Windows 95 sucks? In what way?
Alex
rta...@pacinfo.com (Russell Taylor) wrote:
> Alex (asch...@wwa.com) wrote:
>
>> This from experience: Back in March of 95, my beta win95 system running all
>> 16 bit software was more stable than the fleet of PowerMacs used in the prepress
>> department at work. This may not be the case in all situations, but for the most
>> part it will hold true. This is even more so with NT. NT will preemptively multitask
>> 16 bit apps, and -NEVER- crashes.
>
> I've seen NT crash :) Never say never. And Win95 crashes _all_ the time.
>
>> Also, I never said "much more superior." I said much more technologically advanced.
>
> Win95? Are you smoking hash?
Russell, there is no need to be belligerent. It does not help you get your point across,
just makes you look desperate.
>> The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away from an app that is doing
>> something, you are taking a large risk of the app failing. Example: file transfers. Most
>> processes can not be put in the background, period.
>
> "period." Please explain Fetch, then. I routinely background Fetch on
> my PPP sessions and get transfer rates of 1.4-1.6kps (on a SupraFax Modem
> v.32bis). This is on binhex stuffed files, btw. Fetch also supports
> multiple simultaneous downloads, very nice. I also used to do background
> downloads with Zterm back before I went PPP. Also FYI, on backgrounding
> apps: a typical snapshot of my computer -- NCSA telnet 2.7b2 running 3-4
> sessions, Fetch downloading (and debinhexing/decompressing) in the background,
> stickies and finder running (of course), Netscape grabbing something from
> the web, and Eudora checking email every 10 minutes. The fact is, Macs
> can multitask, and my Mac multitasks Internet apps better than Windows 95.
> For comparison, the systems are a Macintosh IIvx with 12 megs of RAM and
> a 486dx266 with 12 megs as well.
I did say most, right? I don't use fetch all that much. Try this on your mac: select
200 megs worth of Photoshop files, double click on them to launch photoshop and
try to switch away from it while it is opening the files. Can't do it, right? I can't do it
on my 9500/132 with 300MB of ram. A lowly 486/66 with 32mb of ram does it with no
problem, even with Win95. With NT you can switch away and actually do something too.
There is a little bit of a system slowdown, but the system is still more than useable.
>> This is true, for the most part, although I have had some problems with adding new
>> devices to a mac.
>
> I've had more problems adding _anything_ to Windows.
> SCSI drive to Mac: plug in cable, boot Mac, away you go.
> SCSI drive to Windows: now where in the %$*#%*#@*%*#@ did I put that driver
> disk?
>
My windows 95 system has 6 SCSI devices on it. The only one that needed a manufacturer's
driver was the scanner. 2 Hard disks, a CDROM, a SyQuest, an Optical and the SCSI
adapter were all detected by the system. I added a device, restarted the computer, and
what do you know, there it is. OTOH, I have an optical drive on my mac that will not work
without the INIT provided by the mfr.
>> I would say that the networking is much more robust on Win95 (not to mention NT)
>> than on the mac. Yes, the Mac has Appletalk. Win 95 supports a whole slew of
>> networking protocols, including an ultra-stable 32 bit IP stack. Much nicer than
>> MacTCP and OpenTransport. Also, Appletalk, as far as network protocols go is one
>> of the worst. It is about 80% handshaking! What a waste!
>
> Nicer than MacTCP? *boggle*
>
> Not if your software isn't 100% 32 bit, it isn't.
I don't know what you base this on... I have not had a problem running a mix of 16 & 32
bit internet applications on either 95 or NT.
Also, you did not comment on the wastefulness of the Appletalk protocol. I wonder why not?
>> Can't comment on this, since I'm not a programmer.
>
> It shows.
I could stoop to your level here and tell the world what your reply shows about you,
but I think it's obvious...
>> First, no vaporware! Second, NT runs on the same RISC chips as MacOS (and many
>> others as well) and does it 40% faster on the same hardware as the MacOS. Now
>> that's something!
