[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Why a Windows 95 version?



> 
> >> But Windows 3.1 can not be used because it doesn't use a flat memory model.
> >                                                                             
> >XMS *is* a flat memory model. 
> 
> Yeh, XMS is, but Windows only uses up to 16 Meg.  Plus, it can not do any thing with the memory 
> in 32 bit!  XMS is used to full advantage under DOS only, and it should stay that way.  XMS has 
> no place with the new 32-bit versions of windows.
> 
> > That's one of the features that distinguishes 
> >it from silly paged memory models like EMS. 
> 
> Only under DOS.
> 
>                                                                
> >Windows 95 might be the most commonly-used OS overall in a year, yes, mostly 
> >due to OEM bundling, but the real question is "how many potential Executor   
> >users will be likely to use Windows 95"?  That's a tough call, I guess, and  
> >it certainly merits consideration, but most of the folks I know who are the  
> >most likely to want Executor are mostly running Linux or OS/2 now because    
> >those are also cutting-edge toys to play with.                               
> >                                                                             
> 
> Win95 is a cutting edge platform.  In fact, it is probibly more powerful, and has more (much 
> much more) support than wimpy old OS/2.  I had OS/2 2.00 and am never going back.
> 

OK... now I know this thread really shouldn't be continued on this list, but 
I just had to reply to this. Everyone knows that Win95 is not a cutting edge
platform. It is a slapped together, excuse for an OS. It is what DOS should have
been about 2 years ago. OS/2 and older brother NT, not to mention LINUX, and BSD
are real 32bit OS's that are based on the "cutting edge".

To be factual:

Win95 :
single address space
cooperative multitasking of 16bit Win3 apps
poor memory protection
allows use of realmode 16bit DOS device drivers as system drivers

OS/2:
emcapsulated address space
preemptive multitasking of 16bit win3 apps
Memory protection 

this list is short, but the first two alone clue me in to the fact that
Windows 95 is not a cutting edge platform.

memory protection? do this on Windows 95:

c:\> debug
-f 0:0 ffff 0

Under OS/2 my DOS session dies and I return to OS/2. Under Win95
bye bye... 8)
> 
> >I just don't see Windows 95 as being a cutting-edge platform.  And I don't   
> >see the Windows 3.x market vanishing immediately, either.                    
> >                                                                             
I agree.

> >Oh well.  I'm bordering on advocacy here (my apologies), and ARDI has a lot  
> >more important things to concentrate on (like v1.99n and 1.99o <grin>).  I   
> >can't wait for v1.99n's release.  Has anyone gotten Cyclone to work on E/D?? 
> >
> 
> Yep.  Lets see if those ever come out first!  Heh.  Heh.  No offense ARDI.
>  
> >-Rich Steiner (rsteiner@skypoint.com is my perferred e-mail address)
> >
> 
> -Dan Guisinger
> 

NO real flames intended.. just thought I should put in a word against.
PLease reply personally and not to the list, as I realize how innapropriate
religious wars are.

		-- Charles Hunter

  
===============================================================================
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and
possibly program, of all time"
Bill Gates
CEO, Microsoft Corporation
===============================================================================




References: