🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3n0iv0$7...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>: 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 
>
>NO IT DOESN'T.  Its more like Win95 and DOS run parallel.
>DOS is just around more with Win95, but Win95 is the operating system you 
>are using, not DOS.
>

You are brainwashed.  It's a bit more complicated than Windows 95 running
straight on top of DOS, but yes, they are inextricably linked.  You couldn't
be running Windows 95 without DOS there somewhere (it's actually built
into the Windows 95 code).  Contrast this with OS/2, which is completely 
standalone.  You can run DOS programs without even having DOS on your 
system (of course, you won't be able to use any DOS commands, but you 
can run the programs), and of course you can run every OS/2 program as 
well.  

In fact, when running a single session for a game under Windows 95,
all the OS is doing is unloading every Windows 95 feature from memory
and leaving you with straight DOS.  Basically nothing more than an OS/2
dual boot, the difference being that OS/2 has to reboot the whole
machine in order to get vanilla DOS; Windows 95 just takes itself out of
memory.  That should tell you something about the OS you're really running
when using Windows 95.

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

On 18 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

> Not to mention decend support and on-line help files.  Nothing is more 
> frustrating with Warp than dealing with IBM's turd support staff.  Very 
> rude people, and very unhelpful.  IBM's marketing people never bothered 
> to inform support they were trying to win over Windows users, it seems.
> With OS/2, and error is an error, and there will be no explanation.  

What?  OS/2's on-line help system is fine, and in my two calls to IBM tech
support, I've had not problems.  Perhaps you came off as a rude asshole as
you do in the above post?  Notice how it draws a rude response? 

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 <D77pB...@caprica.com> jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel) writes: 
>

 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.

Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?


I actually am curious.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
-Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistibuting this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Clayton A. Cahill, 1995
-License to distribute this post is available for $1,000. Posting
without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
-Please send notices of violation to postm...@microsoft.com

In article <3mvkr5$l...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Clayton Cahill <cha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
>et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
>
>
>I actually am curious.


I actually played and sold WC3 before I began running Win95... but I CAN say
that Dark Forces works fine.  It's really hard to tell that you're even
running it under Win95 until you hit the loading portions of the game...
they take a lot longer.  However, I can understand that since there's a lot
of memory management going on... but once the game is going, it plays damn
fast.
 
Let's see, what games have I tried under Win95... Dark Forces, Tie Fighter,
X-Wing CD, X-Com 2, Descent, Doom II, Alone in the Dark III... hmm, I know
I've played more but I can't think of them right now.  Tie Fighter, X-Wing,
X-Com 2, Descent, oh.. Heretic too... they all ran in Window as well.  Mind
you, it's kinda too slow to be playable in a Window (except maybe X-Com)
but it's neat to see it run that way.  The only problem I found is that Win95
didn't seem to give the Windowed game control of the palette when it was
in focus... all of them ran fine in full-screen though.
 
I also had most of these running under OS/2 with no problems either... though I
never got the chance to try Descent or X-Com II under OS/2.  Tie Fighter,
X-Wing, Heretic, etc all ran in a window under OS/2 as well.
 
 
-- 

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

In <3mvkr5$l...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> cha...@ix.netcom.com (Clayton
Cahill) writes: 

>Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
>et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
>
>
>I actually am curious.


Not true. :)  Wing Commander III runs FASTER than with straight DOS
(which is a nice bonus), and runs flawlessly straight from the GUI
without rebooting with it's own configuration.  Same with Dark Forces
(Dark Forces will actually run IN a window).

In fact, you can run Win95 without a CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT (unless
you'd like to keep some PATH statements in the latter).  As long as
you're running Win95, some things like SMARTDRV & MSCDEX (and in my
opinion, memory managers) are obsolete, and only slow things down in
Win95--it has it's own built-in CD support and caching.

Real nice. :)


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.." <
>==============================================<

For anyone interested, I read in USA Today or somewhere that
one of the first Win95 upgrades will be to its graphics and
sound capability.  It seems that Microsoft is really committed
to making Win95 into a high performance gaming platform.  This
should be great for gamers since I believe that the game market
will take off once people can load up a good game that they can
click on and play.  We should have more choices as the market
expands!!
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu

>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...

Yeah, you're right, Microsoft decided to start from scratch and to
wipe out all the softwares ever written for Windows 3.11... <%-)

Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...

Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
Windows95... :)

(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
 |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
 |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)

	I just run DOS right now, but I'm interested in getting a new OS, so I've been 
following this thread with interest.

	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
impression of their users from the messages in this thread.

	The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.

	Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
informed.
	Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2 
users rather than the Win95 users.  As far as "character" references go, OS/2
is way ahead.  
	"Good job!" OS/2 people!
	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.


	
-- 
                               Tarquelne
                        jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu
       I know how God can make a rock so big He can't lift it. 

In <jhamilt.798228637@bgsuvax>, jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Tarquelne) writes:
>	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
>learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
>impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
>	The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
>	Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
>informed.
>	Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2 
>users rather than the Win95 users.  As far as "character" references go, OS/2
>is way ahead.  
>	"Good job!" OS/2 people!
>	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
>want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.

	You should check out comp.os.os2.advocacy (and its Win counterpart),
where most of the really rabid OS/2 users hang out.  While the games groups
seem to have been hit with mostly clueless Win95 people, on Usenet as a
whole the percentages are pretty even.  Of course, both sides see the other
as a bunch of raving lunatics.
	All you have to do is ignore any post with the words "roolz", "sucks",
"losers" or "sloooooooooow" and you may actually find some useful info.  And,
of course, nothing beats six months of hands on experience.
	I myself much prefer debating with NT users.  We still disagree on a
lot of things, but its mostly because we have different needs.  Not so much 
insult-flinging and pettiness.
	I see this thread has yet to be posted to alt.fan.q and alt.2600.

Derek
drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu

John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: On 18 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

: > Not to mention decend support and on-line help files.  Nothing is more 
: > frustrating with Warp than dealing with IBM's turd support staff.  Very 
: > rude people, and very unhelpful.  IBM's marketing people never bothered 
: > to inform support they were trying to win over Windows users, it seems.
: > With OS/2, and error is an error, and there will be no explanation.  

: What?  OS/2's on-line help system is fine, and in my two calls to IBM tech
: support, I've had not problems.  Perhaps you came off as a rude asshole as
: you do in the above post?  Notice how it draws a rude response? 

Now lets back up a sec... Who REALLY looks like an asshole here?  

I called OS/2 tech support.  Keep in mind I was VERY new to OS/2 and 
couldn't get around in the OS very well.  But I was getting all sorts of 
errors due to the install, and I had no choice but to call tech.  The guy 
was telling me to do things, and I really couldn't get aorund very fast.
I explained that I was new to this, and he says "Well when you figure out 
how to use the OS, call me back!" , and hung up.  I was NEVER rude to the 
guy, so don't be such a jerk, OK?  I admit I was moving along slowly, but 
the errors I was getting would not allow me to do some of the things he 
was asking me to do.  It turns out OS/2 didn't like my S3 864TRIO.  The 
tech guy didn't realize there was a difference between that and the 
regular 864.   I called back, but it was after 5:00pm in my timezone, so 
they refused to help me.  After 5?  And after 90 (or was it 30) I have to 
send them money if I want any more support?  Catch up with the rest of 
the industry, please!  I felt like I was dealing with the IBM of the 80's.


So anyway, don't go calling me an asshole just because I don't like your 
operating system.  Its not like a religion!  (or is it?)

Jeff 

In <3n25st$m...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
>: On 18 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:
>

>I called OS/2 tech support.  Keep in mind I was VERY new to OS/2 and 
>couldn't get around in the OS very well.  But I was getting all sorts of 
>errors due to the install, and I had no choice but to call tech.  The guy 
>was telling me to do things, and I really couldn't get aorund very fast.
>I explained that I was new to this, and he says "Well when you figure out 
>how to use the OS, call me back!" , and hung up. 

It sounds like you just had a bad employee.  Every company has them,
you should have just called back and tried to talk to someone else.  When
I called (for a problem that turned out not to be OS/2's fault), I kept the
guy sitting there for minutes at a time while I booted and rebooted trying
to get my sound card drivers to load.  He didn't seem to mind, and I kept
apologizing for the wait (at the time I was using a very slow hard drive
as well, and with 4 mb of RAM, so my boot time was about 4 minutes), but
he just said a lot of people have the same deal, and stuck with me until
we figured it out.

In the early days of release, IBM had a huge load of calls.  It sounds like you
just happened to get an overworked employee with a large backlog of calls
waiting to get through, and he just lost his patience.  You can't blame the
whole company for this.  Certainly you can complain about it, but I don't
believe it's right to say the entire tech support structure for OS/2 is at fault.

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

re...@ix.netcom.com (Rich) wrote: 
 
>Not true. :)  Wing Commander III runs FASTER than with straight DOS 
>(which is a nice bonus), and runs flawlessly straight from the GUI 
>without rebooting with it's own configuration.  Same with Dark Forces 
>(Dark Forces will actually run IN a window). 
> 
 
How did you get Dark Forces to do that?  After Dark Forces finished 
loading, it went full-screen on me.  If I alt-entered the process,   
Windows 95 said it could not continue in windowed mode. 
 
I have detected the following bug in the Beta:  If you touch the   
DriveSpace parameters and do not compress your drive, you load the   
memory-piggy DoubleSpace drivers into low memory when going into MS-DOS   
compatibility mode.  There is no control in the MS-DOS mode setup to not   
load those drivers.  The only way around it I found was to remove the   
hidden DoubleSpace drivers from the top-level directory. 
 
All in all, I think I will stick with Win95 vis-a-vis Warp because: 
 
1. It gives me the network connectivity via the phone line I need for   
work.  (Less of an issue now that Warp Connect is out). 
 
2. It runs the 32-bit version of Microsoft Office. 
 
3. It does a passable job on games and allows me to load any incompatible   
real-mode drivers that I have.  I think both Warp and Win95 do a good job   
here.  So, if _all_ you do is games, Warp will probably be good enough   
because I think all the sound problems that Warp has curently will   
eventually be solved.   
 
4. I get true client-server remote e-mail.  
 
I don't think I am alone in that I use my home computer _both_ for games   
and telecommuting.  Win95 does a superior job of dealing with   
requirements for both of these uses of my home computer. 
 
--  
================================================================ 
Rich Blinne  
Symbios Logic Inc.      |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
3351 Eastbrook Dr.	|  Work: Rich....@symbios.com 
Ft. Collins, CO 80525	|  Home: JKT...@prodigy.com 
(970) 223-5100 x9334    |        RichB...@aol.com 

Please take OS advocacy to the news groups for OS advocacy.

I know some of you think Os/2 is evil and others think windows is a commie 
plot and others wouldn't be caught dead running anything but vintage DOS.

This group is about games, and I would  like to hear your reviews and
tips on the games you play.  Thanks :)

dsh...@nova.wright.edu wrote:

: Please take OS advocacy to the news groups for OS advocacy.

: I know some of you think Os/2 is evil and others think windows is a commie 
: plot and others wouldn't be caught dead running anything but vintage DOS.

: This group is about games, and I would  like to hear your reviews and
: tips on the games you play.  Thanks :)

What OS you choose to play the game under is a valid gaming issue!!  Keep
on topic, what are the merits of Win '95 against the merits of OS/2 for
gaming software?  

I personally spent many, many hours tuning my software and DOS environment
to play these games at their max!  Win'95 allows me not to loose that
effort.  It really is no better or no worse than OS/2 at doing 100% for
100% of the time, they both run games, they share a lot of commonality,
but they are not 100% yet!! Win'95 also supports my current hardware and
software, I would have to spend thousands to replace the software and
hardware that I use (and make my living at).  

The software is more than adequate for my needs, and has a tremendous
amount of vendor support - which allows me to work better and make more
money! If MS and IBM hadn't split on the OS issue, we would have the
vendor support of Windows and the tech of OS/2 in one package!!  Write
Bill Gates and tell him what a weenie he is for allowing this to happen... 

PS- there are better OS's for the IBM PC platform than either OS/2 or 
Windows/DOS!!  

--

    James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com

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

In <3n0opu$j...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:
>>I have hear>
>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>
>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>Windows95... :)
>
You have to stop lying to people like this.  LOSE95 tries to run existing DOS and 
WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.

The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here).  They knew about this 
problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.

So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
Application errors and lockups.

Thank you

- Melissa


===================================================================================
===================================================================================
        Melissa N. Mortellaro
           gy...@ibm.net
        <<TEAM OS/2>>
--------------------------------------
        "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
        I have '95, it's called OS/2"     - anonymous

In <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> gy...@ibm.net writes: 

*SNIP*
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1
>with more Application errors and lockups.
>        Melissa N. Mortellaro
>           gy...@ibm.net
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>

And such comments *should* be expected from 'Team OS/2' people.  From
reading your post, it's obviously me that either a) you've never even
looked at Win95 or b) you did, but for only about 2 minutes.

Not that I seriously believe anything I say will change *your* mind
about anything exactly, but that last comment of yours is absolutely
unfounded.  That's a lot like me saying to you that OS/2 has worse
crash-recovery than a Commodore 64.  We both know it's not true.

I've been running Win95 for over 6 months now, and I've tested and run
(very successfully) upwards of 300 seperate apps (spanning a variety of
things, from DOS games to Windows spreadsheets to DOS cad apps to
Windows application development tools), and I'd say *in all honesty*
that ~ 97% of everything I tested ran the same--if not better-under
Win95 as it did under the MS-DOS/Win3.1 combo.  Surprisingly enough (or
perhaps not so much so), the majority of those 3% of problems apps are
DOS games.

The GUI itself has locked up on me twice in all this time, and the
amount of GPFs and application errors has decreased sizeably (about a
40:1 ratio, 40 being faults in Win3.1).

You are certainly entitled to speak up and say anything as
unintelligently as you have, but you could at least have the courtesy
of calling the OS by it's real name. ;)


Rich (know your enemy before shooting him..)
-- 
>==============================================<
>  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.." <
>==============================================<

> 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. 
> 
Win 95 has the same capability.  All you need to do is click on the icon 
of the program with the right mouse button and select "properties" from 
that option a slew of possibilities for the individual configuration of 
that program come into play.  Setting the exact amount of Conventional 
memory, extended, expanded, etc.  Or just leave it on Auto, and let the 
OS figure the stuff out for you (works most of the time).  You can also 
set the configuration of the mouse driver, soundboard, etc if you are 
going to have the dos program load in a Dos only environment.  In that 
case the system reboots only to that program in a Dos session (with the 
exact configuration you specified).  Uppon exiting the program, the 
computer reboots again (this may take some time depending on your system) 
and reloads Win 95 exactly the way you left it.  It warns you that it 
will close other applications though.

> : 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 > > NO IT DOESN'T.  Its more like Win95 and DOS run
parallel. > DOS is just around more with Win95, but Win95 is the operating
system you > are using, not DOS. > > Jeff
> 

I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS, there is 
still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows 95 is an 
operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but it 
isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few months 
now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using (now get 
this)

486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but 
the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a Win 95 
Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so easy 
to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for game 
fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.

I would like a The Vortex Will pay or trade

TheDruid


thed...@ix.netcom.com

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.95042...@christa.unh.edu>, Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
|> 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but 
|> the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a Win 95 
|> Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so easy 
|> to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for game 
|> fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.

   I have used both, and I must say I prefer OS/2 for its strong multitasking kernel.
   But, if only OS/2 had a GUI as nice as the Win 95's one...

rkp...@io.org (Roy K. Park) writes:
|> It runs fine on my system.  No crash what so ever.  Geez, what beta have you
|> been playing on?

   A lot of common users still think that Windows 3.1x is not perfectible...
   I suppose you are one of those...
   Don't worry, you will probably be in the 30 millions of stupid users who will glorify
 Microsoft in 1996 ?!?... I will not !
   Microsoft creates programs BADLY coded, but with NICE interfaces...
   That's what makes the users blind...
   I'd wish users to realize this, and so to ask Microsoft to OPTIMIZE their code...

   Erwann Corvellec.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Student & coder on PC (ASM, C, C++) & fond of LINUX V1.3 ;-D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <3n5v6t$k...@news.irisa.fr>,
Erwann Corvellec <ecor...@muguet.irisa.fr> wrote:
>   A lot of common users still think that Windows 3.1x is not perfectible...
>   I suppose you are one of those...

And OS/2 is very much 'perfect' in your opinion?  I think not.

>   Don't worry, you will probably be in the 30 millions of stupid users who will glorify
> Microsoft in 1996 ?!?... I will not !

Yeah whatever... OS/2 is going nowhere and that's the truth.  They can
twitch until Win95 comes out on the market... but eventually Win95 will
crush it to the bottom.  If you don't like Microsoft for what it is, that's
your problem... that's almost being like a... racist.  :)

>   Microsoft creates programs BADLY coded, but with NICE interfaces...

Badly coded?  OS/2 isn't much better.  Why?  Get this... I used to have
Amiga 3000 running on MC68030.  When I got my Pentium 90 running OS/2 2.1,
it was actually SLOWER on switching tasks (etc.) than my old Amiga!  (that's
with 24MB RAM!)  As for Windows95, it just flies...  go figure.

>   I'd wish users to realize this, and so to ask Microsoft to OPTIMIZE their code...

Windows95 is already highly optimized for x86 processors.  On the other
hand, OS/2 can do much better.

Joshua Cyr (jm...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:

: I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS, there is 
: still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows 95 is an 
: operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but it 
: isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few months 
: now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using (now get 
: this)

: 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but 
: the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a Win 95 
: Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so easy 
: to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for game 
: fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.

To see is to believe, add the 'C:\' to the front of your PATH in the 
autoexec.bat and drop a file called 'WIN.BAT' into C:\ and make the file 
contain:

echo No Windows for You!!

(Only one line).

Then tool around to your heart's content in DOS.  Or (simpler) choose
'Shutdown' and choose 'Restart computer in DOS mode?'.  Now watch for the
restart, you won't see it.  What you will see is Windows exiting and
running the REST of the autoexec.bat to load any extra device drivers it
needs under DOS. 

Here is what happens:

1. Cold boot, BIOS check
2. Boot DOS
3. DOS loads Windows
4. Windows uses its own device drivers if available, if not, you have to 
preload them in the config.sys or autoexec.bat so they load when DOS loads.
4A. Restart in DOS mode, run the DOS version of the device drivers that 
Windows was using.

To illustrate, I have a PAS 16 with a SCSI Teac CD50 CDROM.  To use it 
with Win'95, I don't have to load TSLCDR.SYS or MSCDEX.EXE, Windows has 
native device drivers (which mean they are likely 32-bit).  To use it 
under DOS, I have to load the drivers just like I would in MSDOS 6.2.

My girlfriend has an old Sony-Bus single speed CDROM and a PAS 16 (SCSI 
not used).  To use it with Win'95, I had to load the Sony driver and 
MSCDEX.EXE to get them to be used under Win'95.  Great thing is that 
using the DOS support, you still have Windows support, just like Win 3.1.

The moral is, when you're not running Win'95, you're running Win'95 DOS 
and DOS is still DOS...  

--

    James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com

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

>    A lot of common users still think that Windows 3.1x is not perfectible...
>    I suppose you are one of those...
>    Don't worry, you will probably be in the 30 millions of stupid users who will glorify
>  Microsoft in 1996 ?!?... I will not !
>    Microsoft creates programs BADLY coded, but with NICE interfaces...
>    That's what makes the users blind...
>    I'd wish users to realize this, and so to ask Microsoft to OPTIMIZE their code...

I agree.  IBM took Win 3.1 code and managed to get it to run 20 - 25%
faster *WITH NO CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL CODE*.  How?  Simple, they used
a Watcom C compiler (the best out there), while Microsoft apparantly
used a Microsoft C compiler (MS makes the worst compilers out there).
Also, here is something interesting.  Move a value in one location in
memory to another location in memory.  In Windows, all memory to
memory transfers go through the swap file.  A real programmer knows
that this is stupid and would never do a thing like that.  You could
double Window's speed if you just cleaned up its code and fix little
things like this.  Sloppy, poorly written code, with a nice interface.
That is a good description of MS products.
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

I don't read the entire newsgroup, but has anybody mentioned that Dr Dobb's
& Radio Electronics has published that all you have to do is add a 'PAUSE'
statement to your autoexec.bat file, I believe, press <control>C & you are
in the familiar command line mode of DOS <7???> vs Win95? Seems like the
easiest way to get existing games to run.
Rick

In A[Aarticle <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gy...@ibm.net writes:        
A[A
>In <3n0opu$j...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:
>>>I have hear>
>>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>>
>>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>>Windows95... :)
>>
>You have to stop lying to people like this.  LOSE95 tries to run existing DOS and 
>WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
>95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.
>
>The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
>way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here).  They knew about this 
>problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.
>
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
>>Thank you
>
>- Melissa
>
What lockups? I'm not having any and I'm using all the same ones I had in WGFW.
Lose95 works great for me and all my friends are having problems with Oh Shit/2
so I have no idea what you're talking about.   All of the old apps work with no
problem and faster than they did before.  I haven't found any of the problems
that IBM propaganda would have us believe.  Even Multitasking works smoothly.
Sorry.

>===================================================================================
>==============================================================================>        Melissa N. Mortellaro
>           gy...@ibm.net
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>
>--------------------------------------
>        "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
>        I have '95, it's called OS/2"     - anonymous
>
>

Another issue important to gammers Rich is the cd support you mentioned. 
While exploring the W95 system I discovered hidden settings that allow 
you to really optimise the CD! To get to these you have to click on the 
system icon and go down thru the registry to cdrom and then open all 
tabed windows under properties until you find it. Actually there is so 
much control that you have in W95 that I believe it far exceeds any other 
OS for the PC for ultimate tweaking of the hardware/ software.
 If you have got the hardware you can really blow the minds of those who 
see it in action with W95 IMHO.

rkp...@io.org (Roy K. Park) writes:

>>   Microsoft creates programs BADLY coded, but with NICE interfaces...

>Badly coded?  OS/2 isn't much better.  Why?  Get this... I used to have
>Amiga 3000 running on MC68030.  When I got my Pentium 90 running OS/2 2.1,
>it was actually SLOWER on switching tasks (etc.) than my old Amiga!  (that's
>with 24MB RAM!)  As for Windows95, it just flies...  go figure.

>>   I'd wish users to realize this, and so to ask Microsoft to OPTIMIZE their code...

>Windows95 is already highly optimized for x86 processors.  On the other
>hand, OS/2 can do much better.

OS/2 will be ported for the powerPC - I don't know what language they wrote
it in, but I know that the bulk of Win95 was programmed in Assembler - it
won't be very portable to other platforms, and from what I have seen, the
only thing they have to improve is the disk access.  PC Magazine agreed
with this too.

Win95 would have been Win94 if it didn't have to fall back on the 16 bit
apps.  Actually, a WinNT Lite would have been nice :)

Greg
-- 
_,.-=~'`^`'~=-.,__,.-=~'`^`'~=-.,__,.-=~'`^`'~=-.,__,.-=~'`^`'~=-.,__,.-=~'`^

Greg A. Wood          CCSO Site Manager
g-w...@uiuc.edu

I would like the ftp address for a good flight sim or if someone has a
good one to trade.
BTW has anyone else had trouble getting into ftp.cdrom.com? It used to
work fine but now I can't access it.

In <3ne96q$h...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> thed...@ix.netcom.com (Reed
Kennedy) writes: 
>
>I would like the ftp address for a good flight sim or if someone has a
>good one to trade.
>BTW has anyone else had trouble getting into ftp.cdrom.com? It used to
>work fine but now I can't access it.

I was wondering about ftp.cdrom.com myself. I haven't been able to get
onto it for the past few days. I'm looking for the latest patch for 
Harpoon Classic. www.yahoo.com will not accept an anonymous login.

In article <3nejhj$k...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> tf...@ix.netcom.com (Todd Fong) writes:
>In <3ne96q$h...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> thed...@ix.netcom.com (Reed
>Kennedy) writes: 
>>
>>I would like the ftp address for a good flight sim or if someone has a
>>good one to trade.
>>BTW has anyone else had trouble getting into ftp.cdrom.com? It used to
>>work fine but now I can't access it.
>
>I was wondering about ftp.cdrom.com myself. I haven't been able to get
>onto it for the past few days. I'm looking for the latest patch for 
>Harpoon Classic. www.yahoo.com will not accept an anonymous login.

The word is that cdrom.com was being upgraded by adding a new hard 
drive and something went wrong.  They are supposed to have the problems
resolved and be back on line at the end of next week. There has been
no official postings indicating what the damage is or if it took out
the other hard drives. There has been some traffic on this in the
Doom news groups (since the doom archives are on cdrom). I have not
seen any offical information does anyone have direct contact with
the System Admin at cdrom.con and get us more accurate information?

Bob Ruth
bob...@holly.colostate.edu

In article <798344...@markbz.demon.co.uk>,
Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk (Mark Rogers) wrote:
> > >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?  
> 
> I think it means you can use it wether you are an idiot or not.

Actually, it's not that idiot-proof.  If you want anything more than
mouse or disk cache (and maybe one or two others), such as CD, you need
to edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS files effectively by hand.

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?
                 Popeye of Borg: Prepare to be askimilgrated.

>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
I was about to reply to this...

>           gy...@ibm.net
                  ^^^^^^^
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>

...But this explained it all.  I'll pass.

:-)

In <9202037.3...@meo.lacitec.on.ca>, 920...@meo.lacitec.on.ca (DANIEL DESORMEAUX) writes:
>I was about to reply to this...
>>           gy...@ibm.net
>....But this explained it all.  I'll pass.
	You know, I get the impression that a lot of people think an "ibm.net"
domain means the poster works for IBM.  It just means they're using IBM's
Advantis service as a SLIP provider.  They could easily be Windows users
using IBM's Internet Connection for Windows.
	Admittedly they could have made this a lot less confusing.

Derek
drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu

Derek Suzuki (drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In <jhamilt.798228637@bgsuvax>, jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Tarquelne) writes:
: >	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
: >learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
: >impression of their users from the messages in this thread.

: >	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
: >want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.

Well, as I see it... I think both OS's are still lacking a great deal! I've
yet to find an operating system I'm truly happy with... Windows and OS/2 are
definatly far from satisfying my wants and needs. But since this is a gaming
group... I'll stick to just that.

Biggest problem, from what others have told me, with windows is that it
eats up *too* much memory! The day MS creates a windows that dosn't will
indeed be a good os (Win95??).  Another... like many people have already
pointed out... is that it is the pits when it comes to multitasking! I've
tried doing it many times... and it never ever works if I am trying to
run two big programs at once, that is to say... any program that is larger
and takes up more memory than some piddly little thing like solitare! Another
gripe I have... and granted this may be paranoia... is that Windows markets 
itself to people who want an easy to learn os so much... I sometimes wonder 
if it's becomeing another Macentoshish OS... that is to say... so easy
you have less control... but then from what I've seen... that's not true.

Now my gripe with OS/2 is two-fold... first... it's just too slow. My
paicents(sp?) is too thin to sit around waiting for OS/2 to get off it's 
hind-end and finally decide to recognise that I'm actually alive! 
My other gripe is that unless you study the manuals... you will eventually
get lost! Their are somethings about that OS (I'm not refering to Warp.. I've
never used warp) that I sometimes think they purposly made complicated when
it could've been done a whole lot easier! For example.... and Windows has
this same problem... you can't run any program without having to go to some
lame-ass command and type in the name of the path-disk-and program!! it's
nuts! I mean.... I dislike Mac's a lot more than I do Windows... but at least
you can stick in a disk... open up the folder... and run a program without
having to go through a whole series of commands and needless typing?!!??!?!

Well that's all I have to say...
later

Kayvan Ko...@mama.indstate.edu

In article <3n9h7b$c...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
dmcc...@sitvax.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) 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.

Well, that was a constructive comment if ever I read one.

To the guy who asked the question in the first place: sort of.  You can
specify different memory configurations.  But you can't, for example,
have a different set of device drivers loaded, or use a different
autoexec.bat (OK, so you can fake it by calling a batch-file to setup
any command-line callable drivers and setting environment variables).

Win95's DOS support is adequate.  It isn't as flexible as OS/2's, but it
works.  DOS support isn't something you can really legitimately pick on
Win95 over - try stability and multitasking...  :-)

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?
                  Pythagoras of Borg: Distance is irrelevant.

In <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com> cpts...@Cyberquest.com (Capt
Stern) writes: 
>
>In article <D7DAJ...@caprica.com> jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel)
writes:
>>From: jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel)
>>Subject: Re: Win95 and games: good news...
>>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 04:16:25 GMT
>
>>Joshua Cyr (jm...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
>
>>: I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS,
there is 
>>: still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows
95 is an 
>>: operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but
it 
>>: isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few
months 
>>: now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using
(now get 
>>: this)
>
>>: 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows
runs, but 
>>: the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a
Win 95 
>>: Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so
easy 
>>: to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for
game 
>>: fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.
>
>>To see is to believe, add the 'C:\' to the front of your PATH in the 
>>autoexec.bat and drop a file called 'WIN.BAT' into C:\ and make the
file 
>>contain:
>
>>echo No Windows for You!!
>
>>(Only one line).
>
>>Then tool around to your heart's content in DOS.  Or (simpler) choose
>>'Shutdown' and choose 'Restart computer in DOS mode?'.  Now watch for
the
>>restart, you won't see it.  What you will see is Windows exiting and
>>running the REST of the autoexec.bat to load any extra device drivers
it
>>needs under DOS. 
>
>>Here is what happens:
>
>>1. Cold boot, BIOS check
>>2. Boot DOS
>>3. DOS loads Windows
>>4. Windows uses its own device drivers if available, if not, you have
to 
>>preload them in the config.sys or autoexec.bat so they load when DOS
loads.
>>4A. Restart in DOS mode, run the DOS version of the device drivers
that 
>>Windows was using.
>
>>To illustrate, I have a PAS 16 with a SCSI Teac CD50 CDROM.  To use
it 
>>with Win'95, I don't have to load TSLCDR.SYS or MSCDEX.EXE, Windows
has 
>>native device drivers (which mean they are likely 32-bit).  To use it

