Re: FW: Re: FW: Windows 95

[holmgrn@xxxxxxxx]

>> I also have [XW] at work on Win95 and sure like better than Win
>> OS2 or Win 3.1

> On the other hand, [Win95] won't multi-task 32bit apps, is much
> slower than Warp, and will actually boot up and run in DOS window
> in OS/2 -- also, when you are running it, you should run Microsoft's
> nice MSD.EXE utility (included) which will tell you that it isn't
> anything but DOS 7 and enhanced win31.

Harmon, have you actually installed Win95 and run it as a child of OS/2?
This is my preference, but I can't find any reliable reports
about it! Will the sky fall in? Will it boot from DOS-OS/2, or
do you run it as a "DOS from Drive A:" type of object (a virtual
disk)? Did you encounter any installation|operation wrinkles?
Does the Win95 sniffer screw around with
OS/2? I'm desperate to be rid of Win v3.x (an incredibly
unstable environment), but OTOH wholly unwilling to surrender ultimate OS control to
Win95 v1.0 (have you been monitoring
alt.windows95.crash.crash.crash too?).

By the way, where _exactly_ in Asia is it? Because I'm over
there all the time... so it wouldn't be much trouble...


------------
Robert J. Holmgren holmgrn@xxxxxxxx
------------