🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Williams (jmw...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: 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 <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>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

Rich,
  I don't think you provided any insite as to why John is wrong.  If you
are concerned about wasting bandwidth, please, by all means, explain to
him and the rest of us why and where he is incorrect.  As far as I am
concerned John has proven his grasp of what he does know (concerning the
way OS/2 works in this situation) and questions the way Win9X will work
under the same situation.  You, in turn, have demonstated nothing more
than your ability to type and post a reply, and maybe your skill at
being rude and in instigating an arguement.  Be proud.

>>
>>JOHN
>>

No worries!

Imp.
__________________________________________________________________________
Ian M. Patterson                        "The hurting stops NOW!!!"
Computer Engineer                               - Bill, The Terrible
AT&T Global Information Solutions                         Thunderlizards
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

root (ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu) wrote:
: >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.

No shit, this idiot needs to get lost.  At least most OS/2 users are 
computer literate.  This guy has NO clue.

Jeff

On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

> root (ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu) wrote:
> : Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing 
> : absolutely nothing about.
> 
> No shit, this idiot needs to get lost.  At least most OS/2 users are 
> computer literate.  This guy has NO clue.

Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
have clarified my knowledge and earned my respect (I guess I was under the
mistaken assumption that these newsgroups were places were we could
exchange information in a more or less civil manner -- yes, I _can_ engage
in civil debate with people whom I disagree with) they have chosen to post
obnoxious, non-informative responses (aka. flames).  Now, what has
changed: 

1) my (and others') knowledge about Win95 capabilities?  Nope.
2) my sense of civility toward these two individuals?  Yep; I now feel 
they are inconsiderate assholes.

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       *                            *

John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
: another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
: question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
: question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would

I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 
untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.

Jeff

In <3n3bqi$2...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>
>John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
>: Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
>: another.  They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
>: question, as I was doing.  Instead of trying to directly answer my
>: question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
>
>I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
>hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 
>untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
>min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.
>
>Jeff

This coming from someone who admitted yesterday that he flew off the
handle.

If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started
to quote my last message on this matter a couple of posts ago, but then
you didn't actually write anything after the quote.  So us OS/2 users are
still in the dark about this; please enlighten us.

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

In article <rcharlan....@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rcha...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Randy Charland) writes:
>
> 1)  Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2
> there really isn't any need to for most games.  I loaded these games on my
> machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:
> EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and
> Links386.  I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!
> worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but
> compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was
> night and day.  There were no speed sacrifices at all.
>
The question here is if Win95 really has session settings, but hides
them from you unlike OS/2. Win95 may just have a VERY good database
of current games with well tuned settings for each.

On the other hand, since Win95 is less concerned with protection than
OS/2, it may not need control as strict as OS/2 has over DOS sessions.

It may even be a combination of both factors, fewer settings and a
good database for tuning them. One way to tell would be a game that
came out after the beta and has had no chance to be included in their
database. I would go so far as to say, even check for a new DOS
extender, since that is one of the primary drivers in this.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Allright my turn to say something...

	Now first lets get straight, this isn't meant to be a flame instigator so 
save your breath.   Second, I personally feel OS/2 is an excellent operating 
and anyone that tries argues otherwise is pretty foolish.  However, I just 
tried out the third beta of Win95 and it's game support is pretty incredible.
This is why...

1)  Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2 
there really isn't any need to for most games.  I loaded these games on my 
machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:  
EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and 
Links386.  I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!  
worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but 
compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was 
night and day.  There were no speed sacrifices at all.  

2)  The only game where I had do drop into "DOS" mode was for USNF.  When you 
do have to drop into DOS mode it basically reboots your machine.  Pretty much 
sucks but it does let you specify a seperate config and autoexec statements in 
the PIF file.  Keep in mind though that was only ONE game.  I couldn't even 
run USNF, or knew how to, in OS/2 Warp.

>From a person that was intially very doubtful Win95 game support surprised me 
quite a bit.  This is message is only meant as info, not insult. :^)

Randy

Jeff Williams (jmw...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: 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)?

I didn't want to get involved in this, but YES. YOU can do whatever you want
to 95. Basically you say..."Windows I wanna do this and this and this and
this and this and this" and guess what it says "Yes...will do RIGHT AWAY."
Just like OS/2 you can have specially made icons plastered across your
desktop so that you may just double click your till your little heart is
content. 

nos4a2

jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
  
 [ snip ]

>If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
>The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
>run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
>to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
>information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
>latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
>runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started

I though I could stay out of this debate but...

>From the Windows 95 Resource Kit on the build 445 CD-ROM:

Application Support/
 Technical notes on application support/
  Support for MS-DOS Based applications:

   "As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS - base application runs in its own
   DOS virtual machine (VM), which allows multiple 8086-compatible sessions
   to run on the CPU, which in turn allows existing MS-DOS - based 
   applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system."


--
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                    

sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:

>jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
>
> [ snip ]

>>If you like, I'll repost his original message.  He did ask a simple question.
>>The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
>>run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
>>to that effect.  There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
>>information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
>>latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
>>runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM).  You started

>I though I could stay out of this debate but...

>>From the Windows 95 Resource Kit on the build 445 CD-ROM:

>Application Support/
> Technical notes on application support/
>  Support for MS-DOS Based applications:

>   "As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS - base application runs in its own
>   DOS virtual machine (VM), which allows multiple 8086-compatible sessions
>   to run on the CPU, which in turn allows existing MS-DOS - based
>   applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system."


