[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.
>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.
>
>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
Follow-Ups: