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

FW: Let's get System 7.x on top!





 Here I'll explain the reasons for a port to Win95/NT and OS/2.
 (Note, I don't use OS/2, and don't know how easy the features that 
 windows can handle can be put into OS/2 since they aren't designed the 
 same since 1991)
 
 1) IFS	--	Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (Not sure about 3.51) use an 
 Installable File System.  This was, ALL programs can read from Mac disks.

  Not only that, it would guarrentee that if you wanted it, you could make

 an actual partition on the Mac side.
 
 2) Very Large API  --  Both OS/2 and Win32 have thousands of API calls 
 that hide hardware from the programmers, making the development time 
 decrease.
 
 3) True 32-bit OSes -- All three OSes do MOST of their work in 32-bit 
 (Yes, I know that window management in 95 IS 16, but thats all)
 
 4) Cut & Paste -- You'll beable to share information via the Clipboard 
 with Mac and PC programs.
 
 5) Fonts -- Windows and OS/2 support True Type Fonts.  ARDIs generic 
 system doesn't.  What could they do?  Route calls thru to Windows or 
 OS/2.  I don't even know if they can do it any other way.  Microsoft and 
 IBM had to licence TTF code.  It could be that its a patented technoligy 
 or something, and ARDI would have to licence it too (Correct me if I'm 
 wrong)
 
 6) Control Panels -- The way Windows uses control panels is this.  A 
 singe CPL file can represent many different applets.  ARDI can make a CPL

 file that searches for Mac control panels and then displays icons for 
 those, making settings for both the PC and Mac work together seamlessly.
 
 7) Multitasking -- OS/2 and Win32 are thru multitasking and 
 multithreading. This means ARDI doesn't exactly have to spend too much 
 time on getting the system to multitask.
 
 8) Same Desktop -- All programs can run on the same desktop.  Windows, 
 OS/2, and Mac (Especally true with OS/2 for Windows or OS/2 with 
 Windows)
 
 9) DirectX.  Video/Sound/Networking are all much **FASTER** when using 
 these APIs, thus improving preformance to or above a DOS machine with the
 same hardware.
 
 10) Virtual Memory -- Executor currently has the limit of NO virtual 
 memory.  Win95 has an dynamic swap file that grows/shrinks with use.
 Executor can report the maxinum amount of memory a 68040 (and in
 the future, PPC) can handle, and thus no memory problems.
 
 I  also saw mentioned that with Win95 you need more than 8 megs ram.  
 That may be true, but by the time Executor/95 comes out, 8 megs of ram 
 will cost around $80!  There is a shift in the market that is making all 
 RAM prices drop this year, its already started, and will finish later 
 this year.
 And to that mention of using a 386.  Give me a break.  Who would 
 seriously try emulating anything as complicated as a Mac (68040) on such 
 a slow machine.  Besides for one person, I don't know any body with one 
 If you have a 386 and don't want to pay for a new system, may I suggest 
 Evergreens MakeIt 486??????

And to say Win95 runs on top of DOS.  You don't know much about the system
your insulting do you?
Windows 95 loads in real mode, and loads real mode drivers for items not
supported under Windows 95.
IFS.SYS and HIMEM.SYS are replaced with 32-bit versions (same with
DriveSpace) and the rest run off
of emulated DOS and BIOS calls.  The only time your using True DOS 7.0 is
when you boot **to** DOS!
And like I said above, the only part of Win95 that is 16 bit is the part
that handles Windows and Menus,
etc.  That would be why its slow on a Pro is because GDI objects and calls
are the most used part of
Windows.  If you want speed on a P6, get NT.  Don't complain here (Notice,
I haven't complained about
any OS.  I think they all have their advantages and disadvantages.  And I
don't want to see any OS wars
in reply to this).
 
 -=Dan Guisinger=-
 A registered user of E/D and E/L
 



Follow-Ups: