🚀 go-pugleaf

  Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

          Sir Ace the Great
          SIR...@IX.NETCOM.COM 

In article <3n0rdn$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
           sir...@ix.netcom.com "Chris Skuller" writes:

>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
> 
>           Sir Ace the Great
>           SIR...@IX.NETCOM.COM 
> 

I am also after an E-Mail address for Origin.

-- 

                               Julian Barker
                        jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk

root (ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu) wrote:
: >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.

No shit, this idiot needs to get lost.  At least most OS/2 users are 
computer literate.  This guy has NO clue.

Jeff

On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

> root (ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu) wrote:
> : Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
> : absolutely nothing about.
> 
> No shit, this idiot needs to get lost.  At least most OS/2 users are 
> computer literate.  This guy has NO clue.

Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
have clarified my knowledge and earned my respect (I guess I was under the
mistaken assumption that these newsgroups were places were we could
exchange information in a more or less civil manner -- yes, I _can_ engage
in civil debate with people whom I disagree with) they have chosen to post
obnoxious, non-informative responses (aka. flames).  Now, what has
changed: 

1) my (and others') knowledge about Win95 capabilities?  Nope.
2) my sense of civility toward these two individuals?  Yep; I now feel 
they are inconsiderate assholes.

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       *                            *

John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
: another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
: question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
: question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would

I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 
untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.

Jeff

In <3n3bqi$2...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>
>John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
>: Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
>: another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
>: question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
>: question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
>
>I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
>hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 
>untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
>min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.
>
>Jeff

This coming from someone who admitted yesterday that he flew off the
handle.

If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started
to quote my last message on this matter a couple of posts ago, but then
you didn't actually write anything after the quote.  So us OS/2 users are
still in the dark about this; please enlighten us.

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

Allright my turn to say something...

	Now first lets get straight, this isn't meant to be a flame instigator so 
save your breath.   Second, I personally feel OS/2 is an excellent operating 
and anyone that tries argues otherwise is pretty foolish.  However, I just 
tried out the third beta of Win95 and it's game support is pretty incredible.
This is why...

1)  Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2 
there really isn't any need to for most games.  I loaded these games on my 
machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:  
EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and 
Links386.  I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!  
worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but 
compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was 
night and day.  There were no speed sacrifices at all.  

2)  The only game where I had do drop into "DOS" mode was for USNF.  When you 
do have to drop into DOS mode it basically reboots your machine.  Pretty much 
sucks but it does let you specify a seperate config and autoexec statements in 
the PIF file.  Keep in mind though that was only ONE game.  I couldn't even 
run USNF, or knew how to, in OS/2 Warp.

>From a person that was intially very doubtful Win95 game support surprised me 
quite a bit.  This is message is only meant as info, not insult. :^)

Randy

In article <rcharlan....@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rcha...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Randy Charland) writes:
>
> 1)  Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2
> there really isn't any need to for most games.  I loaded these games on my
> machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:
> EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and
> Links386.  I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!
> worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but
> compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was
> night and day.  There were no speed sacrifices at all.
>
The question here is if Win95 really has session settings, but hides
them from you unlike OS/2. Win95 may just have a VERY good database
of current games with well tuned settings for each.

On the other hand, since Win95 is less concerned with protection than
OS/2, it may not need control as strict as OS/2 has over DOS sessions.

It may even be a combination of both factors, fewer settings and a
good database for tuning them. One way to tell would be a game that
came out after the beta and has had no chance to be included in their
database. I would go so far as to say, even check for a new DOS
extender, since that is one of the primary drivers in this.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

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

He (John) was being polite and asking a constructive question.  How do you expect him to learn more about the product that you feel he knows "nothing about" without asking questions?  Instead of your inane/childish "nope sorry wrong" response, why don't you try being more polite and informative?  You seem to be more interested in being abrasive than wasting bandwidth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Habib
Mcgill Research Center for 
Intelligent Machines
Montreal, Quebec
email: ph...@cim.mcgill.ca

In article <3n0rdn$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, sir...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Skuller) writes:
>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Origin can be contacted on customer support at:

ORIG...@AOL.COM 

or Origin Marketing at:

O...@AOL.COM

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Maarten Dinger
(University of Waikato, New Zealand).

