🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
Win95 in generally does NOT support preemptive multitasking. 
Only a little part of win95 is 32-bit.  It's a bit like the adding of the 32-bit disk access in old windows. Also only native win95 can pre emptive multitask.
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.
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.  

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.

Compare this to OS/2 which is completely 32-bit, which has HPFS (it doubled the transfer rate of my harddisk!), and will pre-emptive multitask ANY program it runs.
So even that old DOS program.

> 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.  I wish people would 
> start making OS/2 friendly games, but the way things are going, I 
> shouldn't hold my breath for 'em.  More than likely, people will be 
> supporting Win95 all the way, even if it is insuperior to OS/2.  And what 
> good is a superior OS if it don't got any good apps for it??  

Yes that's a problem. Thats why I hope people will understand how much better OS/2 is
compared to win95. Just don't buy ANY win95 apps, and then company's will make them for other OS's. 

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

> Arcadio

Anthony.