It was pointed out to me that the above quote does not answer the actual
question posed, which is true.  I have looked all over the resource kit 
documentation and have found nothing that states that "you may run 
several concurrent DOS VMs, each with it's own DOS settings."  

However, here is an exceprt from the mem /c output in several differently 
configured DOS sessions running at the same time on a IBM PS/2 Model 90 
w/32M RAM :

  Session with Auto EMS:

    Total Expanded (EMS)                  32,964,608  (31M)
    Free Expanded (EMS)                   16,777,216  (16M)
    Largest executable program size          614,000 (600K)
    Largest free upper memory block                0   (0K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

  Session with no EMS

    Largest executable program size          614,000 (600K)
    Largest free upper memory block                0   (0K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.
       
  Session with Auto EMS and 280K Conventional

    Total Expanded (EMS)                  32,964,608  (31M)
    Free Expanded (EMS)                   16,777,216  (16M)
    Largest executable program size          280,176 (274K)
    Largest free upper memory block            2,112   (2K)
    MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

I tried to come up with actual documentation stating exactly the answer to
the question, but in the absence of that, I hope the results of this 
experiment do answer the question.

It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
might be run.

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                    

In article <3n4rsh$4...@uwm.edu>, nos...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Jerome Micheal Kuptz) says:
>: 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)?
>
>I didn't want to get involved in this, but YES. YOU can do whatever you want
>to 95. Basically you say..."Windows I wanna do this and this and this and
>this and this and this" and guess what it says "Yes...will do RIGHT AWAY."
>Just like OS/2 you can have specially made icons plastered across your
>desktop so that you may just double click your till your little heart is
>content. 
>
>nos4a2
>

	You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:

>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>might be run.

So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

Adam
-- 
ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
64,928 | TEAM OS/2 |   "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!"   |  Linux  | Fnord
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.

On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:

> I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95.  I was 
> hardly rude about it, either.  Your initial posts seemed to be presenting 

Nope, you were not.  Indeed, I had sent the note prior to reading your 
private email.

> untruths as fact.  When you realized you were wrong, you changed your 
> min-informative posts to "questions".  Just clearing up things a bit.

As I pointed out in my private email, you have obviously made a mistake.  
I copied the entire post pointing out the OBVIOUS places where I was 
asking questions (I remeber about 6 question marks in my post, which I 
won't repost here to save bandwidth).  Either you have choosen to ignore 
this fact, or our messages have again crossed.  I fully admit to not 
knowing much about Win95, and I was asking questions.  I have not changed 
my tune.

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.3.91.95042...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
>
>On 19 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:
>

>As I pointed out in my private email, you have obviously made a mistake.  
>I copied the entire post pointing out the OBVIOUS places where I was 
>asking questions (I remeber about 6 question marks in my post, which I 
>won't repost here to save bandwidth).  Either you have choosen to ignore 
>this fact, or our messages have again crossed.  I fully admit to not 
>knowing much about Win95, and I was asking questions.  I have not changed 
>my tune.

Rude?  WTF, you asked a really, really dumb question on the usenet, and you 
got flamed for it.  Who honestly gives a damn whether the "files=" can be 
specified for each DOS session, and if so what relevence does it have to the 
gaming groups?  NONE.  Dumb, dumb dumb dumb.  Then, you insist on continuing 
the stupidity by posting as though you were some righteous avatar, when in 
fact you are a schmuck who posted an irrelevent (who cares about a handfull 
of bytes that the "files=" might take up?) question to the incorrect 
newsgroups.

Might I recommend that you take a beginner "Intro to Computers" class at UNC.

	- Rich

>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       *                            *
>

Daniel McCarty (dmcc...@sitvax.stevens-tech.edu) wrote:
: In article <3n4rsh$4...@uwm.edu>, nos...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Jerome Micheal Kuptz) says:
: >: 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)?
: >
: >I didn't want to get involved in this, but YES. YOU can do whatever you want
: >to 95. Basically you say..."Windows I wanna do this and this and this and
: >this and this and this" and guess what it says "Yes...will do RIGHT AWAY."
: >Just like OS/2 you can have specially made icons plastered across your
: >desktop so that you may just double click your till your little heart is
: >content. 
: >
: >nos4a2
: >

: 	You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

And what clues do you have? As far as I can tell none. Do you run the OS?
I have run it and feel it is much better than OS/2 for my personal use and
felt I would share what I found out about 95. I never asked to be flammed by
some idiot that can't respond with an intelligent post. if you can prove me
wrong then do it, but I have ran both the operating systems in this
discussion and feel it is the best for me. if you have a fucking problem
with that then you can just fuck off. If you want me to back up my claims I
made up above then I strongly suggest you back up yours. 

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"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3n9nl1$n...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>,
st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Hon Chong Chang) says:

>First, Does this means that Win95 can MULTITASK DOS VDM? Because I'm foremost looking
>for a *TRUE PRE-EMPTIVE MULTITASKING OS* and I really would like to multitask in
>DOS. The easiest way to test this I think, will be to load up DOS VDM under win95,
>play a MOD file (i.e. I think DMP or most popular modplayers should do) and then
>switch back to win95's equivalent of program manager. Is the music still there?
>(this test should also be able to test the stability of win95, because mod playing,
>especially using a SoundBlaster XX crunches up tons of resources and generates tons
>of system interrupts and DMAs). Does the music die down if I start another DOS VDM?
>(try playing the DOS QBASIC's NIBBLES or any other games that do not use soundcards)
>Also, can someone tell me how well windows handles DOS communication softwares? I
>know win95 native comm program would exist, but I just like to test the stability
>and comm port handling ability of win95 DOS VDM. What happens when you try to use
>the same comm port? (i.e. load up another comm program that uses the same comm port)

Even Windows 3.1 preemptively multitasks dos sessions (provided you configure the
PIF file settings correctly), so I doubt that there's any problem under
Win95.  Windows is a stange creature: a very nice premptive mutltasking OS, 
and a very nice GUI API, but you can't use them both at the same time.
Win16 apps are always cooperatively multitasked under Windows 3.1 and Win95.