>>under DOS, I have to load the drivers just like I would in MSDOS 6.2.
>
>>My girlfriend has an old Sony-Bus single speed CDROM and a PAS 16
(SCSI 
>>not used).  To use it with Win'95, I had to load the Sony driver and 
>>MSCDEX.EXE to get them to be used under Win'95.  Great thing is that 
>>using the DOS support, you still have Windows support, just like Win
3.1.
>
>>The moral is, when you're not running Win'95, you're running Win'95
DOS 
>>and DOS is still DOS...  
>
>>
>Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And
not all 
>games work with it.
>For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run
with 
>sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as
DELTREE,
>XCOPY, etc.
>I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11
& PC 
>DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS
looks, or 
>how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run
your 
>software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.
>

I think Win 95 is great... and it doesn't run on top of dos.  it just
seems like it is loading dos in the beginning for backward
compatibility.  

And what do you mean Deltree and xcopy are gone??  you just haven't
look or try it.  They are just moved to /windows/command/ directory.
Next time open your eyes before you talk ;)

In <3non9k$h...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> ze...@ix.netcom.com (Alec)
writes: 
>
>In <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com> cpts...@Cyberquest.com
(Capt
>Stern) writes: 
>>
>>In article <D7DAJ...@caprica.com> jlu...@caprica.com (James
Lummel)
>writes:
>>>From: jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel)
>>>Subject: Re: Win95 and games: good news...
>>>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 04:16:25 GMT
>>
>>>Joshua Cyr (jm...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
>>
>>>: I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS,
>there is 
>>>: still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows
>95 is an 
>>>: operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but
>it 
>>>: isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few
>months 
>>>: now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using
>(now get 
>>>: this)
>>
>>>: 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows
>runs, but 
>>>: the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a
>Win 95 
>>>: Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is
so
>easy 
>>>: to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for
>game 
>>>: fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.
>>
>>>To see is to believe, add the 'C:\' to the front of your PATH in the

>>>autoexec.bat and drop a file called 'WIN.BAT' into C:\ and make the
>file 
>>>contain:
>>
>>>echo No Windows for You!!
>>
>>>(Only one line).
>>
>>>Then tool around to your heart's content in DOS.  Or (simpler)
choose
>>>'Shutdown' and choose 'Restart computer in DOS mode?'.  Now watch
for
>the
>>>restart, you won't see it.  What you will see is Windows exiting and
>>>running the REST of the autoexec.bat to load any extra device
drivers
>it
>>>needs under DOS. 
>>
>>>Here is what happens:
>>
>>>1. Cold boot, BIOS check
>>>2. Boot DOS
>>>3. DOS loads Windows
>>>4. Windows uses its own device drivers if available, if not, you
have
>to 
>>>preload them in the config.sys or autoexec.bat so they load when DOS
>loads.
>>>4A. Restart in DOS mode, run the DOS version of the device drivers
>that 
>>>Windows was using.
>>
>>>To illustrate, I have a PAS 16 with a SCSI Teac CD50 CDROM.  To use
>it 
>>>with Win'95, I don't have to load TSLCDR.SYS or MSCDEX.EXE, Windows
>has 
>>>native device drivers (which mean they are likely 32-bit).  To use
it
>
>>>under DOS, I have to load the drivers just like I would in MSDOS
6.2.
>>
>>>My girlfriend has an old Sony-Bus single speed CDROM and a PAS 16
>(SCSI 
>>>not used).  To use it with Win'95, I had to load the Sony driver and

>>>MSCDEX.EXE to get them to be used under Win'95.  Great thing is that

>>>using the DOS support, you still have Windows support, just like Win
>3.1.
>>
>>>The moral is, when you're not running Win'95, you're running Win'95
>DOS 
>>>and DOS is still DOS...  
>>
>>>
>>Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And
>not all 
>>games work with it.
>>For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run
>with 
>>sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as
>DELTREE,
>>XCOPY, etc.
>>I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW
3.11
>& PC 
>>DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS
>looks, or 
>>how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run
>your 
>>software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.
>>
>
>I think Win 95 is great... and it doesn't run on top of dos.  it just
>seems like it is loading dos in the beginning for backward
>compatibility.  
>
>And what do you mean Deltree and xcopy are gone??  you just haven't
>look or try it.  They are just moved to /windows/command/ directory.
>Next time open your eyes before you talk ;)

oh yeah, and WC3 works great under Win95 Dos box without any config.

Capt Stern (cpts...@Cyberquest.com) wrote:
: Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And not all 
: games work with it.
: For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with 
: sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as DELTREE,
: XCOPY, etc.
: I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11 & PC 
: DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS looks, or 
: how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run your 
: software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.

The location of the DOS support files have changed from C:\DOS to 
C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND and needs to be in the path in order for those 
programs to work.  I use them all the time!

I've run a huge range of games and game demos under this DOS and have yet 
to have a failure!  Could there be other problems (beside a bad PATH 
statement or incomplete install) that could account for those games not 
running?  A bad setup is more likely to cause a failure than a bad DOS.

--

    James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com

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

In article <dJcmvI6q...@scorch.hna.com.au>
           Matt....@scorch.hna.com.au "Matt McLeod" writes:
> 
> > > >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?  
> > 
> > I think it means you can use it wether you are an idiot or not.
> 
> Actually, it's not that idiot-proof.  If you want anything more than
> mouse or disk cache (and maybe one or two others), such as CD, you need
> to edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS files effectively by hand.

True -- but nothing is *fully* idiot proof.

Idiots could just manage to change those options you 
mentioned in Win95.  Could an idiot add a CDROM and change the disk
cache or other options under DOS?  
No not usually. 

Do you think they could change them using OS/2? 

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

In article <3nc32q$j...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>,
ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) wrote:
> 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.

A *dumb* question?  When I read it, I thought it was a pretty good
question.  Why would a gamer care?  Perhaps because some games require
higher files= settings than others, and when you're scrounging for extra
memory having a ludicrously high files= setting is a problem.

At any rate, files= is just an example.  You can change *any* DOS
setting on a session-by-session basis under OS/2.  You may well be able
to do that under NT too (don't use it so I don't know).  Win95 doesn't
do that, unless you use "MS-DOS mode", and even then you effectively
have to write your own CONFIG.SYS file for each session.

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?
              Borg, James Borg. Vodka Martini, Gin is irrelevant.

In article <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com>
           cpts...@Cyberquest.com "Capt Stern" writes:

> Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  
> And not all 
> games work with it.
> For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with 
> sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as 
> DELTREE,
> XCOPY, etc.
> I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11 & PC 
> DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS looks, or 
> how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run your 
> software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.

With the lastest beta's you can boot into REAL Dos 6.22 totally compatible
as it IS dos 6.22 etc (or whatever version you had installed). 
If you press F4 when it says 'starting windows 95'... you get your old
DOS.   If you are using Qemm 7.5 with Quickboot you will need to press F4
twice.  That's the only `incompatiblity' I know of.

Before you install Win 95 you would have to back up your DOS dir 
as some programs are replaced /deleted (like Scandisk etc) and put 
these 'removed' files in another dir when you need them.

F4 won't work in the middle beta's unless you edit the msdos.sys 
(described in the Beta notes) but it works fine in the newest beta's.

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

In article <799036...@markbz.demon.co.uk>,
Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk (Mark Rogers) wrote:
>In article <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com>
>           cpts...@Cyberquest.com "Capt Stern" writes:
>> Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  
>> And not all 
>> games work with it.
>> For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with

MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.

>With the lastest beta's you can boot into REAL Dos 6.22 totally compatible
>as it IS dos 6.22 etc (or whatever version you had installed). 
>If you press F4 when it says 'starting windows 95'... you get your old

You have *always* been able to do this.  The best thing to do, though,
is to add the following to your Win95-boot MSDOS.SYS (you'll need to
attrib -r -a -s -h msdos.sys and then re-attrib it):

Under [options]
BootMulti=1
BootMenu=1
BootMenuDelay=5
BootMenuDefault=1

>F4 won't work in the middle beta's unless you edit the msdos.sys 
>(described in the Beta notes) but it works fine in the newest beta's.

This works a lot better than hitting F4 at just the right time.

rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:
> MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.

	I keep getting the "reconfigure hardware settings" error
message when I try and set up MOM and MOO to use my Soundblaster Pro
sound card.  Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

Roger Wistar

In article <3nu093$g...@news.duke.edu>,
Roger Pierpont Wistar <rp...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:
>> MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.
>
>	I keep getting the "reconfigure hardware settings" error
>message when I try and set up MOM and MOO to use my Soundblaster Pro
>sound card.  Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

Out of curiousity, do you have Blaster set in your
environment?

In article <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com>,
Capt Stern <cpts...@Cyberquest.com> wrote:
>In article <D7DAJ...@caprica.com> jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel) writes:
>>From: jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel)
>>Subject: Re: Win95 and games: good news...
>>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 04:16:25 GMT
>
>>Joshua Cyr (jm...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
>
>>: I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS, there is 
>>: still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows 95 is an 
>>: operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but it 
>>: isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few months 
>>: now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using (now get 
>>: this)
>
>>: 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but 
>>: the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a Win 95 
>>: Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so easy 
>>: to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for game 
>>: fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.
>
>>To see is to believe, add the 'C:\' to the front of your PATH in the 
>>autoexec.bat and drop a file called 'WIN.BAT' into C:\ and make the file 
>>contain:
>
>>echo No Windows for You!!
>
>>(Only one line).
>
>>Then tool around to your heart's content in DOS.  Or (simpler) choose
>>'Shutdown' and choose 'Restart computer in DOS mode?'.  Now watch for the
>>restart, you won't see it.  What you will see is Windows exiting and
>>running the REST of the autoexec.bat to load any extra device drivers it
>>needs under DOS. 
>
>>Here is what happens:
>
>>1. Cold boot, BIOS check
>>2. Boot DOS
>>3. DOS loads Windows
>>4. Windows uses its own device drivers if available, if not, you have to 
>>preload them in the config.sys or autoexec.bat so they load when DOS loads.
>>4A. Restart in DOS mode, run the DOS version of the device drivers that 
>>Windows was using.
>
>>To illustrate, I have a PAS 16 with a SCSI Teac CD50 CDROM.  To use it 
>>with Win'95, I don't have to load TSLCDR.SYS or MSCDEX.EXE, Windows has 
>>native device drivers (which mean they are likely 32-bit).  To use it 
>>under DOS, I have to load the drivers just like I would in MSDOS 6.2.
>
>>My girlfriend has an old Sony-Bus single speed CDROM and a PAS 16 (SCSI 
>>not used).  To use it with Win'95, I had to load the Sony driver and 
>>MSCDEX.EXE to get them to be used under Win'95.  Great thing is that 
>>using the DOS support, you still have Windows support, just like Win 3.1.
>
>>The moral is, when you're not running Win'95, you're running Win'95 DOS 
>>and DOS is still DOS...  
>

Well, there is always the option of booting you old operating system.
Which just happens to be dos 6.2   Booting with command prompt actually
boots ms-dos 7.0 (beta).  Just use the 'ver' and it will say MS-Dos 6.2,
MS-Dos 7.0 or Windows 4.00.450 (or whatever build you are using).

>>
>Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And not all 
>games work with it.
>For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with 
>sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as DELTREE,
>XCOPY, etc.
>I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11 & PC 
>DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS looks, or 
>how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run your 
>software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.
>

That is because of your path.  deltree, xcopt and all my old dos
commands run under '95, except for the specialized Dos 6's commands.
Like memmaker, defrag, and a few other utilities.  Those are useable
under Windows if you did a full install.  Undelete does not work, unless
you boot ms-dos 6.x.  

