🚀 go-pugleaf

Did you notice any speed loss?

> 
> PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
> I tried it and didn't like it...
> 

Oh-Shit/2 is great, if you don't need sound for your programs.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
                    Scott Alter    sca...@crl.com   
                         San Antonio, Texas    
                 I'm so conservative I even press my socks...
 ___________________________________________________________________________

 
> 
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1  
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I  
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games... 
> 
> 
Windows 95 latest Premier Demo Beta version for general release does not   
support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX   
compatable.  However, this is a preview version only and not the full   
Beta or the final version. 
 
The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and   
furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements   
to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code. 
 
Anyway, the reviews say that it will run faster than OS2.X with less   
memory, especially when running 16 bit software. 
 
See ya 
 
*	* 
    - 
 ------- 
    - 
bye 
/DM ;-) 

Dave Morris <dmo...@globalx.net: writes:


:Windows 95 latest Premier Demo Beta version for general release does not   
:support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX   
:compatable.  However, this is a preview version only and not the full   
:Beta or the final version. 

Are you really SURE ? I had about 10 different Win 95 betas up to now and NONE
of them (and none I ever heard of) doesn't support 16bit Windows apps. 99.8%
of all old Windows apps should run on Win 95.
Maybe you are talking about the SDK that comes with the Win95 CD, which
is the Win 32 API SDK only. But of course you can use any 16bit Windows
compiler to develop 16bit applications that run on Windows 95.
 
:The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and   
:furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements   
:to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code. 

No, GDi is partially 16bit and partially 32bit. User is mainly 16bit, while
Kernel is mainly 32bit. (Of course you can call all of them using only 32bit
or only 16bit calls. The system just thunks to the other side).
 
Regards,
Steffen

What type SPARCstation? (What speed were the simms?)
	--Ken Mitton
	mit...@bvsd.k12.co.us
===============================================
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
 Drink deeply, or taste not the Pierian spring." 
			-- Alexander Pope

			WHAT???

In <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu> jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu (Baphometae
Organus) writes: 

>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? 
>I would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...

A truly scaly lie that would be. :)  As a matter of fact, it's the
backward compatibility (with 16-bit Windows apps) that's generating
some of the stick points that people love to harp on with Win95.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways.  If you want
backward-compatibility, then don't complain about the results of such
compatibility, ya know? :)

Fear not.. with VERY few exceptions, your Win3.1 apps will work fine
with Win95 (some work better, and with far fewer faults).


Rich
-- 
>==============================================<
>  Rich D. <        /                          <
>----------<    O===[=Excalibur Dragon====-    <
>                   \                          <
>   R E D J r @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m      <
>  Excalibur Systems   <*>    -==(UDIC)==-     <
>----------------------------------------------<
> "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and  <
> pass, leaving memories that become legend.." <
>==============================================<

Windows 95 runs all your favorite Windows 3.1 stuff and
more better and faster.  Trust me, I know from experience.
Those OS/2 Fanatics will say anything to desperatly save
their Doomed! Operating System.  Windows 95 also runs all
your DOS applications better and faster too.  And the
interface kicks rear.

Windows 95 is the future.
Fulcrum Brown
University of Washington


On 18 Apr 1995, Baphometae Organus wrote:

> . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
> : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> : pointless to argue with them.
> 
> : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> : sloughing in their so called os/2
> :  systems.
> 
> I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
> programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
> would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
> 
> 
> 
> 

In article <3n0cl0$j...@nuscc.nus.sg>, law3...@leonis.nus.sg (NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS) says:
>
>I had a very bad experience with os/2 because of the increadibilily slow 
>performance in running windows 16bit applications. I just couldn't stand 
>it. To make matters worse, boot manager didn't work with my system 
>because there was a problem between fdisk and my harddisk.
>

   That's funny, it seems to be running fine for me, and I am one who
demands speed and reliability using the same standards I apply to 
Sun SPARC/DEC Alpha workstation. Maybe all you need are some tweaks,
e.g. setting the cache, swap device, getting more RAM, using HPFS, etc..
I must confess, though, raw DOS/Windows is much faster...of course, then
there are boot disk, CONFIG.SYS issues, running out of memory (on a 48MB
machine!), an average 'necessary reboot count' of about 8 per day, etc.,
but for the purpose of gaming, I guess that really isn't an issue!

>I could go on for days about the problems I had with oS/2 but to make 
>this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in 
>stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first 
>priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. 

   Hmm...I'll sit on Win95. Speed is not of utmost priority!  What good
is a sorting algorithm (for instance) that is fastest but works only 80%
of the time? Regarding B/W compatibility, some sacrifice is necessary to
advance the state of the art; this rabid insistence on backward compati-
bility (I have witnessed since IBM XT first came out) due mostly to those
business types resisting change is why we have a lot of trouble of late.
Most notably, the patchwork quilt and house of cards nature of Windows.

>I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
>sloughing in their so called os/2
>systems.
>

   If it does what you need it to, more power! Personally, I was unim-
pressed by Windows NT.


Best Regards,


  +----------+
  | ________ |    Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
  | \      / |    Department of High Energy Physics
  |  \    /  |    California State University
  |   \  /   |
  |    \/    |     COMING TO YOU FROM WONDERFUL WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
  | USA   G  |    WHERE THE MEN ARE PRETTY AND THE WOMEN ARE STRONG
  +----------+

>. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
>: hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
>: pointless to argue with them.

>: I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
>: sloughing in their so called os/2
>:  systems.

>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...


No, this is not the case. I have been running under Windows 95 for quite a 
while now, and have not had any compatibility issues. All of my Win31 programs 
(with a few exceptions for specialty applications) work just fine.

Craig Sparks
Norton Utilities for Win95 Support
Symantec Corp

	I just run DOS right now, but I'm interested in getting a new OS, so I've been 
following this thread with interest.

	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
impression of their users from the messages in this thread.

	The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.

	Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
informed.
	Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2 
users rather than the Win95 users.  As far as "character" references go, OS/2
is way ahead.  
	"Good job!" OS/2 people!
	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.


	
-- 
                               Tarquelne
                        jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu
       I know how God can make a rock so big He can't lift it. 

In <jhamilt.798228637@bgsuvax>, jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Tarquelne) writes:
>	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
>learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
>impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
>	The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
>	Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
>informed.
>	Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2 
>users rather than the Win95 users.  As far as "character" references go, OS/2
>is way ahead.  
>	"Good job!" OS/2 people!
>	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
>want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.

	You should check out comp.os.os2.advocacy (and its Win counterpart),
where most of the really rabid OS/2 users hang out.  While the games groups
seem to have been hit with mostly clueless Win95 people, on Usenet as a
whole the percentages are pretty even.  Of course, both sides see the other
as a bunch of raving lunatics.
	All you have to do is ignore any post with the words "roolz", "sucks",
"losers" or "sloooooooooow" and you may actually find some useful info.  And,
of course, nothing beats six months of hands on experience.
	I myself much prefer debating with NT users.  We still disagree on a
lot of things, but its mostly because we have different needs.  Not so much 
insult-flinging and pettiness.
	I see this thread has yet to be posted to alt.fan.q and alt.2600.

Derek
drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu

Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
...
: PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: I tried it and didn't like it...

Windows would have done this a long time ago too, if Microsoft hadn't 
have split with IBM over the OS/2 issue.  BTW- kudos to IBM for OS/2 Warp 
and a great operating system, but I find that I'll be going with Win '95 
(at least this time around the OS game), they are finally getting it 
right and the vendor support issues far outweigh 'technical reasons' to 
go with OS/2.

To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
that was chosen at start-up.  If it's any configuration but the Windows
one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!).  I 
then have full access to all the DOS I could ever want (makes you want to 
puke!!). I have not found any compatibility problems with this DOS and 
any of the games I've run under it (PAW, FD, AW, Privateer, SC, AF, etc), 
so far. 

I still use QEMM 6.02 (last version not riddled with bugs!!) and Smartdrv 
caching (works great for me), they seem to work great too.

--

    James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com

********************************************************
*               Caprica Internet Services              *
*      "LA Basin's Responsible Internet Provider"      *
*     Voice: (213) 266-0822   Data: (213) 526-1195     *
********************************************************

In <3n0iv0$7...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>: To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
>: multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
>: that was chosen at start-up.  If it's any configuration but the Windows
>: one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!).  I 
>
>NO IT DOESN'T.  Its more like Win95 and DOS run parallel.
>DOS is just around more with Win95, but Win95 is the operating system you 
>are using, not DOS.
>

You are brainwashed.  It's a bit more complicated than Windows 95 running
straight on top of DOS, but yes, they are inextricably linked.  You couldn't
be running Windows 95 without DOS there somewhere (it's actually built
into the Windows 95 code).  Contrast this with OS/2, which is completely 
standalone.  You can run DOS programs without even having DOS on your 
system (of course, you won't be able to use any DOS commands, but you 
can run the programs), and of course you can run every OS/2 program as 
well.  

In fact, when running a single session for a game under Windows 95,
all the OS is doing is unloading every Windows 95 feature from memory
and leaving you with straight DOS.  Basically nothing more than an OS/2
dual boot, the difference being that OS/2 has to reboot the whole
machine in order to get vanilla DOS; Windows 95 just takes itself out of
memory.  That should tell you something about the OS you're really running
when using Windows 95.

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

I'm cross-posting this message into comp.os.os2.games, because OS/2 is 
beginning to get bad-mouthed in this thread (not by James, below, so 
don't berate him), and I thought it reasonable to try to achieve some 
balance here.

On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, James Lummel wrote:

> To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
> multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
> that was chosen at start-up.  If it's any configuration but the Windows
> one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!).  I 

Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
tailor the settings for each program individually.  

Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
currently do in DOS. 

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *

In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...

>Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
>tailor the settings for each program individually.  
>
>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>currently do in DOS. 

Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
absolutely nothing about.

Thanks,

	 - Rich
>
>JOHN
>

...welp, here are my experiences with Win 95.  The good point and bad point 
with Win 95 and DOS games is that you pretty much run whatever you are going 
to run from a DOS full-screen prompt.  If things don't work right, there 
really isn't much you can change...unless you are willing to run it in MS-DOS 
mode which basically shelves Win 95 and basically puts you in DOS.  Nothing 
can run in the background of this.  Here are my limited experiences with a few 
games:

Descent:  Ran for a bit, OK.  Left the window, came back, few seconds later, 
full system crash.

Doom II:  Perfectly (on a P5-90)

WC 3: Perfectly....until you switch away....once you switch away, you can't 
come back.

X-com 2, Master of Orion: Perfectly...though sound my drop out after a few 
re-loads in X-com 2.

Mortal Kombat II:  Runs but the screen goes black with the exception of the 
strength bars.

As for Win 3.1 progs...it'll run 'em all...with the exception of those that 
access the HD directly, and those you can often use if you use the LOCK 
command.

Baphometae Organus (jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu) wrote:
: . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
: : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
: : pointless to argue with them.

: : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
: : sloughing in their so called os/2
: :  systems.

: I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
: programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
: would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...