>
> Most of Windows 95 is still vaporware. And it boggles me that a Gates-toadie
> would accuse ANYONE of vaporware, you do remember that 95 was supposed to
> be out in 93?
> --
> Russ Taylor
The definition of vaporvare is software that has not yet been released. Since you can
go into just about any store and buy Windows 95, it certainly is NOT vaporvare.
-Alex
-- Alex
Alex
danie...@aol.com (DanielT722) wrote:
> re: "Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The above message is a direct
> result of the MacOS letting a user trash files that are in use, or the
> message would not come up when emptying the trash. In contrast, Win95 will
> not let you put a file that is in muse into the trash into the first
> place."
>
> The Mac wins here again. Why? A) Putting it in the trash does not make it
> unusable for that session. Want to get rid of an extension, trash it. You
> can't delete it yet, because the OS is still using it (even though it's in
> the trash) but on restart the extension won't load and you can throw it
> away.
>
> Also, there are times when a file which is "in use" really isn't all that
> much in use (i.e. after a program goes down), and you want to get rid of
> it. Hold down the option key and empty trash and it all goes.
You have obviously never used your own OS all that much. Holding down
the option key will NOT, I repeat, NOT delete items that are in use. It will
prevent the Mac from asking you if you are sure, and it will prevent it telling
you that there are items that are in use. It does not delte them. Give this a try.
Throw the finder in the trash. Then holding down option, choose empty trash
from the special menu. what happens? NOTHING. Is the trash empty? No.
> If I couldn't do the above because my OS wouldn't let me even put the item
> in there I would get rather frustrated. Especially when coding the File
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I/O portion of an app when things often go wrong and you need to get rid
> of files which are "in use".
>
> I'd say this is another example of Apple engineers thinking the
> consequences of their design through and through.
>
> Daniel
You must get frustrated easily. BTW, when a Windows app crashes, any files
that it had open are no longer locked (in use).
-- Alex
Wade E. Masshardt
>I did say most, right? I don't use fetch all that much. Try
>this on your mac: select 200 megs worth of Photoshop files,
>double click on them to launch photoshop and try to switch
>away from it while it is opening the files. Can't do it,
>right? I can't do it on my 9500/132 with 300MB of ram. A
>lowly 486/66 with 32mb of ram does it with no problem, even
>with Win95. With NT you can switch away and actually do
>something too. There is a little bit of a system slowdown,
>but the system is still more than useable.
I tried your Photoshop thing on my 24 meg PowerMac. I didn't have 200 meg
workth of jpegs, but I selected about 7 jpegs each which took 2.25 meg x 2
for the display & scrap and 7 jpegs that each took 200k x 2 for display
and scrap. While they were opening I was able to: 1) switch to
Newswatcher to compose this reply, 2) switch to the Finder and start up
BBEdit 3.5 (to format your post, which seems to have really long lines
separated by line feeds-nice news software), switch back to Newswatcher &
finish this reply. Do you want to trade your 9500/132 with 300 megs of
RAM for my 7100/80 24 with 24 megs of RAM?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Shop smart . . . shop S-Mart" |
| Ash, 'Army of Darkness' |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
DanielT722
the option key will NOT, I repeat, NOT delete items that are in use. It
will
prevent the Mac from asking you if you are sure, and it will prevent it
telling
you that there are items that are in use. It does not delte them. Give
this a try."
I just did last night. Got rid of the file just fine thank you. Never
tried throwing some items in the trash though, like the Finder. Perhaps it
won't delete the Finder, but it will delete most items with the option key
down.
Daniel
Cormac Foster
(I'll spare you all the bandwith -- if you'd care to discuss it,
click here: http://www.dnai.com:80/~moogy/email.html), but I felt
I should clarify a few of the terms you two have been throwing
around.
PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: As of System 7.x, macs DO NOT do it.
Period. This doesn't mean you can't run a zillion
apps pretty smoothly if you've got the memory, but
it does mean that you are "task switching," like
in Windows 3.x. System 8 should correct that. It's
still largely a moot point, though, unless, as the
Mac-lover pointed out, you are running all 32-bit
native apps.
BULLETPROOF: Name one OS that really is bulletproof. I dare you.
There aren't any. NT IS good, but, as someone who
tested it, it will hang if you beat on it enough.
Win95 hangs all the time. Coming from a QA
perspective, Win95s "early" release was a travesty.
From a marketing perspective, it was a necessity.
Oh, well. Marketing always wins.
"CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???" To paraphrase Mr. Rodney King, why
the hell is everyone so damn bothered by what OS
other folks like to use on their home computer? I
don't care what other folks do in bed, so why should
I give a damn about what they do with their CPU?
It seems to me that Macs crash less, but when they do,
their user-friendly OS makes it more of a pain in the
ass. I think Macs are better at "multimedia," PCs
are better at low-level manipulation by mid-level
techs, and UNIX is better at networking. They all
have strengths & weaknesses, and anyone who thinks
their OS is perfect is obviously concerned that their
penis is to small.
Thanks!
Cormac Foster
******************************************************
My opinions are mine. MINE MINE MINE!!! If they
annoy you, email me, beat your fists against the wall,
but above all, get over it. It's just my opinion,
and no one's opinion should bother you that much.
******************************************************
Rich Graves
In article <478a7c$c...@kirin.wwa.com>, asch...@wwa.com (Alex) wrote:
>In article <47648v$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>danie...@aol.com (DanielT722) wrote:
>
>> re: "This from experience: Back in March of 95, my beta win95 system
>> running all16 bit software was more stable than the fleet of PowerMacs
>> used in the prepress department at work. This may not be the case in all
>> situations, but for the most part it will hold true. This is even more so
>> with NT. NT will preemptively multitask16 bit apps, and -NEVER- crashes."
>>
>> Well, my question would be: what's wrong with the Power Macs at the
>> prepress department? My experience and reading have led me to believe that
>> Win95 is not all its cracked up to be stability wise when running 16-bit
>> code. This seems to be the general opinion out there, I would say your
>> situation is the unique one.
>
>Just because it is possible for a 16 bit app to bring down the whole
system, does not
>mean it happens every time you start a 16 bit app. This instability issue
with 16 bit
>applications is greatly exxagerated, both in the .advocacy groups and in
the news
>media.
I agree with this. In my experience, 32-bit applications are just as
likely to crash the system as 16-bit applications, if not more so.
Please fix your newsreader so that it terminates lines at 80 columns.
Also, it seems to cut off the first character of the first group you post
to. I suggest using a Mac newsreader; they're much more mature. I believe
the first NewsWatcher was released before the first Windows.
>> I would say quite a few processes can be put in the background.
>
>Try doing this: format a hard disk or a syquest/optical. Can you do
anything else while
>the format is happening? No. This is a prime application for PMT. A 1.3MB
optical
>takes an hour to format, and during this time you can not use the system
for anything else.
Yes, you can do this on Win95, but you will find that the disk you have
formatted is full of errors. You will also get CRC errors in modem and
network transfers if you try to multitask. This is 100% reproducible if
you play sound on a SoundBlaster card while doing a network transfer.
Creative Labs released a new version of the SoundBlaster drivers that
basically do cooperative multitasking to ameliorate but not completely
resolve this problem.
When I need to master floppy disks, I either use an NT machine or Mac
running PC Exchange (the latter avoids viruses too), or open a DOS window,
run LOCK, and copy files in and exclusive DOS session.
>> re: "First, let's not include vaporware in this discussion. Copland does
>> not yet exist. Have you ever worked with win95? Shell extensions can be
>> very powerful, and are much simpler to program for than extensions. Also,
>> win95 (NT even more so) will not fail to boot because of a driver
>> conflict. Most of the time with95 will simply not load the conflicting
>> driver. NT will always boot without loading the failed driver."
This does not jive with my experience. Many a failed Win4 install has been
fixed by removing legacy *.386 from the Windows directory. VxDs are worse
than Extensions on the Mac because they don't just patch the system --
they are the system, and access the hardware directly.
