Windows 95 (Shicago (sp?)) isn't an OS in it's current state

Windows 95 (Shicago (sp?)) isn't an OS in it's current state

Post by Dmitry V. Irteg » Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:33:47

Hi there!

Several days ago on Russian FIDO was an article about stolen copy of
Win95 Beta. Author of the article installed that Beta on his computer
and played awhile with it. I couldn't repost original article 'cos
it's in Russian and I don't have a copy at this moment :(. And I won't
give a full reference to the author 'cos I don't want investigation
about breaking NDA etc. It isn't an official or ever legal source,
so you may call it FUD if you want ;). Personally I tend to beleive

That guy got a system crash. It is forgivable for beta, but instead
of* the system got a very interesting state: black screen
with a DOS prompt! After some hesitation guy typed "VER". Guess what
he got?! "DOS v7.0"! <BIG grin>

So, after I get your attention (though article mentioned really
exists, no matter now true it is.), my main question:

How to customise pmemacs.exe (GNU Emacs v19.25). I want to change
colors, font and window size. Settings notebook doesn't have
these options. Does OS/2 emacs accept same command line switches as
X version: -fn, -fg, -bg, -geometry? What naming scheme should I use
for fonts? F*cking manual doesn't say a word, all READMEs about UNIX
and MS DOS versions :(.

Once Maxim has asked Peter, what is entity of Dzen in his opinion?
- Dzen is an art to boot Windows95 - answered Peter.
- On 4-megabyte 386 - added Vasily.
Maxim looked at Theodor.
- And shutdown the system immediately - pronounced Theodor.
Maxim nodded his head wtih satisfaction and said:
- And run OS/2 without trouble!
(Fat Brtoher - after V.Shinkarev).


1. Win 95 sales disappointing, and OS/2 isn't dead, again.

Positive statements that are true aren't affronts.  "The GUI is
nicer," for example, is admitted by all.  (It's damning with faint
praise, of course.  :-))

But you ask a good question:  Why do we care?

Part of it is payback for all the "Chicago will kick Warp's butt" FUD
that we've been hearing for *years*.  Chicago just isn't that good.
It isn't a Warp killer.  It's hardly even a Windows 3.1 killer.  Those
who live by the vaporware, die by the delivery.

Part of it is outrage that some good points of Warp, poo-pooed for so
long by Windows advocates, and now adopted by Win95, are suddenly
accepted as being good and necessary.  The improved GUI and support
for 32-bit apps are two examples.

Part of it is the "Emperor Has No Clothes" effect.  Win95's
multitasking is poor in comparision to Warp's.  Its graphical
subsystem is still 16-bit (USER.EXE is practically unchanged, and a
mutual exclusion semaphore prevents multiple threads of execution).
Win95's memory protection is full of holes -- even a DOS task (!) can
kill it beyond resurrection.  Win95's installation is no less
problematic than Warp's, which is a sore point since Warp's
installation and the occasional problems with it were long criticized
by Windows advocates.

To summarize: Win95 only wishes it were Warp.  Yet M$ cheerleaders
call Warp "dead" and consider Win95 a gift from heaven.  It's sad,
infuriating, or funny, depending on my mood.  And it's always worth a
word or two.

I think I have enough evidence.  I don't need to see Win95 crash when
a DOS program overwrites the interrupt table to know that the crash is
possible.  I've read detailed technical descriptions of Win95's memory
"protection" (ha!).  That's as close as I want to get, thank you.

        "Hey, it's the Miss Alternate Universe Pageant!"
          -- Crow T. Robot, MST3K: "Stranded In Space"

2. Is there a JAVA JDK for OpenVMS


4. ASUS CUSLC and dual booting

5. Boot Mag "Win 95 isn't a robust OS"

6. Return to Infocom

7. InnoVal's current plans (Was Stardock's current plans)

8. question on JDK SAXParser

9. '95 v MS '95 (was Win32

10. Local Warp Peer and Win'95 cannot see Win'95 machines across WAN

11. Win '95 Preview Beta delayed until May '95

12. 'Windows 95 Annoyances'