On 18 Apr 1995, Chris Skuller wrote:

>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

	I think it's supp...@origin.ea.com.

TRH Sends

=============================================================================

              o               o		     CDR Thomas Russell Hong, TCN
               \             /		     CAG, Confed Carrier Air Wing 17
                \     _     /		     TCS Fenris (CVS-73)
                 \__ /_\ __/		     385 Kilrathi kills to date
   X------------< __/ . \__ >------------X   email:  th...@columbia.edu
                 \__\___/__/		    
		  /       \		     "It's hard to be humble..."

=============================================================================

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950419...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu> Thomas Russell Hong <th...@columbia.edu> writes:
>From: Thomas Russell Hong <th...@columbia.edu>
>Subject: Re: Origins EMail Address
>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 03:34:42 -0400

>On 18 Apr 1995, Chris Skuller wrote:

>>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  

Try this -
sup...@origin.ea.com

or their web page -
http://www.ea.com/origin.html

Hope this helps...
Louie

John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: 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.

Are you sure you want to do that?  They may flame you for making them 
look like idiots.  (see uneducated remarks about Win95 below).  Then 
again. what should be expect from a UNC psych major?  (not much)


: 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       *                            *

> 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.  

>From what I have seen you can give each program it's own DOS settings 
and/or config.sys and autoexec.bat if you use real mode dos. If you run 
in a window etc then you specify what you need as system-wide by editing
the main autexec.bat etc.  There may be other ways of doing this too?
I think the final version will add a little more to this we'll have to
wait and see.
 
-- 
Mark Rogers.  ** Bug Free = Super FPU f*** to Tony **  *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *

jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
  
 [ snip ]

>If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
>The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
>run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
>to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
>information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
>latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
>runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started

I though I could stay out of this debate but...

>From the Windows 95 Resource Kit on the build 445 CD-ROM:

Application Support/
 Technical notes on application support/
  Support for MS-DOS Based applications:

   "As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS - base application runs in its own
   DOS virtual machine (VM), which allows multiple 8086-compatible sessions
   to run on the CPU, which in turn allows existing MS-DOS - based 
   applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system."


--
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                    

ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:

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

 Look who's talking. Quit wasting bandwidth quoting an entire message 
unless you have something constructive to say in response.

> >   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
> > with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
> 
> I am also after an E-Mail address for Origin.

sup...@origin.ea.com

In article <1995Apr19.1...@waikato.ac.nz>, mbdi...@waikato.ac.nz says...
>
>In article <3n0rdn$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, sir...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Skull
>er) writes:
>>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
>> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
>
>Origin can be contacted on customer support at:
>
>ORIG...@AOL.COM 
>
>or Origin Marketing at:
>
>O...@AOL.COM
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Maarten Dinger
>(University of Waikato, New Zealand).
>

You can also try sup...@origin.ea.com or mark...@origin.ea.com


__________________________________________________________________
greg...@magna.com.au  Greg Weaver Sydney,Australia. Voice +61 18 414-960
          Check out my favourite band 'The Falling Joys'              
http://www.slnsw.gov.au/ausmusic/f/falling-joys/fj-index.html
_________________________________________________________________________

John Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> 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       *                            *
> 

Yes you can do the same thing under Windows 95, you can run a DOS program
under Windows 95 in a full screen or window (equal to OS2 PM) or you
can run it under MSDOS mode with the default or specify your own
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.. works out pretty well.

sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:

>jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
>
> [ snip ]

>>If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
>>The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
>>run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
>>to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
>>information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
>>latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
>>runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started

>I though I could stay out of this debate but...

>>From the Windows 95 Resource Kit on the build 445 CD-ROM:

>Application Support/
> Technical notes on application support/
>  Support for MS-DOS Based applications:

>   "As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS - base application runs in its own
>   DOS virtual machine (VM), which allows multiple 8086-compatible sessions
>   to run on the CPU, which in turn allows existing MS-DOS - based
>   applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system."


It was pointed out to me that the above quote does not answer the actual
question posed, which is true.  I have looked all over the resource kit 
documentation and have found nothing that states that "you may run 
several concurrent DOS VMs, each with it's own DOS settings."  

However, here is an exceprt from the mem /c output in several differently 
configured DOS sessions running at the same time on a IBM PS/2 Model 90 
w/32M RAM :

  Session with Auto EMS:

    Total Expanded (EMS)                  32,964,608  (31M)
    Free Expanded (EMS)                   16,777,216  (16M)
    Largest executable program size          614,000 (600K)
    Largest free upper memory block                0   (0K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

  Session with no EMS

    Largest executable program size          614,000 (600K)
    Largest free upper memory block                0   (0K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.
       
  Session with Auto EMS and 280K Conventional

    Total Expanded (EMS)                  32,964,608  (31M)
    Free Expanded (EMS)                   16,777,216  (16M)
    Largest executable program size          280,176 (274K)
    Largest free upper memory block            2,112   (2K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

I tried to come up with actual documentation stating exactly the answer to
the question, but in the absence of that, I hope the results of this 
experiment do answer the question.

It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
might be run.

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                    

In article <3n4rsh$4...@uwm.edu>, nos...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Jerome Micheal Kuptz) says:
>: 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)?
>
>I didn't want to get involved in this, but YES. YOU can do whatever you want
>to 95. Basically you say..."Windows I wanna do this and this and this and
>this and this and this" and guess what it says "Yes...will do RIGHT AWAY."
>Just like OS/2 you can have specially made icons plastered across your
>desktop so that you may just double click your till your little heart is
>content. 
>
>nos4a2
>

	You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:

>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>might be run.

So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

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.

On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

> I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
> hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 

Nope, you were not.  Indeed, I had sent the note prior to reading your 
private email.

> untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
> min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.

As I pointed out in my private email, you have obviously made a mistake.  
I copied the entire post pointing out the OBVIOUS places where I was 
asking questions (I remeber about 6 question marks in my post, which I 
won't repost here to save bandwidth).  Either you have choosen to ignore 
this fact, or our messages have again crossed.  I fully admit to not 
knowing much about Win95, and I was asking questions.  I have not changed 
my tune.

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 <Pine.CVX.3.91.95042...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
>
>On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:
>

>As I pointed out in my private email, you have obviously made a mistake.  
>I copied the entire post pointing out the OBVIOUS places where I was 
>asking questions (I remeber about 6 question marks in my post, which I 
>won't repost here to save bandwidth).  Either you have choosen to ignore 
>this fact, or our messages have again crossed.  I fully admit to not 
>knowing much about Win95, and I was asking questions.  I have not changed 
>my tune.

Rude?  WTF, you asked a really, really dumb question on the usenet, and you 
got flamed for it.  Who honestly gives a damn whether the "files=" can be 
specified for each DOS session, and if so what relevence does it have to the 
gaming groups?  NONE.  Dumb, dumb dumb dumb.  Then, you insist on continuing 
the stupidity by posting as though you were some righteous avatar, when in 
fact you are a schmuck who posted an irrelevent (who cares about a handfull 
of bytes that the "files=" might take up?) question to the incorrect 
newsgroups.

Might I recommend that you take a beginner "Intro to Computers" class at UNC.

	- Rich

>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       *                            *
>

Daniel McCarty (dmcc...@sitvax.stevens-tech.edu) wrote:
: In article <3n4rsh$4...@uwm.edu>, nos...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Jerome Micheal Kuptz) says:
: >: 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)?
: >
: >I didn't want to get involved in this, but YES. YOU can do whatever you want
: >to 95. Basically you say..."Windows I wanna do this and this and this and
: >this and this and this" and guess what it says "Yes...will do RIGHT AWAY."
: >Just like OS/2 you can have specially made icons plastered across your
: >desktop so that you may just double click your till your little heart is
: >content. 
: >
: >nos4a2
: >

: 	You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

And what clues do you have? As far as I can tell none. Do you run the OS?
I have run it and feel it is much better than OS/2 for my personal use and
felt I would share what I found out about 95. I never asked to be flammed by
some idiot that can't respond with an intelligent post. if you can prove me
wrong then do it, but I have ran both the operating systems in this
discussion and feel it is the best for me. if you have a fucking problem
with that then you can just fuck off. If you want me to back up my claims I
made up above then I strongly suggest you back up yours. 

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"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3n9nl1$n...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>,
st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Hon Chong Chang) says:

>First, Does this means that Win95 can MULTITASK DOS VDM? Because I'm foremost looking
>for a *TRUE PRE-EMPTIVE MULTITASKING OS* and I really would like to multitask in
>DOS. The easiest way to test this I think, will be to load up DOS VDM under win95,
>play a MOD file (i.e. I think DMP or most popular modplayers should do) and then
>switch back to win95's equivalent of program manager. Is the music still there?
>(this test should also be able to test the stability of win95, because mod playing,
>especially using a SoundBlaster XX crunches up tons of resources and generates tons
>of system interrupts and DMAs). Does the music die down if I start another DOS VDM?
>(try playing the DOS QBASIC's NIBBLES or any other games that do not use soundcards)
>Also, can someone tell me how well windows handles DOS communication softwares? I
>know win95 native comm program would exist, but I just like to test the stability
>and comm port handling ability of win95 DOS VDM. What happens when you try to use
>the same comm port? (i.e. load up another comm program that uses the same comm port)

Even Windows 3.1 preemptively multitasks dos sessions (provided you configure the
PIF file settings correctly), so I doubt that there's any problem under
Win95.  Windows is a stange creature: a very nice premptive mutltasking OS, 
and a very nice GUI API, but you can't use them both at the same time.
Win16 apps are always cooperatively multitasked under Windows 3.1 and Win95.


Stephen C. Steel       <rev...@qv3pluto.LeidenUniv.nl>
Maintainer of Childrens Software Reviews WWW site:
http://qv3pluto.LeidenUniv.nl/steve/reviews/welcome.htm
==========================================================

ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:

>In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:

>>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>>might be run.

>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

I beleive that is true for DOS VMs.  You can however specify them if you use
MS-DOS mode.  But also remember that Win95 supports VxDs so you shouldn't
have to load any new drivers in a DOS VM.

>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.
--
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                    

> >It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
> >options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
> >.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
> >might be run.
> 
> So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
> have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
> 
> Adam

You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.

--
Mark Rogers.  *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *

In article <3nb7ra$6...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu 
says...
>
>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does
>Win95 have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
>
>Adam

For every DOS program, you can specify individual CONFIG.SYS and 
AUTOEXEC.BAT settings.  However, if you do, Win95 essentially
reboots with the new config files, then runs the program--after
the program is done, the system reboots again and reloads Win95.
Fortunately, I've seen very few programs that need their own
configuration files--for me, everything except Transport Tycoon
runs with whatever Win95 gives it (thus, no reboot).

Your mileage may vary.  :)

- David

On 22 Apr 1995, root wrote:

> Rude?  WTF, you asked a really, really dumb question on the usenet, and you 
> got flamed for it.  Who honestly gives a damn whether the "files=" can be 
> specified for each DOS session, and if so what relevence does it have to the 
> gaming groups?  NONE.  Dumb, dumb dumb dumb.  Then, you insist on continuing 

I disagree -- it is directly related to all these gaming groups, since so 
many games demand such a wide variety of configurations.  I wanted to 
know if Win95 performed as well as OS/2 in handling such a scenario.  The 
quality of the answer, IMHO, has direct bearing on the quality of both of 
these operating systems as gaming platforms. 

> the stupidity by posting as though you were some righteous avatar, when in 
> fact you are a schmuck who posted an irrelevent (who cares about a handfull 
> of bytes that the "files=" might take up?) question to the incorrect 
> newsgroups. 

Obviously you are having trouble extrapolating from my FILES= example to 
other -- more important -- configuration settings, such as the ability to 
manipulate system memory, selectively load device drivers, etc.  Not all 
of us are as challenged in our critical thinking abilities.

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       *                            *

After reading all the posts and flames of Windows '95 and OS/2 I have a 
couple questions.

  Does either OS support IDE interface CDROMs?
  
  What are the cuurent formats and prices of both os?? (ie CDROM vs 3.5")

  Is the built in device support for both OS only for popular and current
    or is there an option for manufacturer drivers??

-- 
Michael King                              e-mail: kin...@cig.mot.com

In article <798241...@rodent.demon.co.uk>,
   jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk (Julian Barker) wrote:
>In article <3n0rdn$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
>           sir...@ix.netcom.com "Chris Skuller" writes:
>
>>   Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?  Please Email me
>> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
>> 
>>           Sir Ace the Great
>>           SIR...@IX.NETCOM.COM 
>> 
>
>I am also after an E-Mail address for Origin.
>


It's:    sup...@origin.ea.com


Henryk Bochmann



+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The  Ranger  on  the hill looked up to what seemed to  be  a  Striking |
| Eagle.  But as it was coming nearer, thunder grew throughout the  sky. |
| He  didn't  believe  his eyes when he could make out  a  very  strange |
| Metallic  Dragon  on a fiery cloud. Never had he seen  something  like |
| this.  When  the Dragon was above him, high in the sky,  there  was  a |
| sudden  blast that made the earth shudder. And then it was gone.  Only |
| a  long white trail in the sky marked the path the Metallic Dragon was |
| following. Would his fellows at the Blue Boar believe him?             |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| F-15 Dragon     ULTIMA Dragons       aka Henryk Bochmann               |
| -==[UDIC]==-   Internet Chapter      F15_D...@ultima.why.com         |
|                     Try:             boch...@rcs1.urz.tu-dresden.de   |
|               www.why.com/ultima/    F-15 at undernet_irc              |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In <saswta.7...@sas.com>, sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:
>ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:
>
>>In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:
>
>>>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>>>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>>>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>>>might be run.
>
>>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
>
>I beleive that is true for DOS VMs.  You can however specify them if you use
>MS-DOS mode.  But also remember that Win95 supports VxDs so you shouldn't
>have to load any new drivers in a DOS VM.

As I understand, MS-DOS mode is the same as having batch files in
DOS that copies the proper autoexec.bat and config.sys and reboot
the machine.  *No rebooting* is what people wants.

Can you elaborate about how VxD has to do with DOS drivers?

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

In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.95042...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>,
John Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:

> Of course, you ignore the recent IBM/Lotus announcement.  They are working
> on the API calls that are similar under both OS/2 and Win95 (forgive me if
> I'm a bit off in this description, as I'm not a programmer in either
> environment).  What that will mean is that a game developer can write a
> program for Win95 and use the SAME source code to compile the game for
> OS/2.  Of course, there is currently a tool that allows the vendor to use
> a large portions of their code, but it still requires some writing as I
> understand it; however, given the ability to port the code by simply
> switching the parameters of the compiler, there will be no excuse for not
> producing native OS/2 versions of games (and other apps) given this
> capability. 

Especially as games move more and more to CD-ROM only.  The executables
are usually only a tiny part of the game (mostly QT movies and stuff),
so executables for both can be included on the one CD at little or no
cost to the publisher.

Matt

--
GO d-- h+ s++;+ g+++ !p !au a- w+ v+ C++++ UL(S)++ P+ L+ 3- E- N+++ K++  W--- 
M+ V-- -po+ Y+ t+ !5 !j R G? tv+ b+++ D--- B--- e+ u+ h!>++ f r-- !n y?
                     The Borg: Cool, Calm and Collective.

In article <3nb7ra$6...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:
>
>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

Yes, "load these driver and execute this batch file" or "load these drivers" or
"Run this batch file".  So far for Doom/2, Descent, Wing Commander 3, and Dark
Forces, I've just let Win95 go on "Auto" and they've all run perfect.  Those
are the only games I've tried so far.  

----------Tom

>
>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 article <3nhg7a$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu       (Oliver Chung) wrote:

> Can you elaborate about how VxD has to do with DOS drivers?

In this case, presumably the same way as the virtual drivers OS/2 uses
to access hardware in DOS sessions - no mouse or CD-ROM drivers loaded
into "DOS memory".

Matt

--
GO d-- h+ s++;+ g+++ !p !au a- w+ v+ C++++ UL(S)++ P+ L+ 3- E- N+++ K++  W--- 
M+ V-- -po+ Y+ t+ !5 !j R G? tv+ b+++ D--- B--- e+ u+ h!>++ f r-- !n y?
                 I am Gates of Borg. OEMs will be assimilated.

"Michael T. King" <kin...@cig.mot.com> writes:

>After reading all the posts and flames of Windows '95 and OS/2 I have a 
>couple questions.

>  Does either OS support IDE interface CDROMs?
  

OS/2 does.  I am using a Mitsumi Quad-Speed IDE CD-ROM on my machine.  I
am pretty sure Win95 will also.

>  What are the cuurent formats and prices of both os?? (ie CDROM vs 3.5")

Warp(~$79) and Warp with WinOS/2(~$119) come on both (same price for both
formats), Warp Connect will only be available on CD-ROM (still in Beta so I
won't comment about prices) if the rumors are true.  Don't know what Win95
will cost when it is released.

>  Is the built in device support for both OS only for popular and current
>    or is there an option for manufacturer drivers??

You can use OS/2's Device Driver Install to add any OS/2 device driver that
a manufacturer makes (and creates a device driver profile for...) for it.
I grabbed a driver for a PCMCIA SCSI card from the manufacturer's BBS 
yesterday and installed it that way for a friend of mine.  As for what it
supports in the box, e-mail me with any specifics.  Most everything is
covered except the real old and real new stuff.  Again, I don't know about
Win95, but I expect it to be comparable.

>-- 
>Michael King                              e-mail: kin...@cig.mot.com

- Dwayne

--
---                                                                     ---
- Dwayne Parks                      University of Arkansas Computer Store -
- dpa...@comp.uark.edu                            #include <disclaimer.h> -
---                                                                     ---

In article <798682...@markbz.demon.co.uk>, Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk 
says...
>
>You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
>if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.
>
>--
	Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
	game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
	your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
	autoexec and config.

	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
	limitations...

Daniel.
dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu

dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) writes:

>In article <798682...@markbz.demon.co.uk>, Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk
>says...
>>
>>You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
>>if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.
>>
>>--
>       Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
>       game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
>       your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
>       autoexec and config.

>       Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>       Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>       OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>       limitations...

Win95 does have virtual DOS sessions.  MS-DOS mode (single DOS application
mode), IMO is intended as a last resort if you are unable to get your 
application running in a DOS VM.

>Daniel.
>dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu

--
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                    

In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
>	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>	limitations...

Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.

In <9uNflO9R...@wam.umd.edu>, rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) writes:
>In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
>dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
>>	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>>	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>>	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>>	limitations...
>
>Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.



  This is a poor example.  An informed person would know that the reason that
the sound in Doom doesn't work under OS/2 is because of a bug in the sound code.
This problem also surfaces under some DOS environments. 

    -Scott

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net         |  This space available     
"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo!"   |   for advertising. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3o5bbl$d...@redstone.interpath.net>, 
jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net says...

>
>  This is a poor example.  An informed person would know that 
the reason that
>the sound in Doom doesn't work under OS/2 is because of a bug 
in the sound code.

Eh?  The sound code works fine under DOS.  Face it, the problem
is with OS/2, as much as you might hope otherwise.

	- Rich

>This problem also surfaces under some DOS environments. 
>
>    -Scott
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>Jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net         |  This space 
available     
>"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo!"   |   for 
advertising. ;)
>---------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In article <3o5bbl$d...@redstone.interpath.net>,
jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net wrote:
>In <9uNflO9R...@wam.umd.edu>, rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) writes:
>>In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
>>dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
>>>	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>>>	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>>>	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>>>	limitations...
>>
>>Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
>
>  This is a poor example.  An informed person would know that the reason that
>the sound in Doom doesn't work under OS/2 is because of a bug in the sound code.

No, the reason that Doom doesn't run under OS/2 with sound
is because OS/2 doesn't support Doom with sound.  Pinning
the finger on a "bug" that prevents it from running under an
environment for which it wasn't designed is like saying that
Doom doesn't run under Softwindows because of a "bug."

>This problem also surfaces under some DOS environments. 

Only on PS/2s, another IBM product.

In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>
           dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu "Daniel McCarty" writes:

>         Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
>         game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
>         your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
>         autoexec and config.
> 
>         Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>         Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>         OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>         limitations...

Which is exactly what you do in OS/2 Warp when a game won't run even
after messing around with the options a VDos session settings 1000 times.
Yes you choose DOS boot, reboot, play the game fine, then reboot 
into OS2 (having to use the BOOT utility first each time to restore your 
boot block) and reboot into OS2 again.

Many programs work fine in the virtual Dos in Win95. Also if you
use the current machine config in the Single Dos Mode your machine
doesn't reboot.  Windows shuts down all the `windows' runs you game the
quits back into windows.

