🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3qcl9u$7...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
an...@ifm.liu.se (Anthony de Vries) wrote:
> In article <3q8ngd$r...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, lo...@wam.umd.edu (Arcadio Alivio Sincero) writes:
> > Loring Rose (lor...@wwa.com) wrote:
> > : >Umm, no.  Windows was all Microsoft, and had nothing to do with OS/2.
> > : >IBM and MS wrote OS/2 up to version 1.2.  One group in IBM then put
> > : >out 1.3, while MS and IBM worked on 2.0.  Before the divorce in 1991,
> > : >MS and IBM started work on OS/2 3.0, which was released as Windows NT.
> > : >
> > 
> > : Yes, you are correct.  I mis-read my source material (which was a bit 
> > : confusing on the issue to start with).
> > 
> > 
> > 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???  I've been hearing 
> > all kinds of crap like "yes it is" to "no and it still runs on top of 
> > DOS".  Is Win95 a true, stand alone, OS?  Or is it really Win3.11 on 
> > steroids?  
> > 
> OK But only because you asked for it. 
> This is definitely the last time I want to see a OS/2 vs Win95 on this group.
> 
> Win95 is NOT a true 32-bit OS. Is is on top of a DOS 7, which is still the old
> 16 bit DOS we all now. It still has the darned 640k limit.
Since running win 95 I never, ever experienced anay 640 K limit, even when running
dos games in a dos box, also running my network software with 2 different
protocols. And even when my cdromdrivers where loaded.
So what limit are you talking about?

> Win95 in generally does NOT support preemptive multitasking.
Win 95 generally DOES support preemptive multitasking.
 
> Only a little part of win95 is 32-bit.
Actually a big part.

> It's a bit like the adding of the 32-bit disk access in old windows.
> Also only native win95 can pre emptive multitask.
Not true, also NT and DOS applications can be preemptively multitasked.

> But thats no good when there's a "old" DOS program above it. Then
> it just won't get any time, because that uses cooperative multitasking.
No, an old windows application _can_ do this. If written well you
won't see the difference in practice.

> Thats so much as, well if you give some time, than others can use it.
> As no DOS programmer cares how well other programs will run behind it's
> own program, normally DOS
> programs don't leave any free time for others.
Wich is not relevant because DOS programs are preemptively multitasked.
  
> 
> So yes, win95 is win3.11 on steroids. (How about calling it win3.2?)
> NB If you're only running native win95 programs, then it will be
> preemptive multitasking.
Nope, after the cooperative timeslice the rest will be preemptively scheduled.

> Compare this to OS/2 which is completely 32-bit, which has HPFS
Maybe, but with every new version we hear of some part wich _was_ 16 bit
and know all of a sudden turned into 32 bit

(it doubled the transfer rate of my harddisk!), and will pre-emptive
> multitask ANY program it runs.
> So even that old DOS program.
And maybe crash win 3.1 applications wich expect a cooperative environment.



Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl)      | Generals are in the nice white tent
                                      | on the hill, sipping sancerre
                                      | directing the battle; They are
                                      | men of honour             Rimmer