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

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



Here in comp.emulators.mac.executor, "Dan Guisinger" <dan_g@ix.netcom.com>
spake unto us, saying:

> 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.

I'll fill in some of the OS/2 holes.  :-)  This would apply as well to
OS/2, since it also uses installable filesystems.

> 4) Cut & Paste -- You'll beable to share information via the Clipboard 
> with Mac and PC programs.

Ditto.  OS/2 shares the clipboard between its own native programs and
(optionally) with Win16 programs as well.

> 5) Fonts -- Windows and OS/2 support True Type Fonts.

Actually, OS/2 only supports TrueType in Windows sessions -- native PM
programs use Adobe Type 1 fonts.  Rumor has it that the next version of
OS/2 (aka "Merlin") will support TrueType, but it's not certain.

> 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.

OS/2 doesn't have a control panel per se, but it uses a number of WPS
object classes for configuration purposes.  It's a little different,
and I think would serve the purpose well.  In fact, were one to be
extremely optimistic about the porting effort <g>, bits of Executor
could even be implemented as WPS objects.  :-)

> 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)

Yes.  Being able to run GraphicConvertor 2.4 in a seamless manner here
on the OS/2 desktop would be REALLY neat!!!  :-)

> 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.

You bet.  The Warp equivelents are DIVE/ENDIVE.

> 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.

My Warp setup has a LOT of virtual memory (I have a dedicated 1GB
partition devoted to it, and the "GB" above isn't a typo <VBSEG>).

>And to say Win95 runs on top of DOS.  You don't know much about the
>system your insulting do you?

I think I'll put in my two cents here...

I used a copy of Windows 95 here at home for about 5 weeks all told,
running in parallel with my FAT-based OS/2 Warp setup on my DX4/100
system with 20MB, and I'll admit that Windows 95 is a rather nice
improvement over Windows 3.1 in some ways (particularly its desktop)
and might well represent a good value for a lot of people, including
most home users and perhaps some business desktop users.  It was an
okay environment to use, all things considered.

However: while Windows 95 may not literally be running on top of DOS
(and this is a highly debatable point, BTW, since well-known authors
and even major publications like PC Week say it does), it still feels
a *LOT* more like DOS than either Warp or Linux does.  It still seems
to need the same kinds of memory and resource management utilities DOS
and Windows used to (there's certainly still a large market for them!),
and it still suffers from some of the same performance bottlenecks
under load, even on my machine with 20MB.

IMhO, there's really no difference.

-- 
    -Rich Steiner  >>>--->  rsteiner@skypoint.com  >>>---> Bloomington, MN
           Written offline using PC Yarn + Yes + TDE in a Warp VDM
                           6 x 9 = 42  (in base 13!)


Follow-Ups: References: