🚀 go-pugleaf

>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...

Yeah, you're right, Microsoft decided to start from scratch and to
wipe out all the softwares ever written for Windows 3.11... <%-)

Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...

Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
Windows95... :)

(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
 |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
 |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)

For anyone interested, I read in USA Today or somewhere that
one of the first Win95 upgrades will be to its graphics and
sound capability.  It seems that Microsoft is really committed
to making Win95 into a high performance gaming platform.  This
should be great for gamers since I believe that the game market
will take off once people can load up a good game that they can
click on and play.  We should have more choices as the market
expands!!
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu

I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
can?

All I know is I want my flight-sim newsgroup back....

Gary.

In article <3mtquj$h...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) says:
>OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
>DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
>games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
>work...
>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...

--------------------------------------------
-               Gary A. Lucero             -
-    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   -
-                Orem, Utah                -
-                                          -
-             GLU...@Novell.com           -
--------------------------------------------

Gary,

I agree, it's the same old story, 'If everyone were just more like me,
the world would be a much better place.'. <G>

Brian

glu...@wordperfect.com (Gary Lucero) wrote:
>
> I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
> anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
> adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
> but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
> as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
> can?
>
> --------------------------------------------
> -               Gary A. Lucero             -
> -    Novell Linguistic Integration Group   -
> -                Orem, Utah                -
> -                                          -
> -             GLU...@Novell.com           -
> --------------------------------------------

In <3n0opu$j...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:
>>I have hear>
>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>
>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>Windows95... :)
>
You have to stop lying to people like this.  LOSE95 tries to run existing DOS and 
WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.

The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here).  They knew about this 
problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.

So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
Application errors and lockups.

Thank you

- Melissa


===================================================================================
===================================================================================
        Melissa N. Mortellaro
           gy...@ibm.net
        <<TEAM OS/2>>
--------------------------------------
        "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
        I have '95, it's called OS/2"     - anonymous

In <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> gy...@ibm.net writes: 

*SNIP*
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1
>with more Application errors and lockups.
>        Melissa N. Mortellaro
>           gy...@ibm.net
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>

And such comments *should* be expected from 'Team OS/2' people.  From
reading your post, it's obviously me that either a) you've never even
looked at Win95 or b) you did, but for only about 2 minutes.

Not that I seriously believe anything I say will change *your* mind
about anything exactly, but that last comment of yours is absolutely
unfounded.  That's a lot like me saying to you that OS/2 has worse
crash-recovery than a Commodore 64.  We both know it's not true.

I've been running Win95 for over 6 months now, and I've tested and run
(very successfully) upwards of 300 seperate apps (spanning a variety of
things, from DOS games to Windows spreadsheets to DOS cad apps to
Windows application development tools), and I'd say *in all honesty*
that ~ 97% of everything I tested ran the same--if not better-under
Win95 as it did under the MS-DOS/Win3.1 combo.  Surprisingly enough (or
perhaps not so much so), the majority of those 3% of problems apps are
DOS games.

The GUI itself has locked up on me twice in all this time, and the
amount of GPFs and application errors has decreased sizeably (about a
40:1 ratio, 40 being faults in Win3.1).

You are certainly entitled to speak up and say anything as
unintelligently as you have, but you could at least have the courtesy
of calling the OS by it's real name. ;)


Rich (know your enemy before shooting him..)
-- 
>==============================================<
>  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.." <
>==============================================<

>I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
>anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
>adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
>but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
>as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
>can?

I know... And I'm sorry for it...

My original post was purely informative... I just wanted to share some
experience I had with playing games with Windows 95... Not bash
anything or anybody... People chose whatever OS they want, I don't
give a damn... 

It's really sad that (almost) every single post is being transformed
into an OS advocacy battle... Sure doesn't incite to post... :(

(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
 |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
 |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)

In a previous posting, Thomas Neil Franklin (tn...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU) writes:

> should be great for gamers since I believe that the game market
> will take off once people can load up a good game that they can
> click on and play.  We should have more choices as the market
> expands!!

Are you REALLY trying to say that it is harder to type, say, "civ" at a
dos prompt than it is to click on the bloody icon?????

	Steve
--
Disclaimer: My employers assuredly have an opinion on this issue, but my
security clearance isn't high enough for them to have shared it with me.

I flew off the handle there the last couple of posts.  Sorry.

I just wish more people know what they were talking about before the bash 
Win95.  Some of you are making plain flat-out INCORRECT statements.  I am 
running Dark Forces RIGHT NOW. (and I only have 8mb RAM)

Jeff

In article <3mtquj$h...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:

[STUFF DELETED so that I don't barf.]

>There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
>
>Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)

Opinions? Comments? Q's? 

Oh ya I have one or 2. You sir, are the person who started this. While I 
appreciate the "heads up" with WIN95. You posted to every gaming group?

AND NOT TO AN OPERATING SYSTEM GROUP? 

While I am quite happy to wade thru this "stuff". I really am curious
how you rationalize that? 

We are too busy arguing about whether Wing Commander III, XWING (and alot
of other  Space based games/sims) should be posted in the flight-sim group, 
to give a rats-ass about WINBLOWS.

I will admit though. From what I've read WIN95 might not be that bad :-)

If our newly self-appointed NETCOP was doing his job, this would have been
stopped long ago. As it is now, I'm affraid he is fired... 

>
>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...
>
>(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
> |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
> |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
>(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)

Okey First I just want to say I have NOTHING against WIN95 except the frustration of
the postpone to the official release date to the REAL THING. I'm curious about the
program, wants to learn how it wil (or will not) affect my computing. Anything I'm
going to say is NOT intended as a flame and should NOT be used to say against WIN95,
Rather, I am trying to learn how exactly the program handles things and it's
advantages and disadvantages when handled that way. Ultimately, I want to see if
win95 suits *ME* or should I stick with other OSs. (i.e. Linux, OS/2, DOS,etc)
I currently own MSDOS, WFW 3.11 and OS/2 warp. I have also used Unix, Win NT and
Macintosh OS. I'll begin first by stating that I very much like the stability and
crash proof of Unix OSs, I very look forward to MULTITASKING environments, and I
have been computing long enough in the PC world to be very knowledgable in many
aspects. Do understand that because that only true 32-bit preemptive multitasking OS
in the PC I've used is the OS/2, I might be using examples of OS/2 here and then.
They are not ment to glorify OS/, bash win95,etc. Just to verify that WIN95 can
indeed do certain things I look forward to.

Now that the disclaimer is out of my way, lets get on with my questions

In article <saswta.7...@sas.com>, Bill Arnette <sas...@unx.sas.com> wrote:
>sas...@unx.sas.com (Bill Arnette) writes:
>
>> [ snip ]
>>>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."
>

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)

Secondly, I assume that even if Win95 cannot multitask DOS VDMs, can win95 native
applications themselves be able to multitask? (i.e. if someone writes a modplayer
from scratch, using whatever tools win95 supports, will a multitaskable modplayer be
available?) Also, if true, does the multitasking process gets frozen when a DOS VDM
starts?

Well, the first two is for quering the multitasking ability of win95 DOS VDMs. Next
I'll like to ask certain things about system protection and stability:
(any programmer should be able to do this easily)
What happens when:
1. a program executes an endless loop: (i.e. a while(TRUE) loop)
   - Does win95 slow down (i.e. system resource gets gobbled up)?
2. a program polls the keyboard continuously: (i.e. a while(!kbhit()) loop)
   - Does win95 slow down?
   - Is the VDM smart enough to detect the polling and reduce allocated CPU timeslices?
     - If KB polling cannot be detected, is the simple scanf command detected and
       timeslice reduced?
3. a program access an illegal memory space. (i.e. illegal pointer)
   - does win95 protect the whole system from crashing?
   - is the write memory command actually carried out (hence violating system
     integrity)?
4. a program tries to write to the system area in the harddisk. Does win95 allow
     that? I ask this because as far as I know, a program in the DOS VDM in OS/2 cannot
     write to certain system area, some sort of system integrity protection measure.
     The good side-effect is that trojans/viruses cannot delet/format the harddisk!
5. 2 programs tries to open the same file for read and write. (i.e. wordstar for DOS
     and microsoft word has "client.lst" open) What happens when either tries to
     save the file? Suppose a disk-based sorting program ran twice, what happens  
     when they try to sort the same file? Or WCIII ran twice, (if you have the memory),
     will the two WC crash each other? or will the other one simply not allowed to
     start. Also, what if the file was deleted after a client opens it?
6. a program uses "special" modes of SVGA cards? will win95 able to restore the
     "non-standard" video mode after switching?
7. two programs requests for same soundcard? two program requests for same hardware
     interrupts?
8. What if one of the DOS VDMs tries to execute codes that will cause the system to
     reboot? Will win95 trap and stop that? or does the system reboots?
9. If somehow a DOS VDM has crashed (but win95 still alive) is the memory allocated by
     the doomed VDM recovered? Does win95 do anything about the resulting memory
     fragmentation?
10. what happens if a win311 program crash? will win95 crash or stay well? Do
     screensavers from win311 still work in win95? (some didn't work in OS-WIN)
11. Finally, I'm *REALLY* curious as to whether you can start a win3.11 session under a
     DOS VDM. (i.e. whether u can start win311 under win95) Or if win311 fails, can you
     run Desqview (or Desqview/X) under win95? I know this sounds really crazy, but
     I just want to know how extensive is the win95 DOS VDM.

>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.
>

Erm I noticed that there's no mention of DMPI memory. Does win95 provide DPMI
access? Also, inside a VDM, how much UMB memory MAX is available for DOS programs?
Will win95 allow the loading of a mouse driver inside a VDM (I know it's
unnecessary, but will loading a real mouse driver screw up the mouse driver of win95?)

>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.

If not, what is the default FILE=? Do win95 use up any of the defined value? (i.e.
if declare FILE=20, when under DOS VDM, win95 uses up 15, that's not good.)

How does win95 handle ASPI SCSI drivers and drives? Does it use SCSI drives wisely
(like they're designed to when multitasking) or just use it as an IDE drive? Can a
SCSI tape backup program using ASPI be run in the background in a DOS VDM? (This
is one of the most useful aspects of OS/2)

Do device drivers (like scanner device drivers, Magnetic Optical drive drivers,
Removable catridge drive drivers) from DOS get to be loaded? Or do I have to try and
get drivers that are specially made for win95 for these devices?

How well does win95 do a background floppy format? In win311, if you format a disk
in background, your mouse pointer "teleports" when you try to move them, and many
times I get bad sectors when the disk is actually okey. How well does win95 handles
this? What if I chose to format the disk under the old filemanager of win311 or DOS
VDM format? Any effects?

What options are allowed for a DOS VDM session? OS/2 allows extensive modifications
to allow much optimizations for individual DOS VDM session/program. How extensive is
win95's?

One plus point in OS/2 is that for those games that can be run from a window, it is
said that you can actually do graphical cut-and-paste from the DOS windowed VDM onto
the clipboard or practically anywhere else. This is great for "notekeeping" in rpgs,
and mapping for 3-D games. Does win95 offer something similar to this?

One more thing, I heard win95 offers long filenames (FINALLY! get away from that
stupid 8.3 format) but is it really filenames or just mapping of 8.3 files onto long
descriptions? I've heard contradictory info on this and would like to confirm the
real way win95 is doing this. How does "This is a very long file - 1" and " This is
a very long file - 2" and "This.is.a.very.long.foldername" gets stored on the disk?
Is there's any way to do a search for all occurance of "a very long" and rename to "a
very short" on the whole harddisk? If win95 does by mapping, how does the real 8.3
source filename gets changed? Does win95 support NTFS or HPFS?

That's about all I can think of at the moment. If anyone wants to add to this list,
feel free to ask.