Stephen C. Steel       <rev...@qv3pluto.LeidenUniv.nl>
Maintainer of Childrens Software Reviews WWW site:
http://qv3pluto.LeidenUniv.nl/steve/reviews/welcome.htm
==========================================================

In article <3nb7ra$6...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu 
says...
>
>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does
>Win95 have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
>
>Adam

For every DOS program, you can specify individual CONFIG.SYS and 
AUTOEXEC.BAT settings.  However, if you do, Win95 essentially
reboots with the new config files, then runs the program--after
the program is done, the system reboots again and reloads Win95.
Fortunately, I've seen very few programs that need their own
configuration files--for me, everything except Transport Tycoon
runs with whatever Win95 gives it (thus, no reboot).

Your mileage may vary.  :)

- David

ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:

>In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:

>>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>>might be run.

>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

I beleive that is true for DOS VMs.  You can however specify them if you use
MS-DOS mode.  But also remember that Win95 supports VxDs so you shouldn't
have to load any new drivers in a DOS VM.

>Adam
>-- 
>ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
>"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
>64,928 | TEAM OS/2 |   "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!"   |  Linux  | Fnord
>You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.
--
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                    

> >It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
> >options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
> >.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
> >might be run.
> 
> So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
> have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
> 
> Adam

You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.

--
Mark Rogers.  *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *

After reading all the posts and flames of Windows '95 and OS/2 I have a 
couple questions.

  Does either OS support IDE interface CDROMs?
  
  What are the cuurent formats and prices of both os?? (ie CDROM vs 3.5")

  Is the built in device support for both OS only for popular and current
    or is there an option for manufacturer drivers??

-- 
Michael King                              e-mail: kin...@cig.mot.com

On 22 Apr 1995, root wrote:

> Rude?  WTF, you asked a really, really dumb question on the usenet, and you 
> got flamed for it.  Who honestly gives a damn whether the "files=" can be 
> specified for each DOS session, and if so what relevence does it have to the 
> gaming groups?  NONE.  Dumb, dumb dumb dumb.  Then, you insist on continuing 

I disagree -- it is directly related to all these gaming groups, since so 
many games demand such a wide variety of configurations.  I wanted to 
know if Win95 performed as well as OS/2 in handling such a scenario.  The 
quality of the answer, IMHO, has direct bearing on the quality of both of 
these operating systems as gaming platforms. 

> the stupidity by posting as though you were some righteous avatar, when in 
> fact you are a schmuck who posted an irrelevent (who cares about a handfull 
> of bytes that the "files=" might take up?) question to the incorrect 
> newsgroups. 

Obviously you are having trouble extrapolating from my FILES= example to 
other -- more important -- configuration settings, such as the ability to 
manipulate system memory, selectively load device drivers, etc.  Not all 
of us are as challenged in our critical thinking abilities.

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 <saswta.7...@sas.com>, sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:
>ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:
>
>>In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:
>
>>>It is true that you cannot specify FILE= and BUFFERS= or any other
>>>options that you would specify in a CONFIG.SYS file.  But you can specify a
>>>.BAT file to be run before your application much as an AUTOEXEC.BAT file
>>>might be run.
>
>>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?
>
>I beleive that is true for DOS VMs.  You can however specify them if you use
>MS-DOS mode.  But also remember that Win95 supports VxDs so you shouldn't
>have to load any new drivers in a DOS VM.

As I understand, MS-DOS mode is the same as having batch files in
DOS that copies the proper autoexec.bat and config.sys and reboot
the machine.  *No rebooting* is what people wants.

Can you elaborate about how VxD has to do with DOS drivers?

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

In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.95042...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>,
John Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:

> Of course, you ignore the recent IBM/Lotus announcement.  They are working
> on the API calls that are similar under both OS/2 and Win95 (forgive me if
> I'm a bit off in this description, as I'm not a programmer in either
> environment).  What that will mean is that a game developer can write a
> program for Win95 and use the SAME source code to compile the game for
> OS/2.  Of course, there is currently a tool that allows the vendor to use
> a large portions of their code, but it still requires some writing as I
> understand it; however, given the ability to port the code by simply
> switching the parameters of the compiler, there will be no excuse for not
> producing native OS/2 versions of games (and other apps) given this
> capability. 

Especially as games move more and more to CD-ROM only.  The executables
are usually only a tiny part of the game (mostly QT movies and stuff),
so executables for both can be included on the one CD at little or no
cost to the publisher.

Matt

--
GO d-- h+ s++;+ g+++ !p !au a- w+ v+ C++++ UL(S)++ P+ L+ 3- E- N+++ K++  W--- 
M+ V-- -po+ Y+ t+ !5 !j R G? tv+ b+++ D--- B--- e+ u+ h!>++ f r-- !n y?
                     The Borg: Cool, Calm and Collective.

In article <3nhg7a$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu       (Oliver Chung) wrote:

> Can you elaborate about how VxD has to do with DOS drivers?

