home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: dfw.nkn.net!usenet
- From: TheAnalyst@Nfo.Org
- Newsgroups: alt.2600,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.p
- Subject: Re: OS/2 for free
- Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 14:59:52 GMT
- Organization: National Knowledge Network
- Message-ID: <4evo19$lla@dfw.nkn.net>
- References: <4eots1$iuk@pip.shsu.edu> <4et1b6$en3@erinews.ericsson.se> <4eujpj$b3q@ddi2.digital.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: fw59.fastlane.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- kdavis@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:
-
- >In article <4et1b6$en3@erinews.ericsson.se>, ebcnklu@ebc.ericsson.se (Kristofer Lund) wrote:
- >>vis_cah@shsu.edu wrote:
- >>
- >>>>Bzzzzzzt
- >>>>Wrong yourself, Win95 is a 32 OS in every way. And, Microsoft said that the
- >> OS
- >>>>of the future will be a meld of both NT AND WIN95. Do your homework before
- >> you
- >>>>knock something you know nothing about.
- >>>
- >>>Bzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!
- >>>Totally wrong! If Win95 was a 32 bit OS in every way then it wouldn't SLOW
- >>>DOWN on a fully 32bit only processor like the P6!! You can check the slow
- >>>down fact with PC magazine (Feb 96), Pc Computing (Jan 96 & Feb 96), and
- >>>Computer Shopper (Jan 96). Win95 slowd down on the 32bit P6 while OS/2,
- >>>NT and Unix get up to a 245% increase in speed. You need to do YOUR
- >>>homework!
- >>
- >>It IS a fact that many parts of Windows 95 are not in fact 32-bit
- >>code, but good old 16-bit crap. One of the parts were networking.. I
- >>think.
-
- >And OS/2 is 100% 32 bit?
-
- >I think not.
-
- OS/2 is so far ahead of Win '95 that it is scarry. OS/2 is just not very user
- friendly, when compared to Win '95. You can't tell how far ahead OS/2 is unless
- you really know how it works, I mean every detail.
-
- If KNOW more of OS/2 is 32 than Win '95. I also KNOW that Win '95 chokes on
- 16-bit apps that don't like to give up resources because Win '95 runs the 16ers
- in its own system memory instead of the memory it runs the 32s in, while OS/2
- runs both kinds in the same memory, plus OS/2's multi-tasker is more
- sophisticated and more reliable. Also, it is impossible to infect a comp
- running OS/2 with a TSR virus, due to the way it handles its DOS shells, Win '95
- can be. OS/2 can be infected by runtime viruses and I think some BootSector
- virus though, but only if run using the MS-DOS fat file system.
-
- I don't know of any OS/2 viruses, still looking though.
-
-