Thank you for reading this far and please do answer these if you know the answer.
Please do not flame, as you can see I'm really trying to find out how well win95
handles verious demanding situations. For the good of others who might be needing
these informations too, please try to post it. Also, please try to make the answer
as impartial and detailed as possible. For tests on stability, just launching a
program is not good enough, if it's a game, try the intro, load/save game and maybe
playing a while, all the while trying the switch between game and win95 at all
stages. If it's an application, try do very complex things and try opening multiple
files (i.e. >20 documents) if it's something like spreadsheet, wordprocessors,etc.
For mathematical/graphing/CAD/rendering programs, please try to make complex
graphs/pictures/formulas/etc and all the time try the switch between a DOS VDM and
the program. This will really confirm the stability of the system.

See ye!

Hon Chong Chang
Drexel University
Computer Science Major.

In A[Aarticle <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gy...@ibm.net writes:        
A[A
>In <3n0opu$j...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:
>>>I have hear>
>>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>>
>>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>>Windows95... :)
>>
>You have to stop lying to people like this.  LOSE95 tries to run existing DOS and 
>WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
>95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.
>
>The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
>way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here).  They knew about this 
>problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.
>
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
>>Thank you
>
>- Melissa
>
What lockups? I'm not having any and I'm using all the same ones I had in WGFW.
Lose95 works great for me and all my friends are having problems with Oh Shit/2
so I have no idea what you're talking about.   All of the old apps work with no
problem and faster than they did before.  I haven't found any of the problems
that IBM propaganda would have us believe.  Even Multitasking works smoothly.
Sorry.

>===================================================================================
>==============================================================================>        Melissa N. Mortellaro
>           gy...@ibm.net
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>
>--------------------------------------
>        "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
>        I have '95, it's called OS/2"     - anonymous
>
>

>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
I was about to reply to this...

>           gy...@ibm.net
                  ^^^^^^^
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>

...But this explained it all.  I'll pass.

:-)

In <9202037.3...@meo.lacitec.on.ca>, 920...@meo.lacitec.on.ca (DANIEL DESORMEAUX) writes:
>I was about to reply to this...
>>           gy...@ibm.net
>....But this explained it all.  I'll pass.
	You know, I get the impression that a lot of people think an "ibm.net"
domain means the poster works for IBM.  It just means they're using IBM's
Advantis service as a SLIP provider.  They could easily be Windows users
using IBM's Internet Connection for Windows.
	Admittedly they could have made this a lot less confusing.

Derek
drk...@ocf.berkeley.edu

aq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Steve Bulger) writes:


>In a previous posting, Thomas Neil Franklin (tn...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU) writes:

>> should be great for gamers since I believe that the game market
>> will take off once people can load up a good game that they can
>> click on and play.  We should have more choices as the market
>> expands!!

>Are you REALLY trying to say that it is harder to type, say, "civ" at a
>dos prompt than it is to click on the bloody icon?????

>	Steve

Maybe the point is that users of Windows will no longer have to go 
through the hassle of exiting Windows and THEN typing civ at the DOS 
prompt.  With Win95, all you have to do is click on the icon and you get 
your game with sound and all (and if you want you can even specify 
specific config.sys and autoexec.bat files that contain necessary device 
drivers).  And when you finish your game, you're still in Windows.

--
Jeff Monk
je...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
http:// <maybe some day I'll get around to it>
-------------------------------------------------

In article <3nc32q$j...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>,
ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) wrote:
> 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.

A *dumb* question?  When I read it, I thought it was a pretty good
question.  Why would a gamer care?  Perhaps because some games require
higher files= settings than others, and when you're scrounging for extra
memory having a ludicrously high files= setting is a problem.

At any rate, files= is just an example.  You can change *any* DOS
setting on a session-by-session basis under OS/2.  You may well be able
to do that under NT too (don't use it so I don't know).  Win95 doesn't
do that, unless you use "MS-DOS mode", and even then you effectively
have to write your own CONFIG.SYS file for each session.

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?
              Borg, James Borg. Vodka Martini, Gin is irrelevant.

st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Hon Chong Chang) wrote:
>
> Okey First I just want to say I have NOTHING against WIN95 except the frustration of
> the postpone to the official release date to the REAL THING. I'm curious about the
> program, wants to learn how it wil (or will not) affect my computing. Anything I'm

[Many wonderful questions deleted]

Concerning multitasking.  As I understand it, much of Win 96 :-) is still based
on 16 bit code, and it WILL NOT PREEMPTIVELY multitask 16 bit windows programs.
I'm pretty sure the ONLY preemptively multitaskable apps are the native 32 bit guys.

You should get a copy of _Undocumented Windows 95_ or _Inside Win 95_ or
something like that.  Perhaps someone else will clear up the title.  It's really 
fat and pokes big holes in Microsoft's marketing hype.

Paul

Paul Billings <p...@maui.com> wrote:

>Concerning multitasking.  As I understand it, much of Win 96 :-) is still based
>on 16 bit code, and it WILL NOT PREEMPTIVELY multitask 16 bit windows programs.
>I'm pretty sure the ONLY preemptively multitaskable apps are the native 32 bit guys.

You are correct about Win95 not preemptively multitasking 16-bit windows apps....just the 
32-bit ones.  He can also check out the May 16, 1995 issue of PC Magazine.  It does a great job 
of explaining it and it's a lot cheaper than a book.


-- 
-Sean Martin
Workstation Technical Support, Texas Instruments
sma...@ti.com

In article <799036...@markbz.demon.co.uk>,
Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk (Mark Rogers) wrote:
>In article <cptstern.3...@Cyberquest.com>
>           cpts...@Cyberquest.com "Capt Stern" writes:
>> Well the DOS that is installed via WIN95 seemed pretty crippled.  
>> And not all 
>> games work with it.
>> For example: MPS/Master of Magic & Master of Orion both failed to run with

MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.

>With the lastest beta's you can boot into REAL Dos 6.22 totally compatible
>as it IS dos 6.22 etc (or whatever version you had installed). 
>If you press F4 when it says 'starting windows 95'... you get your old

You have *always* been able to do this.  The best thing to do, though,
is to add the following to your Win95-boot MSDOS.SYS (you'll need to
attrib -r -a -s -h msdos.sys and then re-attrib it):

Under [options]
BootMulti=1
BootMenu=1
BootMenuDelay=5
BootMenuDefault=1

>F4 won't work in the middle beta's unless you edit the msdos.sys 
>(described in the Beta notes) but it works fine in the newest beta's.

This works a lot better than hitting F4 at just the right time.

rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:
> MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.

	I keep getting the "reconfigure hardware settings" error
message when I try and set up MOM and MOO to use my Soundblaster Pro
sound card.  Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

Roger Wistar

In article <3nu093$g...@news.duke.edu>,
Roger Pierpont Wistar <rp...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:
>> MOM CD runs fine, with sound, here.  You might submit a bug.
>
>	I keep getting the "reconfigure hardware settings" error
>message when I try and set up MOM and MOO to use my Soundblaster Pro
>sound card.  Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

Out of curiousity, do you have Blaster set in your
environment?

In article <pMEelO9R...@wam.umd.edu>

             Me:
> > With the lastest beta's you can boot into REAL Dos 6.22 totally compatible
> > as it IS dos 6.22 etc (or whatever version you had installed). 
> > If you press F4 when it says 'starting windows 95'... you get your old

           rsro...@wam.umd.edu "Robert Rodgers" writes: 

> You have *always* been able to do this.  The best thing to do, though,
> is to add the following to your Win95-boot MSDOS.SYS (you'll need to
> attrib -r -a -s -h msdos.sys and then re-attrib it):

I know but I didn't want to type all that ;)
Usually I try to keep the reply simple.


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

In article <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gy...@ibm.net wrote:
and 

>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
>

Speak for yourself. The only two programs on my machine that don't run under 
*WIN* 95 are SC2000 for Windows (1.1) and MPEGPLAY 1.0 (which is a win32s 
app).

Everything else I have runs fine (windows and dos apps both). Even the finicky 
Transport Tycoon.

---------------------
Mike Harrison
mha...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~mharris

Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
> OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
> DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
> games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
> work...

