[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why a Windows 95 version?
You wrote:
>
>OS/2 2.0 was a crock of shit. However, OS/2 2.1 and later are pretty
>good. And they are *not* less powerful than Win95. As far as 32bit
>progs go, about the same. However, OS/2 will do 16-bit Windows
>much better than Win95, for the following reasons:
>
>1) OS/2 allows multiple Windows 16 apps in virtual machines, allowing
> pre-emptive multitasking of Win16 apps, and protecting them from
> each other. Win95 does not have this, although NT does.
Actualy, NT does *not* do that either. It is actualy nessecary to work
100% correctly that the Win16 applications run in the same VM.
>2) OS/2 protects its kernel structures from its programs. Win95
> does not. This makes Win95 somewhat faster, but also makes it
> less stable. If a Win95 program corrupts a kernel data structure
> it can bring the whole machine down (just as in Win 3.x). OS/2,
> Unix and NT do not allow programs to modify kernel structures,
> so it's almost impossible to crash the OS as a whole.
>
Don't forget it is still in beta. Not to mention, they are using
*fast* and *mature* 16 bit code from over 10 years of improvement to
speed up the kernel. If they do switch in the future (probibly in
Win97 or Win98), it would be much slower.
>3) Win95 does not pre-emptively multitask as soon as you run any
> Win16 apps in it. OS/2 does. For most people this makes
> precious little difference, of course.
>
Don't forget that OS/2 is not Win16 native. That means it can run a
windows subsystem for each application, and get pre-emp. multitasking!
Win95 uses one windowing system that must act like the Win16 system to
the Window 16 applications!
>Tim.
>
-Dan Guisinger
Follow-Ups: