Windows 95, what a joke.

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Karl and Julie PulledMint » Sun, 16 Mar 1997 04:00:00




Quote:>         Imagine that your car could not have its hood oppened.  The only
> way you could attempt to fix the car yourself would be to point and klick
> on ikons.  Wouldn't that be enturbulating!  The DoS (Device of Satan)
> prompt allows a skilled user to fix problems by actually going into the
> programs themselves and mucking around.

This is no longer true with Win95/DOS 7.  You make a change, restart
Win95, Win95 decides you made the wrong change, and undoes your change.
Or, one day you reboot your PC and Win95 tells you your video chip has
magically changed and you need a new driver.

Quote:>         It's the difference between automatic and stick.  Automatic is
> easier for learning and offers instant expertise.  Stick lets the skilled
> user have more control at the cost of greater difficulty, but for the
> skilled user, the difficulty in automatic is actually greater at times
> because of the enturbulation of the lack of control.

This may be true now, but was not true when Windows 2 and 3.0 and 3.1
were competing with Macs.  Then, you had a multitasking, well thought
out GUI in the Mac, as compared to an unstable copycat in early
Windows.  

--

you are cordially invited to visit the pulled mints website:
          http://www.mnsinc.com/minty/index.html
Pulled Mints is a zine about Don Knotts, Windows95, and
sex toys you can make from household objects.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by do » Sun, 16 Mar 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> This is no longer true with Win95/DOS 7.  You make a change, restart
> Win95, Win95 decides you made the wrong change, and undoes your change.
> Or, one day you reboot your PC and Win95 tells you your video chip has
> magically changed and you need a new driver.

From your answers I would have to say you don't know shit about win95 so
you feel the need to put down certain problems that you have no idea how
to correct.
Quote:> This may be true now, but was not true when Windows 2 and 3.0 and 3.1
> were competing with Macs.  Then, you had a multitasking, well thought
> out GUI in the Mac, as compared to an unstable copycat in early
> Windows.  

unstable? Oh I didn't realize macs were stable..never had a crash with
one...hahahahah......system 6, 7 and whatever it's up to now.
> --

> you are cordially invited to visit the pulled mints website:
>           http://www.mnsinc.com/minty/index.html
> Pulled Mints is a zine about Don Knotts, Windows95, and
> sex toys you can make from household objects.

Your page sucks. Another site from a couple of bored people who have no
inkling as to how to create a page that is appealing and worth a second
visit.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Michael Ru » Sun, 16 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:> > Or, one day you reboot your PC and Win95 tells you your video chip has
> > magically changed and you need a new driver.
> From your answers I would have to say you don't know shit about win95 so
> you feel the need to put down certain problems that you have no idea how
> to correct.

Of course, with a Mac, this problem doesn't exist.  But hell, that's not
important!

Quote:> unstable? Oh I didn't realize macs were stable..never had a crash with
> one...hahahahah......system 6, 7 and whatever it's up to now.

Is that so?  Tell me more.  Was that meant to be a joke?  I didn't get
it.  Anyhow, it's up to 7.6 just for some information with 8.0 around the
corner.  You know, maybe if you actually knew something about a Macintosh
before making inferior comments about them, people would actually take
you ... now get this, are you ready?  SERIOUSLY.  Yow.

Quote:> Your page sucks. Another site from a couple of bored people who have no
> inkling as to how to create a page that is appealing and worth a second
> visit.

Are you employed?  I'm sure a lot of companies could use such a well-
educated employee ... versed in the world of PCs and Macs and HTML pages
and human interests and web design and graphics and ...

Mike
"Do I smell sarcasm?"

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by James M. Curr » Sun, 16 Mar 1997 04:00:00




>Well, someone obviously needs to clarify here.

        Well, yes, but......

Quote:>The Mac:

        Since I don't know that much about the Mac, so I'll take you word for
most of this, however, a few details need correcting.  In a
cooperative Multitasking system, there is no real sense of
"Foreground" and "background" task -- it's just who has control over
the CPU for this instant and who doesn't. WIth a pre-emptive MT,
foreground task are given more time than background tasks; with Coop
MT, an app is given control and keeps it until it choses to release
control.  Thus one bad app can lock up the whole machine quite easily.

Quote:>Win95:

        WinNT works EXACTLY as you describe Unix, and I'm fairly sure that
Win95 works the same ways as well.  Win95 crashs as much as it does do
to it's weak memory protection.  If your NT system is crashing
anywhere near as much, you must have a configuration problem.  My NT
system runs 24x7 for weeks at a time...
        Also, it should be noted that while both 95 & NT are preemptive, they
are built on a coop MT model, which should yield the MOST responsive
system, ie, the OS gives an app a certain time slice, but the app can
easily surround it's extra portion

Quote:>All told, all three methods work, but only UNIX is REALLY multitasking. I
>don't think any argument can be forwarded that proves either cooperative
>or pre-emptive are inherently superior.  

        WIN95 & NT are REALLY multitasking just as much as UNIX. And
pre-emptive MT is inherently superior since it allows the OS to rent
control back from a task that refuses to yield..

       Truth,
       James

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by fi.. » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00



->
->UNIX:
->Unix uses TRUE multitasking, in which CPU cycles are divided evenly at the
->OS level between programs. You can also set priorities to operations
->defining their importance and how many cycles they should get. This method
->works best, and since Unix is totally multithreaded and has totally
->protected memory, total system locks are rare. It is unfortunate that Unix
->is so behind the times on things like intelligent resource sensing and
->GUI.

Now... I'm FAR from an expert on these things, but I'm confused about
something. I use WfWg3.11, and it can do what you say Unix does:
dividing cpu cycles, setting priorities, using protected memory. When
a Win app crashes (rare on my machine), it *rarely* take the system
with it. And apps in the background DO continue to run. So, does
WfWg3.11 TRULY multitask?

->All told, all three methods work, but only UNIX is REALLY multitasking. I

Reference above question.

One other thing: what is the TEMPO you mentioned? Is the beta release
publicly available? Can one become a beta tester?

"Believe nothing... unless it agrees with our own reason and
your own common sense."
                                  --Buddha

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Perry Pipla » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00




><Dribble SNIP>
>>anyways, what is the "challenge," of which you write, to which we must arise?
>>overcoming the clumsiness of a command-line interface?  an inferior gui?
>>yeah, dude, whatever.  work smarter, not harder.  why try figuring out how to
>>get a dos-box to do what a mac can do out of the box?  playing a simple
>>*ing movie, for example...
>The last time I played a movie on my '95 box, I double clicked it's
>icon... movie played. Worked the same on WIN 3.1 and WIN3.11. So....
>let me guess, the Mac's got it down to a single click. It's insanely
>great advancements like that that have made the Mac the market leader
>it is. Time for a *real* computer yet?

What's all this doing in comp.os.linux.advocacy....

other than proving how utterly stupid Mac and windows people are....

Time flies like arrows, but fruit flies like bananas.
Perry Piplani                http://www.veryComputer.com/


 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by do » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00



says...

Quote:> > > Or, one day you reboot your PC and Win95 tells you your video chip has
> > > magically changed and you need a new driver.
> > From your answers I would have to say you don't know shit about win95 so
> > you feel the need to put down certain problems that you have no idea how
> > to correct.

> Of course, with a Mac, this problem doesn't exist.  But hell, that's not
> important!

> > unstable? Oh I didn't realize macs were stable..never had a crash with
> > one...hahahahah......system 6, 7 and whatever it's up to now.

> Is that so?  Tell me more.  Was that meant to be a joke?  I didn't get
> it.  Anyhow, it's up to 7.6 just for some information with 8.0 around the
> corner.  You know, maybe if you actually knew something about a Macintosh
> before making inferior comments about them, people would actually take
> you ... now get this, are you ready?  SERIOUSLY.  Yow.

Macs have just as many bugs and annoyances as any of the rest of the
os's. And yes I do know Macintosh. I'm sure nothing important has changed
since system 7 (the last time I used one).
Quote:> > Your page sucks. Another site from a couple of bored people who have no
> > inkling as to how to create a page that is appealing and worth a second
> > visit.

> Are you employed?  I'm sure a lot of companies could use such a well-
> educated employee ... versed in the world of PCs and Macs and HTML pages
> and human interests and web design and graphics and ...

Yep, sure am employed. As a matter of fact, I'm starting a project to
help in the construction of a mill wide inventory system with 40
workstations. I also contributed to the intranet and have made small
change making web pages for local businesses. I'm a cartoonist and have a
degree in Graphic Design. Any other questions?
 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Nathan Han » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00




> >   Nah. 90% of the time if an app crashes on me, it just vanishes and
> >everything else is still up and running.

> Yes, but I *know* you then go ahead and reboot because (as any good
> macintosh user knows) your system is not exactly stable when an app
> quits unexpectedly - or *especially* when you *force-quit* an app.

UNIX ain't MacOS. If an application quits unexpectedly you curse the
application, download an alternative off of sunsite and go about your
business. You *never* reboot the OS <shudder>. That'd mean having to
login again! You wait for the power to go down, then it auto-reboots!

--
Open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Erik Alap » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Now... I'm FAR from an expert on these things, but I'm confused about
> something. I use WfWg3.11, and it can do what you say Unix does:
> dividing cpu cycles, setting priorities, using protected memory. When
> a Win app crashes (rare on my machine), it *rarely* take the system
> with it. And apps in the background DO continue to run. So, does
> WfWg3.11 TRULY multitask?

WfWg uses non-preemptive multitasking. Good "grown-up" OSes like UNIX
OSes and NT use preemptive multitasking.

A highly simplified explanation of the difference between "true"  
(preemptive) mt and non-preempltive mt is that for exapmple in WfWg, a
buggy program could hog the CPU, and the OS would just sit there and wait
for that * program to give back the CPU so that the other programs
needing CPU time would be able to execute.

Besides, the only MS OS worth a damn is Win NT, and I will try to stay
away from it if I can, because I believe that competition is better than
monopoly.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by LanceTog » Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:00:00




>> This is no longer true with Win95/DOS 7.  You make a change, restart
>> Win95, Win95 decides you made the wrong change, and undoes your change.
>> Or, one day you reboot your PC and Win95 tells you your video chip has
>> magically changed and you need a new driver.
>From your answers I would have to say you don't know shit about win95 so
>you feel the need to put down certain problems that you have no idea how
>to correct.
>> This may be true now, but was not true when Windows 2 and 3.0 and 3.1
>> were competing with Macs.  Then, you had a multitasking, well thought
>> out GUI in the Mac, as compared to an unstable copycat in early
>> Windows.  
>unstable? Oh I didn't realize macs were stable..never had a crash with
>one...hahahahah......system 6, 7 and whatever it's up to now.
>> --

>> you are cordially invited to visit the pulled mints website:
>>           http://www.mnsinc.com/minty/index.html
>> Pulled Mints is a zine about Don Knotts, Windows95, and
>> sex toys you can make from household objects.
>Your page sucks. Another site from a couple of bored people who have no
>inkling as to how to create a page that is appealing and worth a second
>visit.

Just another Maclamer (a matched set this time) who haven't used WIN95
but feel compelled to tell us all about it. Further, having just heard
about WEB sites, they feel compelled to build a lasting testament to
their Macness.