🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
can?

All I know is I want my flight-sim newsgroup back....

Gary.

In article <3mtquj$h...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) says:
>OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
>DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
>games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
>work...
>PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>I tried it and didn't like it...

--------------------------------------------
-               Gary A. Lucero             -
-    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   -
-                Orem, Utah                -
-                                          -
-             GLU...@Novell.com           -
--------------------------------------------

Gary,

I agree, it's the same old story, 'If everyone were just more like me,
the world would be a much better place.'. <G>

Brian

glu...@wordperfect.com (Gary Lucero) wrote:
>
> I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
> anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
> adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
> but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
> as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
> can?
>
> --------------------------------------------
> -               Gary A. Lucero             -
> -    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   -
> -                Orem, Utah                -
> -                                          -
> -             GLU...@Novell.com           -
> --------------------------------------------

This is a very interesting thread, as far as that goes...  but what the
heck does it have to do with Flight Sims?  I can see how the thread got
started...  some guy saying, "Hey!  I just got the April Beta release of
Win95, and it works great!"  And then off we go, my os is better than your
os!  My os can do this.  Oh yeah?  Well, my os is a stronger multitasker!
Well, my os has a bigger dick than your os!

This debate is something akin to debating the logical possibility of the
existence of God.  It may be great fun, but it doesn't go anywhere...  it
just keeps going.

Joaquin

I think if you check enough newsgroups, and hear enough   
opinions, you will find there are jerks and intelligent people   
in both camps (OS/2 Warp and Windows 95). Do not make a   
decision based on who you like. Make a decision based on what   
OS is best for you. 
 
Gary. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
-               Gary A. Lucero             - 
-    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   - 
-                Orem, Utah                - 
-                                          - 
-             GLU...@Novell.com           - 
-------------------------------------------- 

>I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
>anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
>adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
>but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
>as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
>can?

I know... And I'm sorry for it...

My original post was purely informative... I just wanted to share some
experience I had with playing games with Windows 95... Not bash
anything or anybody... People chose whatever OS they want, I don't
give a damn... 

It's really sad that (almost) every single post is being transformed
into an OS advocacy battle... Sure doesn't incite to post... :(

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

In article <3mtquj$h...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:

[STUFF DELETED so that I don't barf.]

>There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
>
>Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)

Opinions? Comments? Q's? 

Oh ya I have one or 2. You sir, are the person who started this. While I 
appreciate the "heads up" with WIN95. You posted to every gaming group?

AND NOT TO AN OPERATING SYSTEM GROUP? 

While I am quite happy to wade thru this "stuff". I really am curious
how you rationalize that? 

We are too busy arguing about whether Wing Commander III, XWING (and alot
of other  Space based games/sims) should be posted in the flight-sim group, 
to give a rats-ass about WINBLOWS.

I will admit though. From what I've read WIN95 might not be that bad :-)

If our newly self-appointed NETCOP was doing his job, this would have been
stopped long ago. As it is now, I'm affraid he is fired... 

>
>PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>I tried it and didn't like it...
>
>(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
> |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
> |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
>(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)

I flew off the handle there the last couple of posts.  Sorry.

I just wish more people know what they were talking about before the bash 
Win95.  Some of you are making plain flat-out INCORRECT statements.  I am 
running Dark Forces RIGHT NOW. (and I only have 8mb RAM)

Jeff

Okey First I just want to say I have NOTHING against WIN95 except the frustration of
the postpone to the official release date to the REAL THING. I'm curious about the
program, wants to learn how it wil (or will not) affect my computing. Anything I'm
going to say is NOT intended as a flame and should NOT be used to say against WIN95,
Rather, I am trying to learn how exactly the program handles things and it's
advantages and disadvantages when handled that way. Ultimately, I want to see if
win95 suits *ME* or should I stick with other OSs. (i.e. Linux, OS/2, DOS,etc)
I currently own MSDOS, WFW 3.11 and OS/2 warp. I have also used Unix, Win NT and
Macintosh OS. I'll begin first by stating that I very much like the stability and
crash proof of Unix OSs, I very look forward to MULTITASKING environments, and I
have been computing long enough in the PC world to be very knowledgable in many
aspects. Do understand that because that only true 32-bit preemptive multitasking OS
in the PC I've used is the OS/2, I might be using examples of OS/2 here and then.
They are not ment to glorify OS/, bash win95,etc. Just to verify that WIN95 can
indeed do certain things I look forward to.

Now that the disclaimer is out of my way, lets get on with my questions

In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:
>sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:
>
>> [ snip ]
>>>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."
>

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)

Secondly, I assume that even if Win95 cannot multitask DOS VDMs, can win95 native
applications themselves be able to multitask? (i.e. if someone writes a modplayer
from scratch, using whatever tools win95 supports, will a multitaskable modplayer be
available?) Also, if true, does the multitasking process gets frozen when a DOS VDM
starts?

Well, the first two is for quering the multitasking ability of win95 DOS VDMs. Next
I'll like to ask certain things about system protection and stability:
(any programmer should be able to do this easily)
What happens when:
1. a program executes an endless loop: (i.e. a while(TRUE) loop)
   - Does win95 slow down (i.e. system resource gets gobbled up)?
2. a program polls the keyboard continuously: (i.e. a while(!kbhit()) loop)
   - Does win95 slow down?
   - Is the VDM smart enough to detect the polling and reduce allocated CPU timeslices?
     - If KB polling cannot be detected, is the simple scanf command detected and
       timeslice reduced?
3. a program access an illegal memory space. (i.e. illegal pointer)
   - does win95 protect the whole system from crashing?
   - is the write memory command actually carried out (hence violating system
     integrity)?
4. a program tries to write to the system area in the harddisk. Does win95 allow
     that? I ask this because as far as I know, a program in the DOS VDM in OS/2 cannot
     write to certain system area, some sort of system integrity protection measure.
     The good side-effect is that trojans/viruses cannot delet/format the harddisk!
5. 2 programs tries to open the same file for read and write. (i.e. wordstar for DOS
     and microsoft word has "client.lst" open) What happens when either tries to
     save the file? Suppose a disk-based sorting program ran twice, what happens  
     when they try to sort the same file? Or WCIII ran twice, (if you have the memory),
     will the two WC crash each other? or will the other one simply not allowed to
     start. Also, what if the file was deleted after a client opens it?
6. a program uses "special" modes of SVGA cards? will win95 able to restore the
     "non-standard" video mode after switching?
7. two programs requests for same soundcard? two program requests for same hardware
     interrupts?
8. What if one of the DOS VDMs tries to execute codes that will cause the system to
     reboot? Will win95 trap and stop that? or does the system reboots?
9. If somehow a DOS VDM has crashed (but win95 still alive) is the memory allocated by
     the doomed VDM recovered? Does win95 do anything about the resulting memory
     fragmentation?
10. what happens if a win311 program crash? will win95 crash or stay well? Do
     screensavers from win311 still work in win95? (some didn't work in OS-WIN)
11. Finally, I'm *REALLY* curious as to whether you can start a win3.11 session under a
     DOS VDM. (i.e. whether u can start win311 under win95) Or if win311 fails, can you
     run Desqview (or Desqview/X) under win95? I know this sounds really crazy, but
     I just want to know how extensive is the win95 DOS VDM.

>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.
>

Erm I noticed that there's no mention of DMPI memory. Does win95 provide DPMI
access? Also, inside a VDM, how much UMB memory MAX is available for DOS programs?
Will win95 allow the loading of a mouse driver inside a VDM (I know it's
unnecessary, but will loading a real mouse driver screw up the mouse driver of win95?)

>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.

If not, what is the default FILE=? Do win95 use up any of the defined value? (i.e.
if declare FILE=20, when under DOS VDM, win95 uses up 15, that's not good.)

How does win95 handle ASPI SCSI drivers and drives? Does it use SCSI drives wisely
(like they're designed to when multitasking) or just use it as an IDE drive? Can a
SCSI tape backup program using ASPI be run in the background in a DOS VDM? (This
is one of the most useful aspects of OS/2)

Do device drivers (like scanner device drivers, Magnetic Optical drive drivers,
Removable catridge drive drivers) from DOS get to be loaded? Or do I have to try and
get drivers that are specially made for win95 for these devices?

How well does win95 do a background floppy format? In win311, if you format a disk
in background, your mouse pointer "teleports" when you try to move them, and many
times I get bad sectors when the disk is actually okey. How well does win95 handles
this? What if I chose to format the disk under the old filemanager of win311 or DOS
VDM format? Any effects?

What options are allowed for a DOS VDM session? OS/2 allows extensive modifications
to allow much optimizations for individual DOS VDM session/program. How extensive is
win95's?

One plus point in OS/2 is that for those games that can be run from a window, it is
said that you can actually do graphical cut-and-paste from the DOS windowed VDM onto
the clipboard or practically anywhere else. This is great for "notekeeping" in rpgs,
and mapping for 3-D games. Does win95 offer something similar to this?

One more thing, I heard win95 offers long filenames (FINALLY! get away from that
stupid 8.3 format) but is it really filenames or just mapping of 8.3 files onto long
descriptions? I've heard contradictory info on this and would like to confirm the
real way win95 is doing this. How does "This is a very long file - 1" and " This is
a very long file - 2" and "This.is.a.very.long.foldername" gets stored on the disk?
Is there's any way to do a search for all occurance of "a very long" and rename to "a
very short" on the whole harddisk? If win95 does by mapping, how does the real 8.3
source filename gets changed? Does win95 support NTFS or HPFS?

That's about all I can think of at the moment. If anyone wants to add to this list,
feel free to ask.

Thank you for reading this far and please do answer these if you know the answer.
Please do not flame, as you can see I'm really trying to find out how well win95
handles verious demanding situations. For the good of others who might be needing
these informations too, please try to post it. Also, please try to make the answer
as impartial and detailed as possible. For tests on stability, just launching a
program is not good enough, if it's a game, try the intro, load/save game and maybe
playing a while, all the while trying the switch between game and win95 at all
stages. If it's an application, try do very complex things and try opening multiple
files (i.e. >20 documents) if it's something like spreadsheet, wordprocessors,etc.
For mathematical/graphing/CAD/rendering programs, please try to make complex
graphs/pictures/formulas/etc and all the time try the switch between a DOS VDM and
the program. This will really confirm the stability of the system.

See ye!

Hon Chong Chang
Drexel University
Computer Science Major.

In article <3n378h$o...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, joa...@u.washington.edu says...
>This debate is something akin to debating the logical possibility of the
>existence of God.  It may be great fun, but it doesn't go anywhere...  it
>just keeps going.>>Joaquin

Actually it is a lot closer to the ...
Which is better Beta or VHS? (video format) of the last decade.

All I know is that one format won and one lost, and it had little to do 
with technical capabilities of either. I glad I made the right choice when
I bought my machine.  

I predict that the software developers will settle the os argument for us.

My contribution to the os debate:
Your operating system blows, mine doesn't. My os can do <buzzword> and your's 
can't. I read somewhere that someone said, they heard from someone else that
your os couldn't run a piece of software. Blah, Blah, Blah.

bobb

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

>Of course, it took a little twitching for some games (WC3 was a little
>hard for me), but once it's done, it works flawlessly... 
>
>There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
>
>Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)
>
Wing Commander III will run straight from Windows 95 - no need to exit to Single
Dos Application mode.
Select,  Start, Run, d:\wc3
and it will install to your hard disk, WC3 defaults to full screen but it will run
on a 486SX2 66 with a cirrus logic gfx card and 8MB of RAM   _from windows_
in case anyone is interested the benchmark results were CPU speed of 16 and gfx card 
speed of 5 - exactly the same as when I installed it in DOS - oh yes you can even switch out of it back to the Windows shell and leave it running in the background!!!
There's a little colour clash while it is switching but aside from that it is fine.


>PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>I tried it and didn't like it...
I used OS/2 2.1 for about a month, got sick of having to use dual boot nearly every
time I wanted to play a game, got sick of OS/2's clunky response to windows programs
and deleted it after a month having decided it was crap.

When Warp came out I got the demo, decided to give it a try but it wasn't even 
interested in installing, IBM helpware couldn't work out what the hell was going on
and I spent about 8 hours recovering the damage it had done to my system.
OS/2 is crap.

Barry


---

Barry Clarke
clar...@aston.ac.uk
"code 0..0..0..Destruct..0"

	The Windows 95 / OS/2 debate here gets alot of people's attention, and alot
of different types of responses, ranging from stupidity to very intelligent
remarks.  I don't think that many people have tried to do this, but I'm
going to attempt to compare the four major operating systems (Windows 3.1x,
Windows 95, OS/2 Warp, and Windows NT) as best I can, and as unbiased as I
can.  I do however have a personal bias for Windows 95 which I currently
use and very much like, I have however used all four systems.

-- System Architecture --
	The first thing people usually consider is the operating systems system
architecture.  This is not really the most important aspect but is the
easiest one to compare and quantify.  IMO, Windows NT is the leader in this
area, followed closely by OS/2, a little farther by 95, and Windows 3.1
which is light years behind.  Of course I will justify this.  I think the
best way to do this is to compare the different parts of the architecture.

*Memory model for native applications:*
--------------------------------------------------
NT - 2GB system memory area, 2GB application memory area (each
application), all memory protected from all other parts of system other
than the kernel and some very low-level hardware interface components.
Eliminates Windows 3.1 resource limitations for Win32 apps.

Warp - I don't know the specifics but it provides a similar system to NT,
only allowing lower level drivers and parts of the system access to the
heaps of native apps.  Has no need for any resource heap of any type.

95 - Similar to NT, but has less stringent protections for drivers. (VxD's
and DOS Devices)  It does however protect native applications from 16-bit,
and DOS apps.  Still requires resource heap even for Win32 apps, though the
design is much improved.  Despite the media hype about this shortcoming the
issue is fairly insignificant since it is possible to open many
applications without problems (I open about 15 every time I turn on the
computer).  The only area where this is likely to cause diffuculty is when
using multi-threaded, window spawning programs that use many message que's
per window.  The average user didn't encounter resource limitations under
3.1, and the more advanced users who did are unlikely to encounter them
under 95.  So far I have not once encoutered such an error myself.

3.1 - All programs run cooperatively and anyone could access any memory
address if desired.  Required resource heaps which limited the number of
programs a user could run at once, though it was easily possible to have 3
or 4 large applications, or 10 to 12 small ones open at once.

*Memory model for Windows 3.1(Win16) applications*
-----------------------------------------------------------
NT - Defaults to running each application in it's own virtual machine(VM),
and eliminates resouce requirements.  It was also possible to run all Win16
applications in one single VM, allowing them to run cooperatively but also
deprotecting eachother's memory.

Warp - Could either run each app in it's own VM or cooperatively in a
single VM, I'm not sure how Warp handles resource limitations.

95 - Runs all Win16 apps in a single VM, improves resource limitations but
does not remove them.

3.1 - Already covered

*Memory model for DOS applications*
-------------------------------------------------
All OS's - runs each DOS app in seperate VM's

*Hardware protection*
----------------------------
NT - uses the Hardware Abstraction Layer(HAL) to allow application's,
protocol interfaces, services, etc. to command standard system defined
devices.  The requests to HAL are then processed and sent to system drivers
for specific devices.  This has the effect of protecting the system from a
lockup unless it was precipitated by a flaw in HAL, the device driver, or
the hardware itself.  It also makes it much easier to deal with I/O, IRQ,
and DMA conflicts, since HAL is responsible for making sure no two devices
request access to the same resources.  However, HAL is the main reason that
Windows NT generally performs slower than any other OS since all hardware
calls must pass through an extra processing layer.  HAL also can prevent
many DOS and Win16 applications from running properly if they expect to be
able to directly control the hardware.

Warp - uses a system similar to HAL, but is not as robust and bulletproof,
and also affects performance.  Like NT Warp's system causes some DOS and
Win16 apps to be unable to run properly (Doom after v1.2).  Warp however,
unlike NT attempts to provide workarounds to this problem in an effort to
increase it's DOS compatibility.  These features are good in that they let
you run more programs such as games, but they offer a loophole for
mis-behaved applications to crash the entire system.

95 - uses more hardware protection than 3.1, but unlike NT and Warp, 95
uses an active method rather than a passive method, meaning that instead of
completely prohibiting access to the hardware and demanding that all
requests to the hardware be made to the OS, it instead monitors hardware
access, and attempts to stop anything that looks destructive.  This system
provides the highest level of compatabilty and speed, but a relatively low
amount of system protection.

3.1 - similar to the system used for 95, but poorly implemented.  3.1
generally did not protect the system very well, and did not usually know
how to handle problems it did detect.

--Features--
	This is either the second or most important area of concern, depending upon
your own priorities it may be superior to actual system performance.

*Networking*
-----------------
NT - the name doesn't do a bad job of describing it (NT stands for
Networking).  NT has an extremely robust support for networks rivaled only
by 95.  The NT system provides several hundred drivers for network
adapters, clients to connect to standard networks such as Netware, LAN
Manager, etc.  It also supports a wide range of protocols such as TCP/IP
(which is the basic communication protocol between NT servers), Netbios,
NetBuei, IPX/SPX, Banyan Vines.  NT has advanced services such as dial up
networking clients and servers both supporting the PPP, RAS, and Novell
protocols for remote networking.  NT provides advanced security (C-2
compliant), and administration features, plus the capability to act as a
router in many networks.  NT is a robust and full featured networking
platform for both LAN's, WAN's and the internet, which is cleary shown by
the number of Winsock applications which have been ported or written on
Win32s, even before the preview release of 95.  I personally have setup
Windows NT 3.5 in an office with a Novell Network, and had it fully
connected to the server, the internet, and setup to serve any Windows
clients, in under 2 hours.

Warp - provides internet PPP dialup capability.  That's it.  IBM does
intend to release a version of Warp with network capabilities soon called
Fullpack though, but even the features of that do not rival those of NT and
95.

95 - as good or better than NT as a client, and an effective peer server.
Provides the same support for multiple network cards, server types, and
protocols like NT, all of which is tightly integrated with the OS.  The
winsock interface that both NT and 95 use to allow connection to the
internet is robust, fast and have a wide variety of applications designed
to use them.  Another important feature is Microsoft Exchange, the mail
application that combines many old applications, such as a fax program, a
LAN mail client, and an Internet Mail program into one application.  It
also supports mail retrieval from either Compuserve or the Microsoft
Network(MSN).