> Well think again... For a while I thought I *had* to run all my DOS programs
> in a window and realized that eventhough most normal games would still
> work (X-COM 2, Doom, etc...) other wouldn't (System Shock, Wing
> Commander III, etc...). A little bummed out, I read the (great) help file and
> finally realized that you can actually allocate all your computer
> resources to your DOS programs... After a normal installation of the
> game (any) in a DOS box, you can go to the Windows Explorer (Win95's
> file manager), select the .exe program of the game, chose properties
> and then chose to run it as a DOS program... Now, the "neat" feature
> is that you can assign a different config.sys and autoexec.bat to
> *each* program... That's great because you can finally easily optimize
> each settings...

> Of course, it took a little twitching for some games (WC3 was a little
> hard for me), but once it's done, it works flawlessly... 

> There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...

> Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)

> 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...

> (~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~) 
>  |\|  Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
>  |\|         ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
> (___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)


I assume you're talking about a Beta Version, since even MicroSoft aren't 
expecting the full version out until the end of the year (as far as I know).
If you are, I have two questions:
1. Is it compatible with the latest version of Stacker, since I'm buggered
if I'll decopmress my disk just to have a look.
2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?

Steve

Mike Harrison (mha...@interlog.com) wrote:

: Speak for yourself. The only two programs on my machine that don't run under 
: *WIN* 95 are SC2000 for Windows (1.1) and MPEGPLAY 1.0 (which is a win32s 
: app).


I have not had a problem with either, so you might want to look into this.

Jeff

In article <3ntsn2$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
ca...@wam.umd.edu (Your Ad Here) wrote:
> In article <3n4ff7$g...@news.iastate.edu>,
>    m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu (Mark R. Johnson) wrote:
>
>
.......

> Who CARES?  Just because one OS has been doing something special for years
> doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and buy it because another OS just included it
> in the latest release.  Stop living in the past, people...geez.

I will differ.

If you don't now what has gone before, you are at a disadvantage in the
present - and unarmed for the future.

Remembering the past and drawing lessons from it isn't living in the past.
IBM has had a 1st-class, 32-bit OS for years now - or you can try this
new, unproven OS from MS.

The words chosen are important.

Steve



//-----------------------------------------------------
// Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
// sb...@ibm.net / ste...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
// swit...@vnet.ibm.com
// Warp Connect: Unlimited Peer shares files/printers/modems,
//               TCP/IP v3.0, Bonus Pak and Internet stuff,
//               Lan Distance Remote, Lotus Notes Client....
//               and Multiple protocols: IPX/NetBIOS/TCPIP
//               802.2, plus NetBIOS over TCPIP or IPX
//               and....MUCH MORE!

"S.S. Mallam" <S.S.M...@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
>Yann Nicolas (yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:

[...]

>> There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...

>2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?

Excerpt from a local newsgroup asking this very question -

(Of course, since you're in the UK, the '800' number probably won't do
much good :-) If you have web access, you might try www.microsoft.com)

[...Begin excerpt...]

Article 1803 of ccnet.general:
From: kcl...@ccnet.com (kclarke)
Newsgroups: ccnet.general
Subject: Re: Windows95
Date: 3 May 1995 17:43:25 -0700

Jeffrey D. Grave (jdg...@ccnet.com) wrote:
:  
: Where would I find a copy of Win95?? Are you guys buying it? (What I   
: assume is a beta version)  Or are you downloading the program from some   
: where?? 

Dial 1-800-95PREVIEW - that's where I got it.  You have to be willing to 
pay $30-35 for it.

[...End excerpt...]

-- 
Cliff Craner - cra...@ccnet.com					 |
W3 - http://www.ccnet.com/~craner/				\O/
"Do that which consists in taking no action,		  o-----(_)-----o
and order will prevail."  - Lao Tzu		           Comin' at Ya!

	Just make me an offer


	GAMES AND UTILITIES

 Links-The Challenge of Golf	CD-ROM no box
 Spellcraft			3.5"
 Castles			3.5"
 Castles Northern Campaign	3.5"
 Sci-fi Powerhits		3.5"
	Above includes
	Deathtrack
	Prophecy
	Tongue of the Fatman
	Circuits Edge
	Mines of Titan
 Daemonsgate			CDROM
Seawolf				CDROM no box

I am looking for a demo or good trade deal for Clockwerx

>>>>> "Walter" == Walter DAO <wd...@netcom.com> writes:
In article <wdaoD81...@netcom.com> wd...@netcom.com (Walter DAO) writes:


Walter> Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound
Walter> tracks ?  