The OS's are very similar in many ways.

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

In article <9uNflO9R...@wam.umd.edu>,
rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert "FUD" Rodgers) writes:
|> In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
|> dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
|> >	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
|> >	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
|> >	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
|> >	limitations...
|> 
|> Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
|> 

A year ago when I still played Doom I played it with full sound/music under 
os/2. Why do you always need to lie about os/2 to make w95 look good? 
---
Fredric Lonngren  etx...@profit.ericsson.se  Voice/Fax + 46 8 719 5226/5557
Ericsson Telecom AB     Open System Technology      http://www.ericsson.com  

               [OS/2 WARP v3 - Beware of inferior imitations]

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg: 2-May-95 Re: Win95 and
games: good n.. by root@wentz1.reslife.okst 
> Eh?  The sound code works fine under DOS.  Face it, the problem
> is with OS/2, as much as you might hope otherwise.

id has admitted that they did a poor job with the sound code in the Doom
engine. In fact they didn't write it but hired someone else to do the
job. That is the last time they don't write all of their code. As foar
as I know Quake is written entirely by id. The sound in Doom, Doom II,
Heretic, and any other game that uses the Doom executable has problems
with OS/2. Also Doom uses a 32 bit DOS extender, so it is pretty
unorthodox. You really can't complain to IBM for not making their DOS
100% compatible. I have had no problems (except for certain Microprose
games which must use a non standard video mode!) with OS/2 running my
DOS games. The only incombatability was the game Privateer, which also
has a pretty unorthodox way of handling EMS. What is it called? JEMMS I
think. Or is it VCPI memory? IBM had quite a large task on their hands
and I think they did excellent. A lot of newer games use pretty
non-standard ways of trying to get around DOS limitations. The problem
is partly with OS/2, but as in the case of DOOM, the sound code was just
crap! I think Microsoft probably went extra far to make sure that DOOM
runs fine under their Windows94/94/96 (new technology huh???!!!) so that
they can go out and say: "Look Doom runs fine on our system. Don't buy
OS/2 because this seems to be an obvious problem!" Do you think you
could do any better and code a whole new 32 bit GUI that can run 3
different OS's at the same time with very few problems????? I think that
just because one game doesn't work right should be a whole reason to buy
a new OS.

My $.02

Iron Man

_____________________________________________________________________

                                O
    Mark Bassett                |       I have nightmares about it:
    Callsign: Iron Man          |       
    mb...@andrew.cmu.edu        l       Falcon 4.0 as a Win95
    Pgh, PA, USA               _|_      Product!   8(
    Coming Soon:              /   \
    My own WWW page!!        |_---_|
                         __-/   .   \-__
     X===================__'=_______='__===================X
                  ___====~~~\       /~~~====___
                             '-----'
                            /       \

                 ASCII art by Thomas Russell Hong
____________________________________________________________________

In article <3o79a5$r...@erinews.ericsson.se>, etx...@eos.ericsson.se (Fredric Lonngren) writes:
|> In article <9uNflO9R...@wam.umd.edu>,
|> rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert "FUD" Rodgers) writes:
|> |> In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
|> |> dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
|> |> >	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
|> |> >	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
|> |> >	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
|> |> >	limitations...
|> |> 
|> |> Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
|> |> 
|> 
|> A year ago when I still played Doom I played it with full sound/music under 
|> os/2. Why do you always need to lie about os/2 to make w95 look good? 

Actually the Doom version prior to 1.2 did work with sound under OS/2. Then
ID broke the sound engine and the problem arose (on some DOS PCs too..)

  -Mike

>
>Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
>
Will flightsim run under Win 95?

Reinier de Groot

100121,776/GO:PPP...@198.4.7.1 wrote:
>>
>>Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
>>
>Will flightsim run under Win 95?
>
>Reinier de Groot


Well, perhaps, you might grace us with a more specific name than "flightsim"?

100121 wrote:
: >
: >Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.
: >
: Will flightsim run under Win 95?

: Reinier de Groot

if you mean flight simulator 5, i've seen it working just fine.

cd

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
"And tommorow Binky, we shall rule... the world!" -- The Brain
CD @ Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 
Internet: gt0...@prism.gatech.edu