3.1 - WfWg 3.11 provided a good network client for Windows networks, and
worked decently with Netware, but was inadequete as a server for anything
other than small networks. Mostly, it made networking a little easier, but
did not make it much better.  However, even it's minimal capabilities are
better than those of Warp, and some older networks such as Personal
Netware.

*Included software*
-------------------------
NT - included the standard Windows accesories with nothing flashy or
impressive other than a few good network management tools and a backup
program.

Warp - included several good applications for office use such as a word
proccessor, and fax program.

95 - currently includes the standard Windows accessories plus an enhanced
terminal program, software to connect to MSN, an audio CD player, disk
checking, defrag and backup programs, wordpad ( a small but functional word
processor), and the Exchange program.

3.1 - the standard windows accessories

*Available software*
-------------------------
NT - relatively few commercial NT applications are available now, but many,
many vendors have annouced their intentions to make new Win32 applications
soon.  NT does have a few native applications which are well suited to it's
market such as SQL servers and such.

Warp - relatively few commercial OS/2 applications are available now, and
though there was a recent flurry of new applications, the market now seems
to be backing away from the idea of writing applications for OS/2

95 - Since 95 is still in beta there are not many applications designed for
it.  However there are still a few available, such as Norton Utilities, and
hundreds or even thousands announced as under development that should be
available within a few months of it's release.  Also currently there are a
large body of programs developed for Win32s, and a large number of
shareware utilities, especially ones designed for the internet (Netscape,
Win QVTnet, WS_FTP, WinVN, NewsXPress all have 32-bit versions)

3.1 - literally tens of thousands of programs have been written for Windows
3.1 and is the main reason that it still survives today.

*User Interface* - I'm not going to try to hard here since this is opinion
--------------------
NT - currently uses 3.1 interface, but will soon be upgraded to 95
interface.

Warp - uses the Workplace Shell, which is somewhat closer to the Mac's
analogy.  I didn't appreciate Warp's inteface much mainly because it
generally exagerated everything, having huge icons and menu bars.  But I
have heard that many Warp users love it's interface, so either I am looking
for something different, am too picky, or just didn't have time to get used
to it (I only had Warp on my computer for a week and a half before I
removed it).

95 - IMO, this is the best interface I've seen.  It's title and menu bars
have an XWindows look to them, which is to say small, sleak, and
streamlined.  This look can be seen all over 95, from the scroll bars, to
the tiny icons that drop in the indentation next to the clock on the task
bar (such as the one that indicates modem status.  The taskbar is also a
significant improvement giving you access to all currently open
applications in a single click.  Personally I don't care much for the
Macintosh like desktop, but I'm sure that many Warp and Mac users would
like it, since it is very much similar to those two systems.  For those
like me who dislike a Mac type interface, there is the explorer, which
displays almost all of the computer's resources in a hierarchial view.
Also there is the very useful start button, which lets you launch almost
any application at any time, and works quite similar to CP Desktop's quick
launch feature, but due to the way 95 makes menus act it is much more
practical to nest menus.  Overall, 95 incorporates the best features of
many great products and develops some new things such as Plug 'n Play, and
Autoplay.

3.1 - Most people know what the 3.1 interface is, and while it was good
when it first came around, it did need a revamping.  I personally disliked
the large title bars, which wasted screen space and made it diffucult to
put two applications on one screen.  Program Manager was fairly obnoxious,
but most people had replaced that with something like Dashboard or CP
Desktop.

*Hardware Support*
-------------------------
NT - NoT very good. NT has few drivers for anything except network cards,
video cards, and SCSI CD-ROMs.  Well, most people buy a computer for NT,
instead of the other way around, so Microsoft didn't worry about this one.
However that is the main reason that I wasn't running NT as my main OS for
the last year.

Warp - same story as NT with only slightly better results.  When I loaded
Warp it supported my Video Board, and that was it.  Now, it was possible to
get a driver for my GUS, but that didn't work well with Warp, because it
was designed for 2.11, and wouldn't support sound in Windows apps, or any
of the GUS's emulation programs.  My ACE 5000 had no drivers, though it
would have been possible to steal to Windsurfer OS/2 software, which was
also designed for 2.11, which is unbelievably ignorant since IBM
manufactures not only the Mwave chip the ACE 5000 uses, but also sells the
Windsurfer board.  To top off all of this, Warp wouldn't support my
TEAC-55A 4x CD-ROM.  Oh ya, and I almost forgot about the network card.

95 - this is what really convinced me that 95 was the best OS available
now.  When I installed it, 95 went through the installation asked me maybe
15 questions despite the fact I'd chosen the custom setup option, and
booted up to it's new desktop, having my GUS chirp out the standard startup
sound, and also loaded the ACE 5000 software without a single glitch, it
allowed my old DOS CD-ROM driver to continue running, and allowed me to
access the two Stacker drives I had the same way as my uncompressed C
drive.  I would like to see the release version come with a 32-bit version
of the drivers for the CD-ROM, GUS, ACE, and Stacker, but the fact that
every one of these ran without a glitch is something I had never seen
happen anywhere except DOS.  Some people bitch about Windows 95 having some
remaining DOS code, but I think it was one of Microsoft's best decisions.
We an interim release before we completely leave DOS and Win16 behind.
Without this vendors won't have time to develop 32-bit drivers,
applications, or games.  It really hurts to trash everything on your
system, but it won't be that tough to trash everything that's five years
old.

3.1 - It supports almost anything developed for a PC, since it is the
standard that vendors develop for.

--System performance--
	IMO, this is the most important aspect of the OS.  It determines how well a
user will be able to use the system, how reliable, and efficent the system
is, pretty much how well it runs.  The main factors that affect this are
the system architecture and the coding, with the coding being the more
important.

*Stability*
------------
NT - solid as a rock, NT has the most superior architecture and has been
through massive beta programs, and is constantly under scrutiny.  If you
want to see how obvious NT's stability is, run it and try and crash it.  If
it boots up properly I would be surprised if you can.

Warp - although Warp's system architecture is very well designed, IBM
didn't spend the time they needed too testing their program.  Warp often
will crash the system on it's own, and the simple fact is, until hardware
starts protecting itself, nothing protects the computer from bugs in the
kernel or system drivers.  During Warp's installation it crashed something
like 15 times, but was a little more stable once out of installation.

95 - Since it's in beta test now it's hard to say about 95, currently the
stability of the system seems a little better than that of Warp.  I've had
my share of reboots, but they have gone away almost entirely since I
changed a few things about my setup (turned off ROM shadowing on QEMM,
which I might remove entirely; got rid of the CD-ROM drivers built in cache
since 95's CD-ROM does a better job with less memory; and stopped trying to
run CP Desktop.

3.1 - As much as magazines bitch about Warp and 95's stability, 3.1 itself
wasn't very stable either.  Everyone knows the meaning of GPF, right?

*Compatability*
NT - It sucks, NT can find many reasons not to run an application, such as
security, memory and hardware protection, or an exiplicable complication.
However when an application won't run, it just doesn't run, instead of
locking up your computer.  Also, NT supports some things like X-11, and
POSIX programs that none of the others do.

Warp - I have very little experience here, but I've heard that Warp does a
pretty good job running DOS games, and Windows programs.

95 - It runs almost anything with very few hitches, the one thing I miss
the most that it won't run is Ubique's Seasame, which won't run because it
is designed for Win32s in a way that is incompatable with Win32 (?)

3.1 - Don't try to run DOS programs under this, but Windows programs run
fine.

*Speed*
----------
NT - this is also fairly abysmal when running Win16 or DOS programs,
however some Win32 applications fly under NT, but they still don't compare
with the same programs under 95.

Warp - again, I have little experience here, but I generally noticed that
Warp performed slower than DOS or Windows 3.1, and I can't say much for
native applications, but they should be fast, and I've heard the same.

95 - the fastest OS I've seen so far 95 runs Win16 apps slightly faster
because of improved disk and graphics performance, and runs Win32 apps even
faster, the most noticeable change was when I switched from the 16-bit
version of Netscape to the 32-bit version.  Things were almost twice as
fast, though most of that was due to better cacheing to the disk and not
increased throughput through the PPP connection.

3.1 - 3.1 has been critized for it's lack of support for speedy programs
like graphics, and lacks the features such as DIVE, and WinG that the other
OS's have, and as such is not a suitable platform for action games.  3.1
however did provide good disk access, and GUI graphics performance by it's
standardization of video functions for accelerated video chips, which was
valuable to office applications.

--Summary--
	That pretty much says it all, draw your own conclusions, correct me where
needed, but I hope this awnsers some questions.
Ryan Baker: e-mail - rynb...@eek.cwru.edu
1010 Vernon Rd.
Bexley, OH 43209
(614)-231-6271

st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Hon Chong Chang) wrote:
>
> Okey First I just want to say I have NOTHING against WIN95 except the frustration of
> the postpone to the official release date to the REAL THING. I'm curious about the
> program, wants to learn how it wil (or will not) affect my computing. Anything I'm

[Many wonderful questions deleted]

Concerning multitasking.  As I understand it, much of Win 96 :-) is still based
on 16 bit code, and it WILL NOT PREEMPTIVELY multitask 16 bit windows programs.
I'm pretty sure the ONLY preemptively multitaskable apps are the native 32 bit guys.

You should get a copy of _Undocumented Windows 95_ or _Inside Win 95_ or
something like that.  Perhaps someone else will clear up the title.  It's really 
fat and pokes big holes in Microsoft's marketing hype.

Paul

Paul Billings <p...@maui.com> wrote:

>Concerning multitasking.  As I understand it, much of Win 96 :-) is still based
>on 16 bit code, and it WILL NOT PREEMPTIVELY multitask 16 bit windows programs.
>I'm pretty sure the ONLY preemptively multitaskable apps are the native 32 bit guys.

You are correct about Win95 not preemptively multitasking 16-bit windows apps....just the 
32-bit ones.  He can also check out the May 16, 1995 issue of PC Magazine.  It does a great job 
of explaining it and it's a lot cheaper than a book.


-- 
-Sean Martin
Workstation Technical Support, Texas Instruments
sma...@ti.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I assume you're talking about a Beta Version, since even MicroSoft aren't 
expecting the full version out until the end of the year (as far as I know).
If you are, I have two questions:
1. Is it compatible with the latest version of Stacker, since I'm buggered
if I'll decopmress my disk just to have a look.
2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?

Steve

Ryan Baker (rynb...@eek.cwru.edu) wrote:
> The Windows 95 / OS/2 debate here gets alot of people's attention, and alot
> of different types of responses, ranging from stupidity to very intelligent
> remarks.  I don't think that many people have tried to do this, but I'm
> going to attempt to compare the four major operating systems (Windows 3.1x,
> Windows 95, OS/2 Warp, and Windows NT) as best I can, and as unbiased as I
> can.  I do however have a personal bias for Windows 95 which I currently
> use and very much like, I have however used all four systems.

Wow!  What an article!  I think it is very well written and about as
unbiased as it gets.  I agree with just about everything you said.  I
wish you knew a little more about OS/2, but your knowledge of NT far
exceeds mine.  You were very honest and pointed out each of theirs
strengths and weaknesses, and did so accurately.  I was getting sick
of people writing misinformation (your OS won't run games with sound
and my OS does...) and it is good to see that there are a few of us
who seem to know what is going on.  For a review of usability, I think
you did a good job.  As it stands, the conclusion to this is that each
OS has its strengths and weaknesses, and based on those you need to
make your decision.  I might like to add something, OS/2 can give you
superior performance to DOS, but it probably won't.  You need to sit
down and customize your settings for that program (OS/2 is good at
this, but it does take a little time and effort).  Once done, I can
get CorelDraw to load and run faster under OS/2 than under Windows on
my machine.  Similar results with some other Windows apps, but not
quite so drastic.  Also, Doom (version 1.1 so I can have sound) is
choppy under DOS on my system, but smooth under OS/2.  The real
question is if the extra performance is worth the time it took to
configure them right.  I will let you decide.  But I agree that Win95
appears to be a little faster, especially when it comes to things like
opening windows.  
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

In article <3ntsn2$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
ca...@wam.umd.edu (Your Ad Here) wrote:
> In article <3n4ff7$g...@news.iastate.edu>,
>    m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu (Mark R. Johnson) wrote:
>
>
.......

> Who CARES?  Just because one OS has been doing something special for years
> doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and buy it because another OS just included it
> in the latest release.  Stop living in the past, people...geez.

I will differ.

If you don't now what has gone before, you are at a disadvantage in the
present - and unarmed for the future.

Remembering the past and drawing lessons from it isn't living in the past.
IBM has had a 1st-class, 32-bit OS for years now - or you can try this
new, unproven OS from MS.

The words chosen are important.

Steve



//-----------------------------------------------------
// Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
// sb...@ibm.net / ste...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
// swit...@vnet.ibm.com
// Warp Connect: Unlimited Peer shares files/printers/modems,
//               TCP/IP v3.0, Bonus Pak and Internet stuff,
//               Lan Distance Remote, Lotus Notes Client....
//               and Multiple protocols: IPX/NetBIOS/TCPIP
//               802.2, plus NetBIOS over TCPIP or IPX
//               and....MUCH MORE!

	Just make me an offer


	GAMES AND UTILITIES

 Links-The Challenge of Golf	CD-ROM no box
 Spellcraft			3.5"
 Castles			3.5"
 Castles Northern Campaign	3.5"
 Sci-fi Powerhits		3.5"
	Above includes
	Deathtrack
	Prophecy
	Tongue of the Fatman
	Circuits Edge
	Mines of Titan
 Daemonsgate			CDROM
Seawolf				CDROM no box

"S.S. Mallam" <S.S.M...@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
>Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:

[...]

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

>2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?

Excerpt from a local newsgroup asking this very question -

(Of course, since you're in the UK, the '800' number probably won't do
much good :-) If you have web access, you might try www.microsoft.com)

[...Begin excerpt...]

Article 1803 of ccnet.general:
From: kcl...@ccnet.com (kclarke)
Newsgroups: ccnet.general
Subject: Re: Windows95
Date: 3 May 1995 17:43:25 -0700

Jeffrey D. Grave (jdg...@ccnet.com) wrote:
:  
: Where would I find a copy of Win95?? Are you guys buying it? (What I   
: assume is a beta version)  Or are you downloading the program from some   
: where?? 

Dial 1-800-95PREVIEW - that's where I got it.  You have to be willing to 
pay $30-35 for it.

[...End excerpt...]

-- 
Cliff Craner - cra...@ccnet.com					 |
W3 - http://www.ccnet.com/~craner/				\O/
"Do that which consists in taking no action,		  o-----(_)-----o
and order will prevail."  - Lao Tzu		           Comin' at Ya!

I am looking for a demo or good trade deal for Clockwerx

After having posted the message concerning the original Ultima tunes, someone
mentioned the Ultima site that had the midi tunes of the original (non-IBM)
games. 
So that all of us who have have played those classic games can still listen
to those music scores.(Hell ! I got the compilation, just to listen to the
musics ... bottom line : I got fuck*d up the a*s without any vaseline, It 
seems that the IBM versions of the games never had any decent music).

Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)


				Walt

>Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
>Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
>How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)


MIDI is a wonderous thing if you have a nice table to play it through.


.

>>>>> "Walter" == Walter DAO <wd...@netcom.com> writes:
In article <wdaoD81...@netcom.com> wd...@netcom.com (Walter DAO) writes:


Walter> Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound
Walter> tracks ?  

You could try: ftp://havoc.why.com/pub/ud/stuff/music

Walter> How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much anyone with modern hardware.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent....@symbios.com         */
/* Symbios Logic, Inc.           * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-9319           */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 225-4829                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  * Formerly known as NCR Microelectronics */
/**************************************************************************/
Has everybody got HALVAH spread all over their ANKLES??...
 Now, it's time to ``HAVE A NAGEELA''!!

sb...@ibm.net (Steve Withers) wrote:
>
> In article <3ntsn2$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
> ca...@wam.umd.edu (Your Ad Here) wrote:
> > In article <3n4ff7$g...@news.iastate.edu>,
> >    m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu (Mark R. Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >
> ........
> 
> > Who CARES?  Just because one OS has been doing something special for years
> > doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and buy it because another OS just included it
> > in the latest release.  Stop living in the past, people...geez.
> 
> I will differ.
> 
> If you don't now what has gone before, you are at a disadvantage in the
> present - and unarmed for the future.
> 
> Remembering the past and drawing lessons from it isn't living in the past.
> IBM has had a 1st-class, 32-bit OS for years now - or you can try this
> new, unproven OS from MS.
> 
> The words chosen are important.
> 
> Steve
> 

     It may be new, however, it has proven itself to me as far as 
working with games is concerned.  I have been using Win95 for a while
now and I have tried it with many different types of games; from Sierra
adventures to WingCommander III.  I ran both Descent and Freddy Pharkas
simultaniously without any problems.....under 8MB of RAM.  


						--- Scott Brower

In article <3o2bod$h...@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk>,
   "S.S. Mallam" <S.S.M...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

>I assume you're talking about a Beta Version, since even MicroSoft 
aren't 
>expecting the full version out until the end of the year (as far as 
I know).
>If you are, I have two questions:
>1. Is it compatible with the latest version of Stacker, since I'm 
buggered
>if I'll decopmress my disk just to have a look.
>2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?
>
>Steve

1.  The Beta installed flawlessly over Stacker 4.0.  The only issue 
you run into is the fact that Windows 95 will then have to use a DOS 
based (16-bit) disk compression routine as opposed to the 32-bit 
routine in the Windows 95 compression utility.  I switched over to 
the Win95 disk comp utility and now my access time is significantly 
faster and smoother.

2.  Call 1-800-95Preview and talk with Microsoft.  I think they are 
out of the final Beta, but you never now.

-- Rob

In article <3oc3pv$6...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu> d...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu (colin day) writes:
>From: d...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu (colin day)
>Subject: Re: ULTIMA musics (where) ?
>Date: 4 May 1995 20:50:39 -0600
>>Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
>>Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
>>How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)
>
>
>MIDI is a wonderous thing if you have a nice table to play it through.
>
True, MIDI sounds absolutely wonderful through a Wavetable card. That will 
be my next upgrade. But for now they are passable on a SB (that is, I've 
gotten used to it). But MODs sound the same on a SB and on a GUS. Wouldn't 
it be too hard for someone too convert them?

Tempest