Re: FW: Re: FW: Windows 95

[kfrank@xxxxxxxx]

I know I shouldn't get sucked into this, but Harmon Seaver's
comments that "[Win 95] is much slower than warp" got me. I
have had OS/2, and now Warp on one of my 2 home machines. I
wanted to prefer it to a MicroSoft product. First, it took me
weeks, literally, calling IBM support, and much frustration, to
get each version of OS/2 to run properly on my fairly plain
vanilla machine. Getting 800 x 600 resolution after the default
installation of 640 x 480 was almost impossible, and took many
calls to IBM's support line to get it right.

In my office, getting our Novell network to work properly with
OS/2 was another nightmare. We had to download patches to OS/2
from IBM, and even after that it took almost 2 FULL DAYS to get
it running right.

In either case, even with 16mb of memory, I found significant
performance degradation in certain applications. I did find
OS/2 to be pretty robust relative to crash protection between
sessions, but several of my more esoteric video/hardware systems
brought the entire system to its knees.

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 fast or faster
than under OS/2 - Warp. The contrast with OS/2 was so startling
that I quickly decided to remove it from those machines I had
finally gotten it to run on.

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 computer user, and OS/2 simply wore
me out. Win 85, despite its parentage and other drawbacks, was
a relief.

K.