🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3oj8vk$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mar...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (John Marconi) writes:
>
[delete]

>>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.

Exactly my point, NT is what MS wants people to buy, Win95 is a
stepping stone.

>Perhaps Win95 won't be preemptive but perhaps Win96 (or whatever) will.

There won't be a Win96, unless Win95 slips past Dec.  NT is the
upgrade for Win95.

>>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.

Using modem while multitasking is *exactly* what many OS/2 users
switch to OS/2 for!  I routinely do 14.4k download while
multitasking without *any* problems.  E.g. I started The 7th Guest
while reading someone is having problems with it, switched back
and forth to respond, no problems. Tell my what problems you have,
I will see if my system can handle who you are trying to do.

>>*** 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

Oh, yeah.  I have heard this a couple years before, with NT, I
won't believe it until I see it.

>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 look forward to your Win95 games which will get 90% of games'
market (I would be interested to see how MS force those DOS gamers
to buy Win95 though).  While you wait, I will be happily playing
both DOS and OS/2 games, and I may have already got a few
*multithreaded* OS/2 games (GalCiv, Avarice, Entrepretner, thanks
to SDS) before Win95 is even available.  BTW, 0% of them will be
compatible with Win95.

If on the slim chance that your prediction is correct, I will buy
Win95 *then* (most bugs are probably patched by then).  What do I
lose?  Nothing.

>>>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.

Huh?  My point is running ONE DOS app will slowdown the whole
*Win95* system.  If that's good enough for you fine, I will stick
with OS/2 which *can* multitask DOS apps *without* the whole
system slowing down.

---
Oliver Chung
<khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>                 __  __    _
+Department of Physics, The Ohio State University+  |  |(__' /`_)
+----------> My opinions are my own <------------+  |__|.__)/ /__