🚀 go-pugleaf

>>I am not sure how much they plan to change on the Beta for Win 95 now 
but
>>I do know that MS is planning to make NT and win 95 come closer and 
closer
>>until they become one product.  Windows NT is a much better Multi-tasker
>>than Windows 3.1, OS/2, or Windows 95... but if Windows 95 begins to act
>>more and more like NT, we will see true benefits of multitasking and
>>multithreading.
>
>Not quite from what I heard.  From all accounts in c.o.o.a, Win95
>is a dead end (even Win advocates there don't deny it), and NT is
>the way MS wants you to go.  That's why they are forcing NT
>compatibility on Win95 developers (you need to make sure you Win95
>apps runs in NT in order to get the Win95 sticker), and that's why
>they will put Win95's interface in NT a year or two later (Isn't
>it great to have you guys pay to test the new interface for MS?).

Well, from what I've heard, MS needs to bring the current state of the 
average computer up to the standards that NT expects.  Win 95 is a pretty 
good way to do that.  Then, if people get better, more powerful computers, 
the jump from Win 95 or its successors to NT will be minimal.  As is seen 
by the Win 95 interface that NT will employ (a few months later), they are 
already gearing up for people to make the move. 


>Changing the Win16 subsystem in Win95 from cooperative to
>preemptive is too big a change to do in beta, and they have only
>a few months to so even if they want.  No, the cooperative nature
>of Win16 system is not going to change in Win95.  Expect to
>upgrade again to NT a year or two later if you buy Win95 now.

I think upgrading from Win95 to NT is exactly what MS wants.  That is why 
they are trying to make the differences between them very minimal.  
Perhaps Win95 won't be preemptive but perhaps Win96 (or whatever) will.  


>As for NT being a better multitasker than OS/2, I don't think so.
>It's probably more robust (thus resulting in less DOS/Win and
>hardware compatibility than OS/2), but the efficiency in
>multitasking is probably similar for both.

I don't think that that is true.  I run both of them now and I firmly 
believe that NT can handle many more programs simultaneously than can 
OS/2.  And, even with NT's vast hardware requirements, it seems to be much 
quicker at loading them simultaneously.  OS/2 also has some serious other 
problems that don't seem to make it practical for many users.  For 
instance, using the modem while multitasking another program causes severe 
problems (at least for me it did).  Also, from what I've seen, NT has very 
similar hardware compatibility as does OS/2.  


>*** And back to the whole point of this thread: GAMES ***
>
>NT is not a games platform (at least for a couple more years),
>Win95 is not available yet, no Win95 games is available yet.
>OS/2 is here, OS/2 games are here, and more OS/2 games are coming
>(and they are multithreaded too).

OK, stick to OS/2 games... In a few years, after the onslaught of Win95, I 
doubt many people will be sticking with OS/2 or its games.  I don't even 
see how OS/2 can compete - It has been out for many years as a 32 bit 
multitasking OS with minimal impact on the market (especially against the 
buggy Windows 3.xx).  Windows 95's impact is going to be huge whether it 
is better than OS/2 or not.  And, it will get 90% of the market of games. 
Not to mention that 0% of the new Windows 95 games will be compatible with 
OS/2.

>>I heard that the performance of
>>>DOS apps is improved compared to running them in Win3.x.
>>
>>DOS apps are improved compared to running them in DOS also as far as
>>I have seen.
>
>Not if you are running more than one at a time, a few Win95 beta
>testers posted that one DOS app will slow down the whole system.

When could you EVER multitask games in DOS or Win3.x?  You never could!  
It is true that Win95 multitasking of DOS is not very quick but it serves 
its purpose.  

John Marconi
UIUC Computer Science