Windows 95 is fully backward compatibile with win 3.1 programs. It does 
this by retaining some of the 16-bit code.

Speed wise so far from what I see it's 16-bit applications are quite fast.

This is a very interesting thread, as far as that goes...  but what the
heck does it have to do with Flight Sims?  I can see how the thread got
started...  some guy saying, "Hey!  I just got the April Beta release of
Win95, and it works great!"  And then off we go, my os is better than your
os!  My os can do this.  Oh yeah?  Well, my os is a stronger multitasker!
Well, my os has a bigger dick than your os!

This debate is something akin to debating the logical possibility of the
existence of God.  It may be great fun, but it doesn't go anywhere...  it
just keeps going.

Joaquin

I think if you check enough newsgroups, and hear enough   
opinions, you will find there are jerks and intelligent people   
in both camps (OS/2 Warp and Windows 95). Do not make a   
decision based on who you like. Make a decision based on what   
OS is best for you. 
 
Gary. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
-               Gary A. Lucero             - 
-    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   - 
-                Orem, Utah                - 
-                                          - 
-             GLU...@Novell.com           - 
-------------------------------------------- 

Folks, please. 
 
Opinions about OSs are like arseholes... 
 
Can we take all this flamebait to other, more appropriate newsgroups?    
Most people are subscribed to this group to glean information about   
strategic games for PCs, and I doubt many of us care about the candor   
involved in a spat between MS and IBM OSs. 
 
I encourage all of you to carry on whatever discussions regarding these   
subjects you wish, but please carry it to an appropriate forum. 
 
                                Peace, 
                                Andy 
 
(Fnord) 

>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>currently do in DOS. 
>
>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>	 - Rich
	Likewise, quit wasting bandwidth on a stupid retort to a legitimate question.
Do try and answer the question before spewing childish putdowns.

	Does or does not Win95 allow the user to change the number of files
for each session?  Incidentally, OS/2 does not require a certain # of "files".  The "files"
parameter is only used by the DOS session. (ie, when you close the session, the
memory dedicated to "files" is released) (or so the Command Reference says...)

----------
Alson Kemp		kem...@ece.orst.edu

"Gambled once and won,
 Never made a dollar."
	-Uncle Tupelo

In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
a>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
a>jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
a>
a>>Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
a>>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
a>>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
a>>tailor the settings for each program individually.  
a>>
a>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
a>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
a>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
a>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
a>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
a>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
a>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
a>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
a>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
a>>currently do in DOS. 
a>
a>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to a>knowing absolutely nothing about.
a>
a>Thanks,
a>
a>	 - Rich
a>>
a>>JOHN
a>>

He (John) was being polite and asking a constructive question.  How do you expect him to learn more about the product that you feel he knows "nothing about" without asking questions?  Instead of your inane/childish "nope sorry wrong" response, why don't you try being more polite and informative?  You seem to be more interested in being abrasive than wasting bandwidth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Habib
Mcgill Research Center for 
Intelligent Machines
Montreal, Quebec
email: ph...@cim.mcgill.ca

In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	 - Rich

Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story regarding
Windows 95 and configuration changes?  For instance, can you run 2 separate
DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. with
one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
instance)?

//  Jeff Williams
//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu

In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...

>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story 
regarding

Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.

Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.

There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache, 
doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session. 
 Just click on the choices.  For any other devices, it's simple to add the 
lines into your custom config.

It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although 
I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter.  The really cool 
stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using 
the WING libraries.  I really couldn't live without the backward 
compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read: 
games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.

	- Rich

>Windows 95 and configuration changes?  For instance, can you run 2 separate
>DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. 
with
>one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
>instance)?
>
>//  Jeff Williams
>//  NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
>//  jmw...@is2.nyu.edu
>

In <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.

> [Win95 RULZ...bla bla bla] [snip]

It amazes me. I hear Win95 advocates going on about stuff that their 
new operating "system" (MS DOS7 & Win kludge 95) might be able to do -
and it's stuff that other platforms have been doing for years. This situation 
is like showing off a musket to a stone-age tribe. Even though it's obsolete 
and unreliable technology, the ignorant think it's incredible, mostly because 
they've never been exposed to it. This technology (multi-tasking OS's which 
Win95 will NEVER be,) is not rocket science and has been around
for years. M$ is now just moving into the mid-1980's. Wow. 

I'm real impressed.

When are they going to start offering object-oriented technology?
2010?

In <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>>like to impart with that message?  For instance, what is the real story 
>regarding
>
>Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.
>
>There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess this must mean that only idiots will use Win95?  

The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.

Since it won't be able to run several  Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least.  and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications,  consider this.  NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW.  And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.

  
>doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session. 
> Just click on the choices.  For any other devices, it's simple to add the 
>lines into your custom config.
>
>It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although 
>I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter.  The really cool 
>stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using 
>the WING libraries.  I really couldn't live without the backward 
>compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read: 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So it looks like people that want to play will use Win95 and those that want to work will use WARP.  And since Win95 will be MSFT keyboard enabled you'll be able to press the GPF key to increase your GPF's without the hassles of actually running a program.  How convenient.<G>.


Chris

Warping... NOT Waiting...

or should that be

Working... NOT Playing...

>I guess this must mean that only idiots will use Win95?  

Very funny; NOT!

>The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.
>
>Since it won't be able to run several  Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least.  and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications,  consider this.  NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have
 have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW.  And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.

Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

>Warping... NOT Waiting...
>Working... NOT Playing...

And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
writing for it.  

Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              /-----------\         No matter where yo go
             |  |------|  |             There you are
             |  |  __  |__|  __

On 18 Apr 1995, NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS wrote:

> this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in 
> stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first 
> priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 

Speed over stability is not always the best choice if you are concerned 
about loosing data.

> hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> pointless to argue with them.

Listen to who sounds biased here and especially in your following sentence.

> I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> sloughing in their so called os/2
>  systems.

OS/2 is hardly slow if you are running native apps (or even DOS apps for 
that matter); only having to load the Windows kernel slows it down.  
Besides, once you get a Windows program loaded, most run just as fast as 
under Windows 3.x.

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *

>Hi... putting my two bits in:  I'm using OS/2 Warp with a Gravis Ultrasound
>and so far have had problems only when I had a small amount of memory; 
after
>I found a couple of 16MB SIMMs from my old SPARCstation, didn't have any 
speed
>problems at all (and this only on a 486DX2/66 machine).


[Cut out some stuff]
 

>
>  +----------+
>  | ________ |    Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
>  | \      / |    Department of High Energy Physics
>  |  \    /  |    California State University
>  |   \  /   |
>  |    \/    |     COMING TO YOU FROM WONDERFUL WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
>  | USA   G  |    WHERE THE MEN ARE PRETTY AND THE WOMEN ARE STRONG
>  +----------+

[Sarcasm mode on]

Gee, didn't have any speed problems after adding 32 MB of RAM to your 
system????Who would have thought that???  Somebody call IBM and let them 
know!!!  This is ground breaking stuff here.

[Sarcasm mode off]

I have:

Betrayal At Krondor
Ultrabots
Simcity 2000
Zork Anthology
King Quest VI
Doom Companion
Myst
Magic Carpet
Ultima I-VI
Spaceship Warlock
Spear of Destiny
Spectre VR 
Jetfighter II
Quantim Gate
Sherlock Holmes
PC Computing:How Multimedia Computers Work (CD-ROM+BOOK)
Home Medical Advisor
Microsoft Multimedia Jumpstart
Battle Chess
Arts&Letters WarBirds
Iron Helix
7th Guest
Earth Siege
Return to Zork
Mega Race
Spectre VR CD Enhanced
The Shareware Colection For Windows
The Shareware Coloction Platnium
The Shareware Colection Games
Armorware Over 600 Games


All are on CDROM I would like to trade them but will sell them.

TheDruid


thed...@ix.netcom.com

law3...@leonis.nus.sg (NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS) wrote:
>
> Derick J.R. Qua-Gonzalez (dq...@Prometheus.EarthLink.Net) wrote:
> : In article <ptnal4TV...@crl.com>, sca...@crl.com (Scott Alter) says:
> : >
> : >Did you notice any speed loss?
> : >
> pointless to argue with them.
> 
> I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> sloughing in their so called os/2
>  systems.
> 

I used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2.  Not to 
mention that my hard drive wouldn't stop accessing.  I am now running
under the pre-release version of Windows 95 (1-800-95PREVIEW for $27).
It is the best operating system I have ever seen.  My windows apps
actually run faster (I have 8 megs ram BTW) then they did under Win 3.1
The cool thing is WIN95 actually changes the look of your win3.1 apps
to conform with the overall scheme of things.. makes it much easier to
use.  Windows 95 is going to be the most successfull operating system
because so many people already use windows... Try out the pre-release,
it's a beautiful thing. 
 
Just my humble opinion.......... :)

On 20 Apr 1995, Wulfgar wrote:

> I used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
> I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
> support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
> Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2.  Not to 

Finally -- back to games :-).  Obviously, you mustn't have been doing 
something correctly.  The only game I've not been able to get running 
under OS/2 is The Farm, since it uses Win32s version 1.2, and OS/2 
currently supports an earlier version.  I can run Descent, DOOM, Reader 
Rabbit1, Math Rabbit, all Borderbund's Living Books, among others (okay, 
so my kids have more games than I do :-).  OS/2 also supports joysticks; 
however, I don't own one, so I can't really say more on the topic, except 
I wonder if the stick(s) in question above were supported by OS/2.  

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *

There is one important point that seems to have been ignored in this
argument about OS/2 and Windows 95. OS/2 exists *NOW* while Windows 95
is still a (relatively buggy) beta.

Both have against them the past track records of the companies making
them. I mean, how can you trust a product coming from the company
which gave us DOS and Windows? Let's face it they suck! Why anyone
should want an operating system that resembles them is beyond me!

Personally, updating to either at the moment is completely
uninteresting. I use DOS to play games on, my wife uses Windows for
word processing and my kids Windows for some games. For *real work* I
use a *real operating system*, Linux.

-- 
Robert Virding                                  Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
Computer Science Laboratory                     Tel: +46 8 727 34 52
Ellemtel Telecommunications Systems Laboratories
Box 1505, S-125 25 �LVSJ�, SWEDEN

I have to admit I haven't read all 5000+ posts on this subject, but I think 
everybody here is probably missing the point.  It doesn't matter if W'95 will 
support true multitasking, or whether it runs DOS programs with less hassles 
than OS/2, or any of that crap.

What matters is that in a short time after it's release, W'95 will come 
preloaded on the majority of new computers sold in the US.  I read somewhere 
that Compaq is already commited to this, in fact.  Plus it will sell like 
hotcakes regardless of whatever whining and bitching there is online.  You see, 
we here on the 'net represent an incredibly small percentage of the computer 
gamers and regular users in the real world.  The latest issue of CGW 
(or maybe is was PC Gamer - sorry, the magazines are at work) mentioned the 
results of some feedback study they did.  Only an incredibly small percentage 
of it's readers ever logged onto major commercial online services (Cserve, AOL, 
Genie, etc) and an even smaller number of people used the internet.  When all 
is said and done, we here are very small group of people arguing amongst 
ourselves, and computer makers know that.  The overwhelming majority of users 
out there get any info they have from Magazines (which for the most are lining 
up in favor of W'95), friends (who read those positive articles), and store 
clerks (who want to sell the dominant OS so they can sell more apps for that 
OS).