In this case, presumably the same way as the virtual drivers OS/2 uses
to access hardware in DOS sessions - no mouse or CD-ROM drivers loaded
into "DOS memory".

Matt

--
GO d-- h+ s++;+ g+++ !p !au a- w+ v+ C++++ UL(S)++ P+ L+ 3- E- N+++ K++  W--- 
M+ V-- -po+ Y+ t+ !5 !j R G? tv+ b+++ D--- B--- e+ u+ h!>++ f r-- !n y?
                 I am Gates of Borg. OEMs will be assimilated.

In article <3nb7ra$6...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Adam J. Thornton) writes:
>
>So you can't load device drivers on a per-DOS-session basis?  Or does Win95
>have a "Load these drivers" somewhere in the app's settings?

Yes, "load these driver and execute this batch file" or "load these drivers" or
"Run this batch file".  So far for Doom/2, Descent, Wing Commander 3, and Dark
Forces, I've just let Win95 go on "Auto" and they've all run perfect.  Those
are the only games I've tried so far.  

----------Tom

>
>Adam
>-- 
>ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
>"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
>64,928 | TEAM OS/2 |   "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!"   |  Linux  | Fnord
>You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.

"Michael T. King" <kin...@cig.mot.com> writes:

>After reading all the posts and flames of Windows '95 and OS/2 I have a 
>couple questions.

>  Does either OS support IDE interface CDROMs?
  

OS/2 does.  I am using a Mitsumi Quad-Speed IDE CD-ROM on my machine.  I
am pretty sure Win95 will also.

>  What are the cuurent formats and prices of both os?? (ie CDROM vs 3.5")

Warp(~$79) and Warp with WinOS/2(~$119) come on both (same price for both
formats), Warp Connect will only be available on CD-ROM (still in Beta so I
won't comment about prices) if the rumors are true.  Don't know what Win95
will cost when it is released.

>  Is the built in device support for both OS only for popular and current
>    or is there an option for manufacturer drivers??

You can use OS/2's Device Driver Install to add any OS/2 device driver that
a manufacturer makes (and creates a device driver profile for...) for it.
I grabbed a driver for a PCMCIA SCSI card from the manufacturer's BBS 
yesterday and installed it that way for a friend of mine.  As for what it
supports in the box, e-mail me with any specifics.  Most everything is
covered except the real old and real new stuff.  Again, I don't know about
Win95, but I expect it to be comparable.

>-- 
>Michael King                              e-mail: kin...@cig.mot.com

- Dwayne

--
---                                                                     ---
- Dwayne Parks                      University of Arkansas Computer Store -
- dpa...@comp.uark.edu                            #include <disclaimer.h> -
---                                                                     ---

In article <3o2tie$b...@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk>,
Stephen Clemson <en3b...@bs47c.staffs.ac.uk> wrote:

> Yes, but OS/2 is slow and quirky, and NOWHERE near as friendly as Win95.
>

Well, at least with warp you don't have stupid resource limitations.  As 
for slow and quirky, do you care to back your name calling with 
anything?  
  
-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
|Mark R. Johnson                   "To defend, this is the pact"              | 
|m...@iastate.edu                   "But when life is scorned, and damage done"| 
|<Team OS/2>                       "To avenge, this is the pact"              |

In article <798682...@markbz.demon.co.uk>, Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk 
says...
>
>You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
>if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.
>
>--
	Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
	game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
	your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
	autoexec and config.

	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
	limitations...

Daniel.
dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu

dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) writes:

>In article <798682...@markbz.demon.co.uk>, Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk
>says...
>>
>>You can have whatever config.sys or autoexec you like
>>if you run the Dos session in DOS single mode.
>>
>>--
>       Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
>       game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
>       your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
>       autoexec and config.

>       Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>       Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>       OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>       limitations...

Win95 does have virtual DOS sessions.  MS-DOS mode (single DOS application
mode), IMO is intended as a last resort if you are unable to get your 
application running in a DOS VM.

>Daniel.
>dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu

--
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                    

In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
>	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>	limitations...

Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.

In <9uNflO9R...@wam.umd.edu>, rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) writes:
>In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>,
>dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu (Daniel McCarty) wrote:
>>	Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>>	Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>>	OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>>	limitations...
>
>Possibly, like wanting to run games like Doom with sound.



  This is a poor example.  An informed person would know that the reason that
the sound in Doom doesn't work under OS/2 is because of a bug in the sound code.
This problem also surfaces under some DOS environments. 

    -Scott

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net         |  This space available     
"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo!"   |   for advertising. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3o5bbl$d...@redstone.interpath.net>, 
jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net says...

>
>  This is a poor example.  An informed person would know that 
the reason that
>the sound in Doom doesn't work under OS/2 is because of a bug 
in the sound code.

Eh?  The sound code works fine under DOS.  Face it, the problem
is with OS/2, as much as you might hope otherwise.

	- Rich

>This problem also surfaces under some DOS environments. 
>
>    -Scott
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>Jump...@fortunat.pdial.interpath.net         |  This space 
available     
>"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo!"   |   for 
advertising. ;)
>---------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>> Yes, but OS/2 is slow and quirky, and NOWHERE near as friendly as Win95.
>Well, at least with warp you don't have stupid resource limitations.  As 
>for slow and quirky, do you care to back your name calling with 
>anything?  

I know for a fact that OS/2 on a 486/66 with 8 meg of ram swaps like hell.  
I've waited for over 20 seconds for it to minimize a window.  Win95 on the 
same system doesn't swap significantly, runs faster then OS/2, and is much 
more friendly.  OS/2 also takes significant setup to run dos games in a 
window.  Run Magic Carpet in a Win95 dos window without setting stuff up:  
been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting 
stuff up:  I don't think so.

