🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
           kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca "Kevin Speichts" writes:
> 
> In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
>  rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
> 
> >   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind
>  would
> >"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
> >isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
> >system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
> >future.
> 
> Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
> right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
> '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

In fact, OS/2 _will_ run doom in a DOS box in 4MB.  Not very well (the VM
paging tends to kill the performance), but it does run.

As for OS/2 requiring as much hardware as NT, all that comment proves is
that you clearly haven't used one of them (or possibly either of them).

OS/2 will work in 4MB - I personally don't think it's really usable, but
it will run.  NT _requires_ 12MB just to run, and it's performance isn't
too good until you have 32MB.  Both OS/2 and Win95 are fairly happy in
8MB, although 16MB is probably the right figure if you want to do real
work with either.

NT, even with enough memory, is also slower.  This is an almost inevitable
consequence of it's architecture (IMO, it's virtualised too close to the
hardware - this makes it quicker to port; it also ensures that the ports
are highly compatable with each other.  But it does slow things down).

Also, the Win95 shell for NT is _not_ in beta.  It's currently in alpha,
and (FWIH) it's still rather buggy.
> 
> > Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
> >possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
> >dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
> >any sense!
> 
> Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
> the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 
> 
That's easy.  See the comments about the NT architecture above.  This makes
porting very easy.  IBM have decided _not_ to do a plain port of OS/2 to
the PPC.  Instead, they have redesigned it around a microkernel, which is
a rather longer job.  It will make later porting much eaiser, however.

> >Rob (in dreamland) Vanden Heuvel
> 
Since you appear to be a clueless newbie, I should point out that modifing
peoples .sigs is considered one indication that you've already lost the
argument (rather like mentioning H*tl*r).  Why don't you go out and buy
a bag of clues - the're not that expensive.

Pete
-- 
Peter Bell  <pe...@bell.demon.co.uk>

SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.
--j...@proteon.com (John Woods)