Once W'95 moves into it's position of dominance (where DOS/Win 3.1 are now), 
what makes you think Origin, LucasArts, Sierra, Microprose, or any other 
company is going to continue making titles for an OS system that only a small 
portion of zealots will be using?  Where's the money in that, versus the money 
required to develop for that minority platform?  Maybe if OS/2 continues to 
develop more followers, you might see OS/2 versions of really popular titles 
(as you see Mac versions occasionally of big PC games), but they'll be few and 
far between.  What IBM will have to do is bend over backwards, crippling its OS 
to insure compatibility with W'95 products - much as Microsoft is having to do 
now to insure compatibility with all previous DOS/Win 3.1 products.

Sierra has all but commited to Windows.  Origin is doing Ultima 9 as a Windows 
only product.  Wake up and smell the coffee, people!  It's only a matter of 
time!

-rich

In article <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu>, jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu 
says...
>
>
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
>programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
>

I have had trouble with some w3.1 applications, games and other stuff when 
running Win95. I'm going to kick it right out of my machine unless the 
final commercial version is a lot better than the final beta.

/Mattias Martinsson

On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

> Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
same time.

> 
> >Warping... NOT Waiting...
> >Working... NOT Playing...
> 
> And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
> scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
> you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
> wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

I will say that I run OS/2 and do not run any win3.1 apps with it.  I use 
Lotus Smart Suites.  I've seen Microsoft's Office, and it didn't impress 
me.  Everything I run, I can get an OS/2 version of it.  True, it may not 
have ALL the bells & whistles as the Window version, but 99% of those I 
don't care about - ie: Bubble help if AMI Pro 3.1  -- What a waste of 
code, bloating the programs and causing me to run out of drive space.

There are many other OS/2 native apps out there: Corel Draw, Microsoft 
Word (and they said OS/2 was dead) Word Perfect (I think they dropped 
it) and others which do not come to my mind at this early hour of the day.  
 
> 
> Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
> platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
> writing for it.  

>From my experience, Window games suck.  The much talked about Myst is an 
example - NO smooth scrolling amimation (except if you count that 30X30 
window in the maze), you hear moving water, but everything is still 
frames.  

> Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
> believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
> unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
> if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  

 If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
repackaged.


Mike W. Stone

The Stoner (mxs...@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

: > Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

: Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
: coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
: doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
: calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
: control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
: the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
: currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
: same time.


You are wrong.  It is a 32bit OS, with DOS built in.  I have had ONE 
application lock up, and only one time.  It didn't take the entire system 
down, as I was able to terminate that program, and everything else just 
kept chugging along.  And if you want my opinion, whats the difference 
between the hourglass and the OS/2 clock icon?  So you know, there is a 
new pointer in Win95.  Have you used the newer Mosaic?  There is a combo 
hourglass/pointer.  You can still move windows around and do work in 
another app while the other app is busy.  

You have not even seen Win95 yet, have you?

:  If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
: before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
: capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
: repackaged.

tsk tsk... Have fun!
While you are sweating with your OS, I'll be working and ENJOYING my 
computer.

 Jeff

Baphometae Organus (jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu) wrote:
> . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 
> : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> : pointless to argue with them.

> : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> : sloughing in their so called os/2
> :  systems.

If the beta is anything to go by, OS/2 beats Win95 in speed by a long
shot.  Not just in multitasking either.  Win95 still has some of the
problems of Windows, and Win95 loads Windows apps slower than OS/2
does, which is about as fast as under Windows (must use fastload and
fool with some settings).  And DOS games run much faster under OS/2
than under DOS, especially video (Doom is smooth on my 486 under OS/2
and choppy under DOS).

> I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
> programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
> would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...

Win95 is backwards compatable.  What you heard is probably that Win95
still does cooperative multitasking with Windows apps.  Which means
that they multitask about as well as under Windows.  In my experience,
Win95 does a semi-decent job of multitasking (not as good as OS/2),
until you throw a 16bit Windows app into the picture, then the system
slows to a crawl.  

Technobabble:  Win95 still has a 64K heap space (limiting number of
apps that can be run at a time to about 8), FAT filesystem (sucks,
sucks, sucks...), multiple directory entries for long filenames
(causes some serious problems with older software, especially disk
utilities like disk defragmentors), 640K barrier (cleverly disguised,
but it is possible to run out of conventional memory), the kernel is
basically unchanged from DOS 6.22 (recompiled 32-bit, but system calls
are the same, as are BIOS calls), and Win95 will let you use 16-bit
device drivers (sucks, sucks, sucks....).  In addition, OS/2 won't let
you directly access the hardware, while Win95 lets programs do
whatever they want to (viruses really only affect DOS/Windows
computers, they never appear in OS/2 and NT computers).  Granted,
there are some nice things in Win95, and it isn't very cut and dry as
to which is better (some may like one interface over the other), but
the underlying technology is better in OS/2, while Win95 is tweaked
DOS and Windows code that works together as if it was one operating
system.  
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm  	Majors:  Computer Science	|  MC Computer	
Mississippi College		 Engineering Physics	|  Support Team
swil...@mc.edu		Minor:   Mathematics		|  sup...@mc.edu

Mattias Martinsson (ma...@styx.tripnet.se) wrote:
: In article <3n0hme$b...@gort.oit.umass.edu>, jjf...@hamp.hampshire.edu 
: says...
: >
: >
: >I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1 
: >programs.  Is this true?  Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?  I 
: >would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
: >

: I have had trouble with some w3.1 applications, games and other stuff when 
: running Win95. I'm going to kick it right out of my machine unless the 
: final commercial version is a lot better than the final beta.

