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

Re: Why a Windows 95 version?



> >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.

Actually, Dan, NT *does* do this, and has for more than a year.  Hit
alt-enter and observe: "Run in seperate memory space."  They're pre-empted,
they're seperate, and unlike OS/2 and Windows 3.1, they have virtually
no limit on resources.

> >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!

So what?  The topic under discussion was a Win95 version of Executor, 
not Win32.  Since even IBM has joined the Win32 bandwagon, it would
be silly to even consider a Win16 version.



References: