🚀 go-pugleaf

>I know this article doesn't belong here, but then again this entire 
>thread doesn't really belong here ... but can somebody please tell me 
>straight out ... is Win95 really a true 32-bit OS??? 

   It depends upon what YOU'RE running.  Run nothing but 32-bit apps (that 
don't exist yet) and it behaves much like OS/2, as far as multi-tasking 
goes.  Throw ONE 8 or 16-bit monkey-wrench in the works, and you're back to 
good ole' Windoze again, hourglass and all.

   Also, Win95 is nowhere near as stable as OS/2.  The "Final Beta" laid a 
big 32-bit egg...couldn't multi-task 32-bit apps very effectively.  We'll
see how well it's fixed...a problem like that betokens something structurally
wrong, but it's been years sinceI've programmed...and never to the level of
OS development, so I really don't know.

>I'm really starting to become fed up with OS/2.  'Tho I love the 
>multitasking and I don't think I could ever go back to DOS/Windows3.11, 
>there's just no support for OS/2 in the way of apps. 

   What exactly are you having a hard time with?  I mean, damn...if you 
install OS/2 the "right" way, you've set up the Boot Manager, and simply 
run DOS when a funky program just REFUSES to run properly under OS/2.  
That's what I do...about half of the games I use run great, a few work 
occasionally and must be closed, and the rest run best under DOS.  I also 
use big, bloated, useful albiet poorly-written monsters like Corel Draw 5.0 
and Microsoft Office Pro 4.2 under OS and have never had a single 
hang...even while FTPing or running an old version of Telix d/loading 
something...

   But think about it...why is it a strike AGAINST an operating system if 
it's NOT compatible with ANOTHER 100%.  It's ludicrous.  Feature for 
feature, OS/2 is SO MUCH better than DOS or Windoze it's really not worth 
discussing...  

   Whatever.  Install it correctly and you'll never be sorry.  Do that 
"dual boot" crap and you'll have nothing but headaches because the ENTIRE 
system must be configured as either one or the other...


>BTW - just how insuperior is Win95 gonna be to OS/2??  

   For doing what?  Multi-tasking?  I can't imagine Win95's 
multi-tasking performance will be superior to OS/2's under any 
circumstances.  It may be comparable when Win95 is running only 32-bit 
apps, assuming the fatal bugs are worked out of the kernal that hangs the 
system, as mentioned.  

   As far as performance goes, Win95 will, for most users, not be a "speed" 
increase.  Neither is OS/2, under most circumstances.  But OS/2s 
performance does not deteriorate appreciably on a 16MB system running 2-3 
applications simultaneously.  After that it does, but that depends upon 
HPFS cache, swap size, but sort of bus you have, etc. etc...  Personally, 
I've never hard more than two things running under Win95 without problems 
of the sort I've never experienced under OS/2.  

   I'm satisfied with OS/2 because I still run a lot of funky old DOS crap, 
and Windoze hoses hard on those suckas.  I expect the same from 
Win95...results up to this point have not been encouraging, and Win95 lumps 
all non-32-bit apps into a single memory chunk, making it very 
crash-prone.  The only thing that would convince me to buy Win95 is if the 
Japanese version is good...then I'll end up being forced to get it...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is the FOUNDATION OF HUMAN JUSTICE!  For example...

   "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a 
man gathering sticks on the sabbath day...and the Lord said unto Moses, 
'The man shall be surely put to death'...and all the congregation brought 
him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the Lord 
commanded Moses."

   Numbers 15:32-36 

(...and folks wonder why selling cars on Sunday is illegal...)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------