: /Mattias Martinsson

how about some insight as to what you have not got working? I'm just curious.

nos4a2

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"60 seconds to Midnight. 60 seconds to Nowhere! You have all become victims 
 of The Mad Bomber What bombs at...?!�� HEY! Pay Attention!"   
                                              -Mad Bomber "The Tick"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Stoner <mxs...@hertz.njit.edu> writes:

>On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

>> Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

>Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
>coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
>doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
>calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
>control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
Only Windows 3.x apps are copperatively multitasked and they all run in their
own VM which is pre-emptively multitasked with Win32 apps and DOS VMs .
If a Windows 3.x app hangs, it only hangs the other Windows 3.x apps, not the
Win32 or DOS apps.

I can provide the exact section of the Windows 95 Resource Kit documentation
explaining the architecture of WIn95 if you like.

Cheers,
Bill
--
Bill Arnette                      sas...@unx.sas.com
Portable Debugger Development     ...!mcnc!sas!saswta
SAS Institute Inc.                (919)677-8000 x6193  
SAS Campus Drive - R2275          (919)677-4444 (fax)  
Cary, NC 27513                    

	Greetings everyone,

	The "Win95 vs. OS/2" case is resulting again in endless thread.
This thread has *again* drifted far beyond this newsgroup's meaning.

	The reason is obvious: the religious war between those who likes
OS/2 and likes MicroSoft's OSes is raging anew.

	The obvious solution is this: use what you like. Don't flame in the 
newsgroups not dedicated to flaming. Save your nerves!

	I belong myself to OS/2 fans. I *have* tested both MS' and IBM's
products, this is why I chose OS/2 Warp. But it is not only the
quality of OS/2 that attracted me; this is also the policy of
MicroSoft that repulsed me, too. Several of the reasons why I dislike
MicroSoft altogether are stated below. If you are a compromiseless
fan of MicroSoft, don't bother reading. I *won't* answer offensive
postings/eletters any more. Besides, my thoughts are based upon *facts*, not 
emotions. I can hardly expect you can find reasonable objections...

	I address OS/2 team: do *not* fall to offenses, like calling MS
products names and teasing MS fans. This is childish. The time will
show which OS is better and I am undoubtedly convinced that MicroSoft
deserves downfall for all its doings and that its Windowslings
have no future. Do not use MS products, oppose it wherever possible, create 
alternate software. That's much more positive.

	Let's be reasonable! Let's stop that endless thread!
















	[This article was posted in alt.lang.asm etc. several days
before]

	Below I explain why I dislike MicroSoft. The exact *numbers* can be 
not very correct... but the difference is not that dramatic...

	* MicroSoft's policy is based upon rough force and deceit. The
first - world-famous now - contract between IBM and MicroSoft obliged
all IBM-compatible producers to pay MicroSoft $45 *from each computer
sold*, just because MS-DOS was installed there. IBM tried to cancel
that contract, but with no result. MicroSoft tricked it, in fact, and
this is the reason why MS-DOS is so conservative, useless, patched
all over it and strange. Why bothering modifying it if money come to
you effortlessly?..

	* MicroSoft tends to hold monopoly on everything it touches. This
is why it is so hostile to all DOS clones, this is why its technical
support is quite pathetic and absurdly expensive, this is why its
products are all weird, clumsy, resource-consuming. Do you know that
in Windows there was code that detected third-party [D]OSes and
aborted execution?..

	* MicroSoft falsifies facts when persuading customers into using
MicroSoft products. Have you ever heard about a clause in beta-tester
contracts (for Win95, for example) that *forbids* spreading any
negative information about product being tested without prior
permission by MicroSoft? Have you not know that Gates used quite
doubtful reasons when "proving" that Windows runs its applications
much faster than OS/2 (he used MicroSoft, not third-party's tests
with ancient OS/2 Windows emulator to "prove" that)? Have you not
know that MicroSoft filters carefully all people before allowing them
to participate in MicroSoft public-oriented activities? And so on,
and so forth.

	* MicroSoft is outright hostile to customers. Try to count
articles and so on about technical support, for example. I live in
Russia. For us MicroSoft invented disk copy protection, installation
counters, no chance of upgrade/technical support and other nice
improvements.  Do you know when MS-DOS started to support Russian
language? Since version 6.22... Do you know how?  By loading more
than ~40Kb of residents. To compare:  DR-DOS supports Russian
language since version 5.00, as regular codepage, with no special
overhead.

	And so on.

Konstantin.
m...@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su

On 17 Apr 1995, Scott Alter wrote:

> Oh-Shit/2 is great, if you don't need sound for your programs.

Come on, either you don't know what you're talking about (i.e., have never
actually used OS/2) or didn't know what you were doing when you set up
OS/2.  OS/2 handles sound from DOS and Windows programs (and, of course,
OS/2 programs).  Some of the games I run under OS/2 -- complete with sound
-- included:  Descent, Borderbund's Living Books, Math Rabbit, and Reader
Rabbit1 (so my kids have more games than I do -- sue me). 

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *

Derek Suzuki (drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In <jhamilt.798228637@bgsuvax>, jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Tarquelne) writes:
: >	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
: >learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
: >impression of their users from the messages in this thread.

: >	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
: >want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.

Well, as I see it... I think both OS's are still lacking a great deal! I've
yet to find an operating system I'm truly happy with... Windows and OS/2 are
definatly far from satisfying my wants and needs. But since this is a gaming
group... I'll stick to just that.

Biggest problem, from what others have told me, with windows is that it
eats up *too* much memory! The day MS creates a windows that dosn't will
indeed be a good os (Win95??).  Another... like many people have already
pointed out... is that it is the pits when it comes to multitasking! I've
tried doing it many times... and it never ever works if I am trying to
run two big programs at once, that is to say... any program that is larger
and takes up more memory than some piddly little thing like solitare! Another
gripe I have... and granted this may be paranoia... is that Windows markets 
itself to people who want an easy to learn os so much... I sometimes wonder 
if it's becomeing another Macentoshish OS... that is to say... so easy
you have less control... but then from what I've seen... that's not true.

Now my gripe with OS/2 is two-fold... first... it's just too slow. My
paicents(sp?) is too thin to sit around waiting for OS/2 to get off it's 
hind-end and finally decide to recognise that I'm actually alive! 
My other gripe is that unless you study the manuals... you will eventually
get lost! Their are somethings about that OS (I'm not refering to Warp.. I've
never used warp) that I sometimes think they purposly made complicated when
it could've been done a whole lot easier! For example.... and Windows has
this same problem... you can't run any program without having to go to some
lame-ass command and type in the name of the path-disk-and program!! it's
nuts! I mean.... I dislike Mac's a lot more than I do Windows... but at least
you can stick in a disk... open up the folder... and run a program without
having to go through a whole series of commands and needless typing?!!??!?!

Well that's all I have to say...
later

Kayvan Ko...@mama.indstate.edu

In article <3n378h$o...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, joa...@u.washington.edu says...
>This debate is something akin to debating the logical possibility of the
>existence of God.  It may be great fun, but it doesn't go anywhere...  it
>just keeps going.>>Joaquin

Actually it is a lot closer to the ...
Which is better Beta or VHS? (video format) of the last decade.

All I know is that one format won and one lost, and it had little to do 
with technical capabilities of either. I glad I made the right choice when
I bought my machine.  

I predict that the software developers will settle the os argument for us.

My contribution to the os debate:
Your operating system blows, mine doesn't. My os can do <buzzword> and your's 
can't. I read somewhere that someone said, they heard from someone else that
your os couldn't run a piece of software. Blah, Blah, Blah.

bobb

The Stoner (mxs...@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1995, JORDAN SPENSER AARON wrote:

: > Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.  

: Everything I'v heard about Win95 says it is still a 16 bit (at heart) 
: coopertive multitasking os.  Sure it will run serveral apps, but it 
: doesn't pre-emt, so (from what I understand) if a WIN95 app locks up while 
: calculating or something, the whole system will lock up, since the program has 
: control over the processor.  (correct me if I am wrong) Also, I would still get 
: the little annoying hour glass telling me I have to wait till what I am 
: currently doing is done.  In a sense, that IS running several apps at the 
: same time.

: > 
: > >Warping... NOT Waiting...
: > >Working... NOT Playing...
: > 
: > And what kind of work are you doing?  So, just how many business, 
: > scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2.  Odds are 
: > you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future, 
: > wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95

: I will say that I run OS/2 and do not run any win3.1 apps with it.  I use 
: Lotus Smart Suites.  I've seen Microsoft's Office, and it didn't impress 
: me.  Everything I run, I can get an OS/2 version of it.  True, it may not 
: have ALL the bells & whistles as the Window version, but 99% of those I 
: don't care about - ie: Bubble help if AMI Pro 3.1  -- What a waste of 
: code, bloating the programs and causing me to run out of drive space.

: There are many other OS/2 native apps out there: Corel Draw, Microsoft 
: Word (and they said OS/2 was dead) Word Perfect (I think they dropped 
: it) and others which do not come to my mind at this early hour of the day.  
:  
: > 
: > Oh, and sure I will be playing...  Windows '95 will be a great gaming 
: > platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are 
: > writing for it.  

: From my experience, Window games suck.  The much talked about Myst is an 
: example - NO smooth scrolling amimation (except if you count that 30X30 
: window in the maze), you hear moving water, but everything is still 
: frames.  

: > Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point.  I 
: > believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be 
: > unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even 
: > if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.  

:  If Microsoft cruches OS/2, then I'll most to Linux or another UNIX os 
: before I go to Windows.  At least I know I will have TRUE multitasking 
: capabilities and not some re-worked DOS/WIN3.1 combo stirred up and 
: repackaged.


: Mike W. Stone

You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Derrik Pates
dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu

Derik Pates <dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:

>You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
>various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
..
>IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
>I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Sounds like your mind is already made up before seeing the product.
 _______________________________________________________________________
|\ ______________________________________________________________________\
| |                                                                       |
| | John H. Kim          "Just try telling the IRS you don't feel like    |
| | jo...@mit.edu        'contributing' this year come April" - Bob Dole  |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu   on Bill Clinton's avoidance of the word "taxes." |
 \|_______________________________________________________________________|

In article <mbo.51....@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su>, m...@ccphys.nsu.nsk.su
(Konstantin Boyandin) wrote:

>         Greetings everyone,
> 
>         The "Win95 vs. OS/2" case is resulting again in endless thread.
> This thread has *again* drifted far beyond this newsgroup's meaning.
> 
>         The reason is obvious: the religious war between those who likes
> OS/2 and likes MicroSoft's OSes is raging anew.
> 
>         The obvious solution is this: use what you like. Don't flame in the 
> newsgroups not dedicated to flaming. Save your nerves!
> 
>         I belong myself to OS/2 fans. I *have* tested both MS' and IBM's
> products, this is why I chose OS/2 Warp. But it is not only the
> quality of OS/2 that attracted me; this is also the policy of
> MicroSoft that repulsed me, too. Several of the reasons why I dislike
> MicroSoft altogether are stated below. If you are a compromiseless
> fan of MicroSoft, don't bother reading. I *won't* answer offensive
> postings/eletters any more. Besides, my thoughts are based upon *facts*, not 
> emotions. I can hardly expect you can find reasonable objections...
> 

... Microsoft Flame Deleted ...


So you want to stop this discussion, but you post a loonng message just
begging any MS fanatic to respond to your flame of the company?!?  Not a
very good tactic to stop a flame war, do you think?  You just added more
fuel to the fire.  Don't ever become a diplomat, OK?  Thanks, I really
would appreciate that.

Chris


Here's what would have happened if Konstantin was sent to Haiti instead of
Jimmy Carter:

Konstantin - "Hey all you oppressed people out there!  We really need to
get the President Arastin back into power, OK?  But before we do that,
just let me say one thing... 'You all SUCK!'"  OK, can we just stop this
little tif now and get back to normal?"

In <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:
>You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
>32-bit code now. 

You're only slightly right too. The part you're missing is that the 
16-bit parts that are left are USER and GDI code which are some of the 
most critical portions of win95.

>It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and
>various other features. 

The pre-emptive multitasking is definitely hurt by win16lock which was 
made necessary by the decision to keep the USER and GDI 16-bit code. 
This was a calculated tradeoff for MS since keeping them was necessary 
in order to be able to use existing windows drivers, but the net result 
is that win95 does not come anywhere near the multitasking, 
multithreading performance of os/2 or NT.

Not to mention that win95's memory protection model is seriously 
compromised even for 32bit apps in order to bridge compatibility between
dos, win16, and win32 apps.

>Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. 

This will indeed be better than what os/2 warp can do.  Of course, warp
was released almost a year before win95 is expected to come out.  Expect
warp 4 out next year to have PnP in time for the arrival of PnP systems
and devices.

>I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
>I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.

Perhaps win95 will be the right os for you, but it definitely is not a
very good os from an architectural point of view.  In fact, it's just a
bad hack.

                                                        -Ben

  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Team OS/2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 | "Don't marry a person you can live with, // "Imagination is more important |
 |  marry someone you can't live without." //   than knowledge..." - Einstein |
  '''''''''''''''''''' Bye BYe BYle BYLe BYLee BYLEe BYLEE '''''''''''''''''''

In article <3nj6n6$l...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Derik Pates) writes:

[stuff from previous postings deleted ...]

|> You're SLIGHTLY right. Part of Windows is still 16-bit. But, it's mostly 
|> 32-bit code now. It has pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and 
|> various other features. Also, no one mentions Plug & Play. Gamers will 
|> love this for not having to screw around with their new hardware on new 
|> machines. And, even if you have an older system and/or older hardware, 
|> Windows 95's Plug and Play will STILL help to make things easier for the 
|> average user, with better detection and some diagnostics for address, 
|> IRQ and DMA conflicts. This is better than what OS/2 Warp can muster. 
|> I'll be getting my preview copy of Windows '95 very soon, and I'm sure 
|> I'll never look at Warp after I start running Win '95.
|> 
|> Derrik Pates
|> dmp...@silver.sdsmt.edu

Plug and Play sounds real nice, but I think nobody needs it. Why? There are
basically two kinds of computer users. The first kind knows all IO port addresses
and stuff, and as such doesn't need P&P. The second kind knows next to nothing
about the inside of a computer, and they probably buy a computer that has
everything installed. Even if they buy something new (say a soundcard or CDROM),
the suppliers of the hardware usually want to install the new item for them at
a minimal charge. Therefore they don't need P&P either. A very small group of
computer users may not fit in either catagories, but why not let 'the
professional' handle your stuff if you're not completely sure what you need to
do? Installing a P&P device still means opening your PC and inserting it, so it'll
probably be too difficult for somebody without some knowledge on the hardware
itself.
And what if two P&P devices do not work together for some reason? Surely you can't
change jumpers or something, as they're meant to configure themselves. The only
solution would be to remove one of them and buy another one, defeating the entire
idea of P&P.

In short, I don't thing P&P is that big an issue, and we don't need it either. If
you don't like looking at the inside of your computer, don't mess with it I say.
Leave the upgrading to people who know what they're doing (by the way, personally
I know my way around the inside of my PC quite well).


Just my HFl 0.02

Richard van Meurs (vme...@cs.utwente.nl)

In article <3n1qls$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, kem...@ucs.orst.edu says:
>
>>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
>>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
>>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
>>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
>>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>>currently do in DOS. 
>>
>>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
>>absolutely nothing about.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>        - Rich
>        Likewise, quit wasting bandwidth on a stupid retort to a legitimate question.
>Do try and answer the question before spewing childish putdowns.
>
>        Does or does not Win95 allow the user to change the number of files
>for each session?  Incidentally, OS/2 does not require a certain # of "files".  The "files"
>parameter is only used by the DOS session. (ie, when you close the session, the
>memory dedicated to "files" is released) (or so the Command Reference says...)
>
>----------
>Alson Kemp              kem...@ece.orst.edu
>
>"Gambled once and won,
> Never made a dollar."
>        -Uncle Tupelo
Well, since I have been using the beta copy for the last few weeks, and as far
as I can tell, you simply tell windows 95 what config.sys and autoexec.bat files
should be used when you run a certain dos program.  You can do this by
setting up a shortcut for a program in the file explore area (something like the
file manager in windows 3.1).  I hope this helps.

Edward Letendre.