Re: FW: Re: FW: Windows 95

[Harmon F Seaver hseaver@xxxxxxxx]

>When I installed the released version of Win 95 I was shocked
that it >installed FLAWLESSLY on all 3 machines I put it on. It
auto-recognized all of >my video equipment, networks and modems,
and within 15 minutes I was able to >operate with NO difficulty.
 In addition, virtally every application ran as

  What do you expect? It isn't a 32-bit operating system --
it's just Dos and windoz repackaged with a new gui and a few
other add-ons. Mickey-soft just scammed a few million users into
thinking they were getting a new
32-bit OS, when really all they did was move the DOS files into
the windoz directory. And DOS usually installs painlessly on
almost anything.

>fast or faster than under OS/2 - Warp. The contrast with OS/2
was so

  Read Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte comparing the speed of
win95 and warp. He's a pretty objective columnist. He states that
in their tests, win95 is much slower with a few apps loaded (and
doing nothing in the background) than warp with a few apps loaded
and active in the background.

>I don't dispute that the intertask protection is superior in
OS/2, and that >OS/2 is a superior multi-tasking environment.
But I am a relatively savvy

  And win95 crashes when you try to multi-task 32 bit apps
still. Which makes it useless, IMO. But I think it's hilarious
that you can actually run win95 in a warp window -- proof enough
it ain't no real OS. Try running Warp or Linux in a win95 window.

  Ahh, Bill Gates --- what a showman!

-- Harmon Seaver hseaver@xxxxxxxx hseaver@xxxxxxxx
seaverh@xxxxxxxx

We have found the Fountain of Youth in Asia!