywrite on.

So, why do you do that?  

>[About no built-in networking (not related to games) deleted]
>
>Warp Connect is the version for networking, but I don't think this
>will interest other gamers.

Are you serious!?  I think that most companies are planning to pursue
gaming over networks.  If you have ever played Doom over a network and
killed a few of your friends you know what I am talking about.  Networks
for games are becoming vital.  Presently, fast modems just don't cut it
when you need to send large amounts of data such as in Doom.  Many 
companies are starting to make strategy games that are play be email.  And
the soon to be released Civ Net is enhanced Civilization over a network.
If you don't see networking as related to games you need to look again and
try some games that use it.

John Marconi
UIUC Computer Science

In article <3oo24a$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) says:
>I don't know, I will believe it when I see it happen.  It sounds like
>those companies might want to add on another 500,000 users of their
>games under OS/2.  But, don't you keep saying that IBM wants to keep
>OS/2 around for businesses and mainframes?  We will see how well IBM
>stays dedicated to the average consumer.

For any operating system to stay around, it needs to establish a base
of users...  many people are buying computers and using the same
software at home as work and vice-versa.  By targeting the home, they
can get IS' for companies to implement it.

>This tends to be a problem for OS's that don't like to be set up
>correctly by teh Boot Manager.  As I remeber, don't you need to set
>up a small partition for the Boot Manager anyway?  This would be a
>pain for most people having to backup their drives, partition them 
>and then reformat them.  If IBM wants the real mass market, they
>need to make the system as easy to configure as possible.

There are shareware utilities that can resize partitions, so this may
not be too much of a problem.

>Are you serious!?  I think that most companies are planning to pursue
>gaming over networks.  If you have ever played Doom over a network and
>killed a few of your friends you know what I am talking about.  Networks
>for games are becoming vital.  Presently, fast modems just don't cut it
>when you need to send large amounts of data such as in Doom.  Many 
>companies are starting to make strategy games that are play be email.  And
>the soon to be released Civ Net is enhanced Civilization over a network.
>If you don't see networking as related to games you need to look again and
>try some games that use it.

Networking is becoming more common, true, but not many people have it
in there homes...  A lot of these network games are played at work, at
computer labs at the local college or university, etc.  Windows 95 isn't
the catch-all solution to networking, either.  It can't do Personal
NetWare and using Novell's NDS Client crashes the machine.  There are
several beta testers (not Preview customers) here that receive new
builds every week or so, something that Previewers do not get.  The
beta is not as stable one would think; every machine with Windows 95
either crashes or needs to be rebooted every couple of days.  Compared
to OS/2, this is miserable -- I've had my machine up for a month without
any problems before.

I don't think that many companies will port their games to Windows 95
right away because of the amount of problems that can occur.  Games are
not always the robust programs that we would like them to be.  What
happens when you have it running in a system that tries to multitask it?
The programmers would need to find a way to speed up the code without
resorting to any tricks that work fine in a single-tasking DOS.  What
about the number of drivers and DLL's that take up conventional memory?
Even in Windows 95, conventional memory still can cause havoc.

William Hutton
University of Colorado, Division of Continuing Education

In <3oj8vk$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:
[Lots Munched]

>I don't think that that is true.  I run both of them now and I firmly 
>believe that NT can handle many more programs simultaneously than can 
>OS/2.  And, even with NT's vast hardware requirements, it seems to be much 
>quicker at loading them simultaneously.  OS/2 also has some serious other 
>problems that don't seem to make it practical for many users.  For 
>instance, using the modem while multitasking another program causes severe 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>problems (at least for me it did).  Also, from what I've seen, NT has very 
>similar hardware compatibility as does OS/2.  
>

I just want to point out this is why I moved from DOS/WIN 3.1 to OS/2 when 
2.0 came out. I could finally multitask on a PC while downloading. This has
always worked flawlessly for me under OS/2 and it sucks under NT because
there aren't any Win32 comm programs released yet.

Glenn Davies
Vancouver BC

On 8 May 1995, John Marconi wrote:

> Why would you think that this is vaporware?  I have seen pictures of the 
> game about 4 or 5 months ago.  As of this point, all Win95 games have to 
> be vaporware because it would be silly to sell them before the OS is out. 

You contradict yourself -- first you ask why Win95 games are vaporware 
then you say that they _have_ to be vaporware because Win95 isn't released 
yet.

> And, in this case, there is only ONE OS/2 only game which is not vaporware 
> being GalCiv.  All of the others have pics or problematic betas.  So, tell 

There are others, but most are small.  Of course, there is SimCity 
Classic for OS/2, but it obviously isn't an OS/2-only game (and it's a 
dog besides).

> me all about the vast amounts of games coming to OS/2 when they arrive or 
> are anounced.

SDS has announced two to be released latter this year:  Avarice (with 
CSS) and Entrepeneur (sp?).  Both start betaing very soon.  You can get 
in on it, if you likd :-).

> How about any company that produces Windows games?  I am sure that they 
> will be very happy to move right on to programming Windows 95 games.  It 
> in fact will not be that hard to port old or new games to 95.  As for DOS 

>From what I understand, it is relatively hard to port from 16-bit code to
32-bit code.  It is much easier to port from 32-bit to 32-bit.  Therefore,
I would expect that a greater number of ISVs will be willing to port Win95
to OS/2 (and vice versa), so I suspect there will be a lot more apps
available for OS/2.  If a game developer writes a Win95 game, there will 
be little excuse not to port it to OS/2.

> games, sure they are still in production... companies are waiting to see 
> how good Win95 will be.  Companies have seen OS/2 for years and there are 
> barely any games to show for it.

Of course, that's because OS/2 was originally more business oriented and
IBM didn't consider game writing that important.  With the impact of
Galactic Civilizations, that has changed dramatically.  IBM has taken
notice.  Also, up until recently, it was very difficult to port from
16-bit Windows code to 32-bit OS/2 code.  With the advent of SMART
(promises 80% code conversion; says it reduces development time to 1/5th
of the original product) and the IBM/Lotus (at least I think it's Lotus,
anybody know?) Win95-to-OS/2 API mapping project in the works (suggesting
that Win95-to-OS/2 porting might be as simply as changing the parameters
of the compiler), there are more and more companies announcing ports to 
OS/2.  Why should games be any different?

> As long as Win95 dominates, I am willing to bet that Win95 games will 
> dominate.  And, as far as I can tell, it is going to be a good year for 
> Microsoft.  

You assume Win95 will dominate -- probably a pretty safe assumption, but 
I suspect it will not dominate to the extent that Win3.x does at the 
present time.  

> If the current state of OS/2 development of games does not change, Win95 
> will have a huge amount of games for it in the future.  Certainly in a few 
> years, no companies will develope for DOS anymore and I am sure that those 
> game companies will not just die out of business.  They will most likely 
> move on to Win95 if they haven't already.  There are hordes of people 

The current state of OS/2 development of games has already changed.  You 
have missed it.

And anything can happen in a few years.  I suspect Win95 will be
non-existent, as it is a technological dead-end.  In a few years,
MicroSoft will be convincing everybody to move to NT98 with a Win95-like
desktop.  As for the DOS programmers, they will be in a tough situation 
-- do they attempt to get a toe-hold in an blooted Windows market and 
most likely fail, or do they attempt to hedge their bets and develop 
simultaneously (or even solely) for OS/2 and be a bigger fish in a 
smaller pond?

> waiting to buy Win95 when it is released and there will be hordes of 
> companies attempting to get new games out for Win 95.

You also assume that there are a great many people waiting to buy Win95. 
The average user, I suspect, will be taking a wait and see attitude -- Joe
Blow computer user does not upgrade his operating system lightly (if,
indeed, he even has a clear understanding what the os is).  Most 
"upgrades" will probably come when the end user purchases a new computer 
with Win95 installed.

> Fine, now OS/2 is the best for games and I will agree with you.  But, to
> me at least, the future for OS/2 looks bleak.  I can't realistically see
> them gaining any sort of dominance in the market and don't think that
> there will be nearly as many OS/2 only games as Win95 games.  I don't 
> understand why a company would produce games for a lesser audience.

Sorry, we are not a "lesser" audience -- "smaller" yes :-).  And the 
reasons why a ISV might produce for OS/2 are simple:  7-10 million 
potential customers are nothing to sneeze at; fewer competitors, 
which helps market penetration; and it will be relatively easy to port 
between platforms.

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       *                            *

In article <3oo71u$m...@lace.Colorado.EDU>
           William...@Colorado.EDU "William Hutton" writes:

> beta is not as stable one would think; every machine with Windows 95
> either crashes or needs to be rebooted every couple of days.  Compared
> to OS/2, this is miserable -- I've had my machine up for a month without
> any problems before.

Hmm strange how you have had a totally different experience of
OS2 Warp to me.  It crashed all the time for me.  Win95 is more
much more stable.  Strange eh?   That's why we need a balance in these
discussions :>
Time will tell.. tick tock..

-- 
Mark Rogers.
- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).