Folks,

	Let's not be stupid and/or hasty about this... you are all smarter than
this sort of comment.  Of COURSE it runs better under Win95 than OS/2, since 95
runs over REAL  included dos nomatter what Microsoft marketing says.  OTOH,
it runs MUCH better in OS/2 than in WinNT, since OS/2 is optimized for compatability
whereas NT values security and reliability.  Choose your OS according to your
needs folks, and try to remember what's really an OS and what's not...

-Diego


>I know for a fact that OS/2 on a 486/66 with 8 meg of ram swaps like hell.  
>I've waited for over 20 seconds for it to minimize a window.  Win95 on the 
>same system doesn't swap significantly, runs faster then OS/2, and is much 
>more friendly.  OS/2 also takes significant setup to run dos games in a 
>window.  Run Magic Carpet in a Win95 dos window without setting stuff up:  
>been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting 
>stuff up:  I don't think so.

In <fortsa.36...@wwc.edu>, for...@wwc.edu (Samuel Fortiner) writes:
>>> Yes, but OS/2 is slow and quirky, and NOWHERE near as friendly as Win95.
>>Well, at least with warp you don't have stupid resource limitations.  As
>>for slow and quirky, do you care to back your name calling with
>>anything?
>
>I know for a fact that OS/2 on a 486/66 with 8 meg of ram swaps like hell.
>I've waited for over 20 seconds for it to minimize a window.  Win95 on the

I used OS/2 2.1 in 8MB 486-66 and it's not that bad.  A few-10
seconds once in while, but I don't remember waiting 20 seconds to
minimize a window.  I say your system's config is the problem,
check if the followings are true:

cache < 512k ?
initial swapfile size > 16MB ?
System sounds off ?
(if using Windows) DPMI in Win-OS2 setting > 32MB ?
Use lower color depth, less complex bitmap for slow video card.

>same system doesn't swap significantly, runs faster then OS/2, and is much
>more friendly.  OS/2 also takes significant setup to run dos games in a
>window.  Run Magic Carpet in a Win95 dos window without setting stuff up:
>been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting
>stuff up:  I don't think so.

It probably just means that Magic Carpet is in Win95's database,
try a game that is in OS/2's database, no setup needed.

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

In article <3o2gss$o...@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>
           dmcc...@sitvxa.stevens-tech.edu "Daniel McCarty" writes:

>         Yeah, this is nice.  The only problem: every time you start the
>         game/program that uses these settings Windows will shut down,
>         your computer will reboot, and it'll load up with the alternative
>         autoexec and config.
> 
>         Then, after your finished playing a game, it reloads win95.
>         Quite a pain.  Would've been nicer if they could've done it like
>         OS/2's virtual "dos" sessions, but I guess they ran into some
>         limitations...

Which is exactly what you do in OS/2 Warp when a game won't run even
after messing around with the options a VDos session settings 1000 times.
Yes you choose DOS boot, reboot, play the game fine, then reboot 
into OS2 (having to use the BOOT utility first each time to restore your 
boot block) and reboot into OS2 again.

Many programs work fine in the virtual Dos in Win95. Also if you
use the current machine config in the Single Dos Mode your machine
doesn't reboot.  Windows shuts down all the `windows' runs you game the
quits back into windows.

The OS's are very similar in many ways.

-- 
Mark Rogers.
- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).

for...@wwc.edu (Samuel Fortiner) writes:

>>> Yes, but OS/2 is slow and quirky, and NOWHERE near as friendly as Win95.
>>Well, at least with warp you don't have stupid resource limitations.  As 
>>for slow and quirky, do you care to back your name calling with 
>>anything?  

>I know for a fact that OS/2 on a 486/66 with 8 meg of ram swaps like hell.  
>I've waited for over 20 seconds for it to minimize a window.  Win95 on the 
>same system doesn't swap significantly, runs faster then OS/2, and is much 
>more friendly.  OS/2 also takes significant setup to run dos games in a 
>window.  Run Magic Carpet in a Win95 dos window without setting stuff up:  
>been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting 
>stuff up:  I don't think so.

OK.. I know "for a fact" that you are totally wrong. A properly tuned 
486 will rock your world.
My roommate runs a 486dx 33 with 8 MB and his system is awesome.
I just saw an indepth demonstration of WIN95 
on a P5 90 with 16 MB  and it is awesome too.

A well tuned system for EITHER operating system will run great.

Here's the facts as I see them:

	Win 95:

	advantages: fast, easy, compatible [ lets you use DOS block drivers ]
			easily organizable, intuitive interface
			On the fly video resolution change
			automatic driver support [ use dos drivers ]
			familiar  windows 3.1 ini file setup and commands 
			long file name support   
		[ I am told although my friend did not have this set up. ]
			
	disadvantages: lets you have direct port access and have
		unprotected memory space  [ can you say GPF? ]
		requires alot of ram 
		cannot multitask 16bit Windows apps
		slow dos emulation 
		is not friendly to other occupying operating systems.
		[ no boot manager or boot compliance with other managers ]
		BIOS HDD interface is slower.
		slow boot up
		

	OS/2 Warp:
	
	advantages:
			memory encapsulation, true windows multitasking,
			very fast dos emulation [ faster than real dos by
			many of my benches ]
			realistic system with 8 megs [ don't believe me? I'll
			prove you wrong ]
			highly configurable. You can make PM act almost
			exactly like Win95 if you really wanted to.
			infact much about them is really the same.
			does not waste HDD space through large cluster sizes
			[ HPFS ]
			long file name support [ HPFS ]
			faster HDD access and control for IDE, EIDE and SCSI.
			
	disadvantages:
		does not support dos block drivers
		slow bootup

		Well, I can't think of any other disadvantages right now... I 
		honestly do know that there are more.


	
They are two different operating systems with  two different types of people in 
mind.  Go look at them both, try them and see which one suits you better.
I would recommend seeing someone else's computer after they have set it up 
completely properly. Both of these operating systems are of orders
of magnitude more complex than dos and cannot be expected to perform
to their full potential "out of the box".

Run a few tests for yourself. I am biased towards OS/2 so I would ask you
to do something like this:
run a windows application, say corel draw and then
immediately right after you click on the icon go and try and 
open a dos shell or another windows
app or anything at all. In Os/2 can do this easily, while windows 95 must
wait until the application is open. That alone is enough for me to
prefer OS/2.

				--Charles Hunter
		
		
			
			
		
	

In article <3o6s5m$1o...@nntp4.mindspring.com>
           dgal...@mindspring.com "Diego B. Gallina" writes:

> this sort of comment.  Of COURSE it runs better under Win95 than OS/2,
> since 95
> runs over REAL  included dos nomatter what Microsoft marketing says.  

Sounds like your guessing there. It can run under steam for all I care
as long as it does the business -- and so far it does --even in Beta.

-- 
Mark Rogers.
- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).

In article <3o6rgu$m...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
           khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu "Oliver Chung" writes:

> >been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting
> >stuff up:  I don't think so.
> 
> It probably just means that Magic Carpet is in Win95's database,
> try a game that is in OS/2's database, no setup needed.
> 

What game Bathroom Carpet Simulator II?
I like OS2 but it just doesn't compare for gaming.

Magic Carpet may be in the Win95 database or it may not.  It certainly
isn't in OS2's.

-- 
Mark Rogers.
- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).

"Charles Randolph Hunter" writes:

> Here's the facts as I see them:
> 
>         Win 95:
> 
>         advantages: fast, easy, compatible [ lets you use DOS block drivers ]

[snip]                         

>         disadvantages: lets you have direct port access and have
>                 slow dos emulation 

Dos works as fast if not faster for me.  Disk access especially
is much faster 
          
>                 [ no boot manager or boot compliance with other managers ]

If you're refering to the fact that Win95 disables OS2 boot manager
it is true but if you use a OS2 boot disk after Win95 has installed you
can easily re-enable the boot manager and that way have OS2 Warp, DOS
and Win95 boot partitions.

> Run a few tests for yourself. I am biased towards OS/2 so I would ask you
> to do something like this:
> run a windows application, say corel draw and then
> immediately right after you click on the icon go and try and 
> open a dos shell or another windows
> app or anything at all. In Os/2 can do this easily, while windows 95 must
> wait until the application is open. That alone is enough for me to
> prefer OS/2.

Even if it's true it's hardly the main decider on buying an operating
system is it.  Word 6 takes 2 or 3 seconds to load on my system so by 
the time I decide on the next program icon to click on it's loaded 
already.  

-- 
Mark Rogers.
- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).

Mark Rogers <Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk> writes:


>Dos works as fast if not faster for me.  Disk access especially
>is much faster 
>          

I think this is not true about disk access. Windows 95 if I am not mistaken,
does not have HDD drivers, therefore it used BIOS, which is not slow, but
OS/2's SCSI and IDE drivers are much faster.

>>                 [ no boot manager or boot compliance with other managers ]

>If you're refering to the fact that Win95 disables OS2 boot manager
>it is true but if you use a OS2 boot disk after Win95 has installed you
>can easily re-enable the boot manager and that way have OS2 Warp, DOS
>and Win95 boot partitions.

But you shouldn't have to do that.

>> Run a few tests for yourself. I am biased towards OS/2 so I would ask you
>> to do something like this:
>> run a windows application, say corel draw, and then
>> immediately right after you click on the icon go and try and 
>> open a dos shell or another windows
>> app or anything at all. In Os/2 can do this easily, while windows 95 must
>> wait until the application is open. That alone is enough for me to
>> prefer OS/2.

>Even if it's true it's hardly the main decider on buying an operating
>system is it.  Word 6 takes 2 or 3 seconds to load on my system so by 
>the time I decide on the next program icon to click on it's loaded 
>already.  

The point is that OS/2 will multitask 16-bit Win 3 apps and
Win95 will not. I think much faster than 3 seconds ahead of a program.
That is why OS/2 is for me and Win95 is for you. As I said before,
it is just two totally different worlds. 

Try this... Launch these programs in this order:
	Corel Draw, Autocad, a midi player or CD player etc, Word 6, 
	clipboard or notepad etc.. anything like these.

	I will be typing away on my Word, while I listen to a favorite
	CD and looking at my recently done TG project and favorite    
	Hubble JPEGS, before you will even get past the Autocad startup 
	screen. Almost regardless of my system! The big advantage is that 
	I will be able to get working right away and when things become
	important, they will be there for me. You will have to take 
	time out to load up corel or whatever when you take a break
	from typing.

		I'm not trying to flame here... I just find it 
	necessary to do this kind of thing all of the time in my 
	work and it saves me a great deal of time when I use OS/2.

			--Charles Hunter

>-- 
>Mark Rogers.
>- Founder member of VFF - Veggie Freedom Fighters.
>- Campaign for humain treatment of vegetables (including lettuce).