MOM ran fine with '95.  Using both full and windowed screen.  Sound runs
fine also.  Don't know what you did, but almost every game I have tried
runs under '95, including Dark Forces, BioForge, X-Com2, and Warcraft.
Everything runs, sound, graphics, in the foreground, in the
backgroud....  Even downloading 14.4 in the background via Z-modem or
SLIP/PPP without any CRCs errors.  This is on a plain old ordinary
486/66 CPU.  Nothing fancy, like a high end pentium..  Networked and
all.

-Jay

cpts...@Cyberquest.com (Capt Stern) wrote:
>
> In article <D7DAJ...@caprica.com> jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel) writes:
> >From: jlu...@caprica.com (James Lummel)
> >Subject: Re: Win95 and games: good news...
> >Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 04:16:25 GMT
> 
> >Joshua Cyr (jm...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
> 
> >: I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS, there is 
> >: still the windows Kernel in the background.  Essentially, Windows 95 is an 
> >: operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but it 
> >: isn't our old DOS.  By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few months 
> >: now, and have been able to run everything just fine.  I am using (now get 
> >: this)
> 
> >: 486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but 
> >: the graphic routines are much much faster.  I play Herritic in a Win 95 
> >: Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all.  Everything is so easy 
> >: to configure, I can't help but to love it.  A big improvement for game 
> >: fans.  I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.
> 
> >To see is to believe, add the 'C:\' to the front of your PATH in the 
> >autoexec.bat and drop a file called 'WIN.BAT' into C:\ and make the file 
> >contain:
> 
> >echo No Windows for You!!
> 
> >(Only one line).
> 
> >Then tool around to your heart's content in DOS.  Or (simpler) choose
> >'Shutdown' and choose 'Restart computer in DOS mode?'.  Now watch for the
> >restart, you won't see it.  What you will see is Windows exiting and
> >running the REST of the autoexec.bat to load any extra device drivers it
> >needs under DOS. 
> 
> >Here is what happens:
> 
> >1. Cold boot, BIOS check
> >2. Boot DOS
> >3. DOS loads Windows
> >4. Windows uses its own device drivers if available, if not, you have to 
> >preload them in the config.sys or autoexec.bat so they load when DOS loads.
> >4A. Restart in DOS mode, run the DOS version of the device drivers that 
> >Windows was using.
> 
> >To illustrate, I have a PAS 16 with a SCSI Teac CD50 CDROM.  To use it 
> >with Win'95, I don't have to load TSLCDR.SYS or MSCDEX.EXE, Windows has 
> >native device drivers (which mean they are likely 32-bit).  To use it 
> >under DOS, I have to load the drivers just like I would in MSDOS 6.2.
> 
> >My girlfriend has an old Sony-Bus single speed CDROM and a PAS 16 (SCSI 
> >not used).  To use it with Win'95, I had to load the Sony driver and 
> >MSCDEX.EXE to get them to be used under Win'95.  Great thing is that 
> >using the DOS support, you still have Windows support, just like Win 3.1.
> 
> >The moral is, when you're not running Win'95, you're running Win'95 DOS 
> >and DOS is still DOS...  
> 
> >
> Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And not all 
> games work with it.
> For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with 
> sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as DELTREE,
> XCOPY, etc.
> I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11 & PC 
> DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS looks, or 
> how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run your 
> software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's.
> 

Odd, I ran Masters of Magic just fine under Win 95.  I just set everything to AUTO and
it runs just as fast as dos.  I have the pre-release final beta that I
ordered from Microsoft.  I believe it is build 347.  I don't know what
you mean about dos "missing" basic features since I just used xcopy before and 
use deltree a lot.  Although I prefer Windows explorer now.

 
>> Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  And   
not all  
>> games work with it. 
>> For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run   
with  
>> sound enabled.  The "new" dos is missing even basic features such as   
DELTREE, 
>> XCOPY, etc. 
>> I ran build 445 WIN95 for about 4 days, and then re-installed WFW 3.11   
& PC  
>> DOS 7.0.  More compatible, and that is the issue not how cool the OS   
looks, or  
>> how cool it runs.  Since an OS that runs really nice but won't run   
your  
>> software is just another way of describing the MAC & AMIGA's. 
>>  
> 
>Odd, I ran Masters of Magic just fine under Win 95.  I just set   
everything to AUTO and 
>it runs just as fast as dos.  I have the pre-release final beta that I 
>ordered from Microsoft.  I believe it is build 347.  I don't know what 
>you mean about dos "missing" basic features since I just used xcopy   
before and  
>use deltree a lot.  Although I prefer Windows explorer now. 
> 
 
 
It is too bad that many people think they can write about a topic when   
they really have no idea what they are talking about or are doing with   
there PC's! 
 
Thanks to the guy that cleared up Masters of Magic!  It is nice to see   
someone is paying attention to reality! 
 
/DM'-) 
 
 
I am a WINDOWS 95 user! And I am Proud of it!  There I am out of the   
closet! 
 

In article <pMEelO9R...@wam.umd.edu>

             Me:
> > With the lastest beta's you can boot into REAL Dos 6.22 totally compatible
> > as it IS dos 6.22 etc (or whatever version you had installed). 
> > If you press F4 when it says 'starting windows 95'... you get your old

           rsro...@wam.umd.edu "Robert Rodgers" writes: 

> You have *always* been able to do this.  The best thing to do, though,
> is to add the following to your Win95-boot MSDOS.SYS (you'll need to
> attrib -r -a -s -h msdos.sys and then re-attrib it):

I know but I didn't want to type all that ;)
Usually I try to keep the reply simple.


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

In article <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gy...@ibm.net wrote:
and 

>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
>

Speak for yourself. The only two programs on my machine that don't run under 
*WIN* 95 are SC2000 for Windows (1.1) and MPEGPLAY 1.0 (which is a win32s 
app).

Everything else I have runs fine (windows and dos apps both). Even the finicky 
Transport Tycoon.

---------------------
Mike Harrison
mha...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~mharris

Mike Harrison (mha...@interlog.com) wrote:

: Speak for yourself. The only two programs on my machine that don't run under 
: *WIN* 95 are SC2000 for Windows (1.1) and MPEGPLAY 1.0 (which is a win32s 
: app).


I have not had a problem with either, so you might want to look into this.

Jeff