1Re: Windows 95, what a joke

1Re: Windows 95, what a joke

Post by Mike McCamma » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00

>>I will say that Win95 is not the best, but it is a far cry from Win31 and
>>heads above anything I have ever experienced with OS/2.

>>I have been running it for about a month now in a full alpha development
>>environment with VC++ v2.2 and have *never* had a crash.  I would like to
>>think that says something for my programming ability, but that's not the
>>case.  it also plays all the games and MPC apps that Win31 did, faster and
>>without *any* crashes.

First of all, the distribution list for the this thread was motr of a joke
than Win95 will ever be.  I have trimmed it somewhat...

Second, you should learn to seperate your thoughts into some logical flow.
USENET is not "real-time" video.

Quote:>I'd like to know how you got 95 to run software faster than 3.1?
>Everything I run is either slower or won't run... (or did you just upgrade to
>a Pentium and then install WIN95 and say WOW this is fast)... AVI's playback
>alot slower - well audio skips for split seconds now and then and a couple
>frames get dropped here and there (makes a big difference when you're
>outputting to tape)...

I wish I had a 586.  It is a plain-jane 486DX-33,8M RAM and a single
speed cd-ROM.  Runs great!  I get some audio skips, but had them in Win31
even worse.  I can blame it on the single-speed cd drive.

If I was going to try to do broadcast video, I would expect I would use
a real machine, like an SGI, not a boatanchor PC or a MAC ;)

Quote:>WIN95 also partly installs in DOS (That says something
>about it being a new OS) it's basically DOS with a new WIN GUI and a few
>extra VxDs... You tell me what you'd use in my situation... I rendered an
>animation in 3DS (a DOS program) which lasts for about 1 minute and 40 seconds,
>there were 2500 frames (for 25fps PAL video). Now, before I rendered the
>animation I checked my options (because I knew 2500 would take a long time)
>and on average I found it took the computer just over 21 minutes to do each
>frame in DOS... If you calculate that out that equals about 5.2 weeks of the
>computer constantly running and calculating. Now let me shock you. I did it
>in just 2 weeks and 4 days... HOW? (no I didn't buy a faster machine) I used
>a different Operating System (/2). When time's money would you use a
>different OS if it could save you nearly 3 weeks? Well yes I was running 3DS
>in a DOS window in OS/2 Warp Connect (and I can even make a movie in
>Premiere at the same time as 3DS is rendering and do other things as well -

If you are saying that your OS/2 runs DOS apps 50%+ faster than native DOS,
well, you will need to give me a minute to regain my composure after rolling
on the floor laughing ;)  

Quote:>(by the way in case you're wondering I wasn't able to run 3DS in Win95
>it wanted to run in a full DOS session - which reboots to DOS and says goodbye
>too all multitasking... I have heard of people who have finally got it to run
>but they say it's slower than in DOS

Well, everything is slower under a multi-tasking emulated OS than it is in
it's native environment.  

Quote:>I suppose it all depends on what you do with your machine when you decide
>what OS is best for you, but I don't believe there's one that fits all.

Agreed, for me, it's a Linux machine .   I use Win31/95 only for what I
have too, and steer clear of anything that says IBM on the box ;)

Quote:> In the end when we're all using WIN2000 who will care about
>WIN95 and OS/2??? (probably those trying to run WIN95 stuff on WIN2000 -
>backward compatibility from MS? - YEAH RIGHT! ;-)

Well, I know that my Win95 runs *every* DOS and Win16 app that I have thrown
at it, even applications that were custom built for Win31, like
Codewrite Fusion for VC++.  I did not expect it to run, but was very
happy it did ;)


 /---------------------------------------\   My opinions belong to me,
| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com     |  myself and I, not my employer,
 \......................................./   the government or my wife...:)


1. X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

   >There is no such thing as X Windows.

   I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
   which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
   even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
(assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
right (another 45%, including me). However,
pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

Hope this helps,

Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above are my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]

Support the rmgrouping of all silly, unused, or duplicated alt.* groups!

2. interactive vs not-interactive shell

3. X-Windows (Was - Re: Windows 95, what a joke)

4. RH 7.0 upgrade trouble

5. Windows 95, what a joke.

6. Help!!! No Root disk detected / No Root Disk Controller Found

7. need unix equivelent of VMS's Logical Name for a mail address

8. Windows 95, what a joke

9. Windows 95, what a joke.

10. Windows 95, what a joke