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING 
 
There is information in this article dealing with operating systems -   
namely OS/2 and WIN95. 
 
If you are offended by operating system discussion in gaming newsgroups   
then DISREGARD THIS POST NOW!! 
 
I beg for mercy from the hordes of gamers that will surely chastize me for   
this POST, but I could not resist commenting on the other guys original   
post.  Forgive me gamers  - I know not what I do....... 
 
 
 
Quoted from hunt...@cs.purdue.edu 
 
>The point is that OS/2 will multitask 16-bit Win 3 apps and 
>Win95 will not. I think much faster than 3 seconds ahead of a program. 
>That is why OS/2 is for me and Win95 is for you. As I said before, 
>it is just two totally different worlds.  
> 
 
Yes OS/2 will multitask WIN3.X 16 bit apps, Do you know why?  
 
Microsoft says WIN95 maintains compatability with WIN16 apps by still   
using WIN 16Mutex which allows cooperative multitasking of WIN16 apps.    
Cooperative multitasking basically means watching the hour glass - as I am   
sure you are aware of, being an OS/2 (half an OS) fan. 
 
The question I am getting to - Does OS/2 suffer any compatability issue   
with WIN16 apps because of its methods for handling multitasking, I am on   
shaky ground here as I am not sure how OS/2 multitasking works.  Sure I   
know its preemptive, but beyond that I know NOT'NG. 
 
I would like to offer some arguement that would make the above completely   
moot!  The following arguement will ultimately mean the death to any   
chance of OS/2 becoming a mass market OS system. 
 
DEATH OF OS/2 
 
IBM has had access to Microsoft code for WIN16 apps and WIN32s (subset of   
WIN32 or something like that), but that changed in 1993 when Microsoft   
locked Big Blue out of the house.   
 
IBM says they can run 32 bit Windows apps today (using WIN32s apps for   
OS/2 and WINNT), but seriously, even Microsoft will argue that Win NT is   
lacking any serious applications development. WIN NT's main reseaon for   
existance is as a Server OS.  The real 32 bit applications programming   
will happen under the WIN32 API (WIN 95) and guess what -  these apps   
WON'T RUN ON OS/2 Warp.  That will be the end of OS/2 Warp. 
 
What do IBM do after all the mainstream apps are no longer compatable with   
their mainstream OS - look to develop their own OS/3 Warp 95.  And it is   
not going to be easy - at least that is what I have read. 
 
I had better tie this in with gamers or they'll be after me again. 
 
Compatability is the main arguement or decision factor for myself to stay   
away from OS/2 Warp.  I welcome you to try and convince me (if you have a   
few meaningless hours to waste) that OS/2 is as backward compatable as   
WIN95. 
 
Again, I can not speak from experience as I have not used OS/2, but I have   
come across a number of articles and posts about OS/2 Warp's ability to   
frustrate the novice upgrader. I wanted an operating system that would run   
all my games and productivity software without fail, so far WIN95 is   
performing with flying colours. 
 
/DM ;-) 

In <fortsa.36...@wwc.edu>, for...@wwc.edu (Samuel Fortiner) writes:

>I know for a fact that OS/2 on a 486/66 with 8 meg of ram swaps like hell.  
>I've waited for over 20 seconds for it to minimize a window.  Win95 on the 
>same system doesn't swap significantly, runs faster then OS/2, and is much 
>more friendly.  OS/2 also takes significant setup to run dos games in a 
>window.  Run Magic Carpet in a Win95 dos window without setting stuff up:  
>been there, done that.  Run Magic Carpet in a OS/2 window without setting 
>stuff up:  I don't think so.

   If you're that insane to run a game as demanding as Magic Carpet in a
window, then you really don't know the difference between operating systems.

   OS/2 swaps like hell on an 8 meg system if you have a small swap file.  Increase
that swap file, and I guarantee you that OS/2 will be equal, if not faster than 
Win95.

   OS/2 requires lots of setup for DOS sessions so we can actually tell the 
computer what we need for this DOS session, and what we don't.

  As for being more friendly - I would rephrase this to being "prettier".  The user
interface on Win95 is great.

How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it 
would increase the speed.For what it's worth a magazine up here in Canada 
did extensive comparison tests between beta Win95,OS/2 and System 7.5 for 
Mac and they determined thet Win95 is faster and less demanding than OS/2.
Win95 is also more robust according to them but they did say that both 
operating systems had their good and bad points.Remember though that 
Win95 is still beta so I am sure the final product will be improved from 
what it is now.That's my 0.02 cents worth.

                 Steve

Slang (sl...@unix.infoserve.net) wrote:
: How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
: increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
: allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it 
: would increase the speed.For what it's worth a magazine up here in Canada 

Because your freeing OS/2 from managing the size of the swap file.  If you
have a 2 meg swap file, and it eventually has to grow to 10 meg, the OS did
a lot of work in the meantime managing the file and expanding it, and since
you had initially set it at 2, it's always trying to reduce it back down.
If you set your swap file up at 10 meg, 10 meg is allocated initially, so
as you need it, stuff just gets dumped into the already existing, already
allocated file, and the OS never tries to expand or shrink it (eliminating
a lot of the management overhead).  It does make a lot of difference - always
set your swap file to the largest size to which it regularly grows.

: did extensive comparison tests between beta Win95,OS/2 and System 7.5 for 
: Mac and they determined thet Win95 is faster and less demanding than OS/2.
: Win95 is also more robust according to them but they did say that both 
: operating systems had their good and bad points.Remember though that 
: Win95 is still beta so I am sure the final product will be improved from 
: what it is now.That's my 0.02 cents worth.

And I've seen plenty of articles to the contrary.  In fact I've never heard 
ANYONE claim that Win95 is more robust, so I pretty much discard that
article as not very in-depth, not very technical, or otherwise biased.
In fact, everything I've read has also indicated that OS/2 has lower
resource requirements than Win95 (and that's not really an opinion item
either).  If you've used Win95 and OS/2 both, though, you would agree
that Win95 behaves like a beta and definitely has room for improvement.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl                           | 
da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3olrkh$5...@news.infoserve.net>, sl...@unix.infoserve.net (Slang) writes:
>
> How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just
> increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore
> allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it
> would increase the speed.
>
The OS/2 paging system will dynamically size the swap file. When people
talk about increasing the swap file size, they are really talking about
increasing the initial size. This helps performance in three ways:
1: If the swap file is 'big enough', then OS/2 never has to spend extra
   time increasing its size.
2: If the swap file is 'big enough', then OS/2 was probably able to
   make it contiguous, especially if it was on an HPFS partition, so
   head movement when swapping is minimized.
3: If the swap file never had to be increased, then OS/2 won't have to
   spend any time decreasing it when the memory load is reduced.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

sl...@unix.infoserve.net (Slang) wrote:
>How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
>increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
>allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it 
>would increase the speed.For what it's worth a magazine up here in Canada 
>did extensive comparison tests between beta Win95,OS/2 and System 7.5 for 
>Mac and they determined thet Win95 is faster and less demanding than OS/2.
>Win95 is also more robust according to them but they did say that both 
>operating systems had their good and bad points.Remember though that 
>Win95 is still beta so I am sure the final product will be improved from 
>what it is now.That's my 0.02 cents worth.

I am running a beta copy at work, and I am singularly unimpressed
with it.  I have used OS/2, and I can say without qualification
that OS/2 is more robust than Win95.  It has full-fledged
multi-tasking, which is more than Win96 can say, and it is a 
single unified OS.  Win95 hides DOS from you, or rather it
tries to, but it is still there.  It is not fully back-
compatible any more than OS/2 3.0, either.  The speed improevment
over Win 3.1 is phenomenal, (I have two identical machines running
on my desktop, so I can compare easily) it's about as fast as Warp
from what I can tell.  It does multi-task, though not fully
pre-emptively, fairly well, in that disk I/O no longer halts
the machine as it did in Win3.1.  The interface is much better, 
no more of that silly Program MisManager and File MisManager.
32-bit software is quite quick on it, also.  It is a tremendous
improvement over its predecessor, and I prefer it to Windows NT,
simply b/c it is faster and has a better interface OpenGL or
no.  It's much smaller, so this is not a surprise.  

Well, whatever.  That's my take on the Final Beta.  It would
be nice if MS would start with an actual 32-bit fully pre-emptive
OS, but that hasn't happened yet.

-Rakesh

In <3olrkh$5...@news.infoserve.net>, sl...@unix.infoserve.net (Slang) writes:
>How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
>increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
>allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it 
>would increase the speed.For what it's worth a magazine up here in Canada 
>did extensive comparison tests between beta Win95,OS/2 and System 7.5 for 
>Mac and they determined thet Win95 is faster and less demanding than OS/2.
>Win95 is also more robust according to them but they did say that both 
>operating systems had their good and bad points.Remember though that 
>Win95 is still beta so I am sure the final product will be improved from 
>what it is now.That's my 0.02 cents worth.
>
>                 Steve


Increasing swapfile in OS/2 doesn't mean decreasing in speed, OS/2 use different 
technique in swapping datas as compared to windows 3.1.  Size of swapfiles is
often determined by system configurations.  Please read the OS/2 instructions
AND try out youreself in the OS/2 environment B4 making such comments.  Note
that even the location of the swapfile will determine the overall performance of
OS/2. Hopes this answer your BASHING :-)

P.S Don't post Advaocay remarks over one thousand and one places, 
you are wasting people's time and filling garbbages all over.  Following up 
with all your newsgroup list to ensure you read it. 

Last Statement said. I'm not an advocate of any sort and will not followup 
on this thread.  I'm sure Tean OS/2 members will be very happy to enlighten 
you with regard to OS/2.  :-)

In article <3p3h53$4...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, cnkoh@singnet.com.sg@singnet.com.sg says...
>
>In <3olrkh$5...@news.infoserve.net>, sl...@unix.infoserve.net (Slang) writes:
>>How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
>>increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
>>I don't see how it would increase the speed.
>>That's my 0.02 cents worth.
>>
>>                 Steve
>
>
>Increasing swapfile in OS/2 doesn't mean decreasing in speed, OS/2 use different 
>technique in swapping datas as compared to windows 3.1.  Size of swapfiles is
>often determined by system configurations.  Please read the OS/2 instructions
>AND try out youreself in the OS/2 environment B4 making such comments.  Note
>that even the location of the swapfile will determine the overall performance of
>OS/2. Hopes this answer your BASHING :-)
>
>

Steve do have a point on the swap file. Increasing its size will not speed up the
computer. Although, O/S 2 use a different swapping technique than Win,the basic
idea is the same. Just like S/W disk cache, there is a balancing point once you pass
it, increasing the size will in fact decres the speed of your computer.

BTW.From my personal experience, Win95 is faster than OS/2. (I have Wrap and Win95-M8 2
identical system).