You could try: ftp://havoc.why.com/pub/ud/stuff/music

Walter> How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much anyone with modern hardware.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent....@symbios.com         */
/* Symbios Logic, Inc.           * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-9319           */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 225-4829                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  * Formerly known as NCR Microelectronics */
/**************************************************************************/
Has everybody got HALVAH spread all over their ANKLES??...
 Now, it's time to ``HAVE A NAGEELA''!!

After having posted the message concerning the original Ultima tunes, someone
mentioned the Ultima site that had the midi tunes of the original (non-IBM)
games. 
So that all of us who have have played those classic games can still listen
to those music scores.(Hell ! I got the compilation, just to listen to the
musics ... bottom line : I got fuck*d up the a*s without any vaseline, It 
seems that the IBM versions of the games never had any decent music).

Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)


				Walt

>Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
>Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
>How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)


MIDI is a wonderous thing if you have a nice table to play it through.


.

sb...@ibm.net (Steve Withers) wrote:
>
> In article <3ntsn2$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
> ca...@wam.umd.edu (Your Ad Here) wrote:
> > In article <3n4ff7$g...@news.iastate.edu>,
> >    m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu (Mark R. Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >
> ........
> 
> > Who CARES?  Just because one OS has been doing something special for years
> > doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and buy it because another OS just included it
> > in the latest release.  Stop living in the past, people...geez.
> 
> I will differ.
> 
> If you don't now what has gone before, you are at a disadvantage in the
> present - and unarmed for the future.
> 
> Remembering the past and drawing lessons from it isn't living in the past.
> IBM has had a 1st-class, 32-bit OS for years now - or you can try this
> new, unproven OS from MS.
> 
> The words chosen are important.
> 
> Steve
> 

     It may be new, however, it has proven itself to me as far as 
working with games is concerned.  I have been using Win95 for a while
now and I have tried it with many different types of games; from Sierra
adventures to WingCommander III.  I ran both Descent and Freddy Pharkas
simultaniously without any problems.....under 8MB of RAM.  


						--- Scott Brower

In article <3o2bod$h...@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk>,
   "S.S. Mallam" <S.S.M...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

>I assume you're talking about a Beta Version, since even MicroSoft 
aren't 
>expecting the full version out until the end of the year (as far as 
I know).
>If you are, I have two questions:
>1. Is it compatible with the latest version of Stacker, since I'm 
buggered
>if I'll decopmress my disk just to have a look.
>2. Where did you get it from? Is it publicly available?
>
>Steve

1.  The Beta installed flawlessly over Stacker 4.0.  The only issue 
you run into is the fact that Windows 95 will then have to use a DOS 
based (16-bit) disk compression routine as opposed to the 32-bit 
routine in the Windows 95 compression utility.  I switched over to 
the Win95 disk comp utility and now my access time is significantly 
faster and smoother.

2.  Call 1-800-95Preview and talk with Microsoft.  I think they are 
out of the final Beta, but you never now.

-- Rob

In article <3oc3pv$6...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu> d...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu (colin day) writes:
>From: d...@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu (colin day)
>Subject: Re: ULTIMA musics (where) ?
>Date: 4 May 1995 20:50:39 -0600
>>Sooooo.. What/where/who is the Ultima site (that has the midi) sound tracks ?
>>Who will be the one to do a rotterdam-remix of those tunes ? 
>>How about a .MOD format conversion .... (Who the fuc* uses MIDI ????)
>
>
>MIDI is a wonderous thing if you have a nice table to play it through.
>
True, MIDI sounds absolutely wonderful through a Wavetable card. That will 
be my next upgrade. But for now they are passable on a SB (that is, I've 
gotten used to it). But MODs sound the same on a SB and on a GUS. Wouldn't 
it be too hard for someone too convert them?

Tempest