>> re: "Stability, from my years of experience is definitely NOT a draw. I
>> have found Win 95 much more stable than any mac I have ever worked on. NT
>> wins even more here; using your words "can't have any apps bring down the
>> system." You are right; apps can't bring down the system."
>>
>> 16-bit and 16/32-bit mix apps can bring down Win95. If you have all
>> Win95-native code, it is more stable in running apps.
I disagree. I believe the only 32-bit app I have that has not crashed the
machine is HyperTerminal, and that's because I've never run it. This
includes Microsoft WordPad (crash in RICHED32.DLL caused unrecoverable
blue-screen crash) and Microsoft Paint (freezes manipulating large 24-bit
images).
>> re: "I would say that the networking is much more robust on Win95 (not to
>> mention NT) than on the mac.
BWAHAHAHA!!! The University of Arkansas has *banned* Win95 because of the
network problems it causes. Several other major Universities and major
corporations strongly encourage avoiding it because of serious networking
bugs. There are links to some of these policies at the top of
http://www-dccs.stanford.edu/NetConsult/Win95Net/.
>> How so? What do those brittle files contain in power that Mac OS does
>> not/cannot have with a good control panel? This has always been a false
>> argument of PC users, that Mac OS chokes off power in favor of stability.
>> Sorry, but it doesn't hold water. Mac OS can be customized just as much,
>> more so even, but it's done in a better way.
>
>How about this one; multiple file associations. I have a file of type X;
say its
>encapsulated postscript. On the Mac, double clicking on the file will open the
>application that created it, even if doing so makes no sence (case in point,
>double clikcing on a Quark EPS file will launch quark; nothing is opened,
however,
>because quark can not open its own eps files). With win95, I can right click on
>the file and get a menu of options, among which is opening the file in my
choice
>of applications. On my system the default for an EPS is Illustrator, but
Photoshop,
>Freehand and Acrobat Distiller are options as well.
On the Mac, this is called "Save As" and "Easy Open."
On A Windows 95 machine, try associating the extension ".exe/", then
delete it. Oops.
>Would you rather highlight a file, hit Command-M, select the newly
created alias and drag it
>off somewhere, or would you rather do the same thing in just one (ok,
two) steps.
Both, which I can do with free extensions and the Copland shell.
I would rather have aliases that are consistent throughout the OS. You
cannot resolve folder .LNKs in DOS windows or in programs that have not
been rewritten to be .LNK-aware. .LNKs will show unpredictible behavior
after a backup or optimization. Win95 cannot do proper symbolic links
because it still uses the FAT file system of the late 70's.
-rich graves, llu...@networking.stanford.edu
moderator of the win95netbugs list
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html
Russell Taylor
> rta...@pacinfo.com (Russell Taylor) wrote:
> Russell, there is no need to be belligerent. It does not help you get your point across,
> just makes you look desperate.
Maybe it's just me, but I have bad reactions to idiots postings complete
fabrications.
> >> The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away from an app that is doing
> >> something, you are taking a large risk of the app failing. Example: file transfers. Most
> >> processes can not be put in the background, period.
> >
> > "period." Please explain Fetch, then. I routinely background Fetch on
> > my PPP sessions and get transfer rates of 1.4-1.6kps (on a SupraFax Modem
> > v.32bis). This is on binhex stuffed files, btw. Fetch also supports
> > multiple simultaneous downloads, very nice. I also used to do background
> > downloads with Zterm back before I went PPP. Also FYI, on backgrounding
> > apps: a typical snapshot of my computer -- NCSA telnet 2.7b2 running 3-4
> > sessions, Fetch downloading (and debinhexing/decompressing) in the background,
> > stickies and finder running (of course), Netscape grabbing something from
> > the web, and Eudora checking email every 10 minutes. The fact is, Macs
> > can multitask, and my Mac multitasks Internet apps better than Windows 95.
> > For comparison, the systems are a Macintosh IIvx with 12 megs of RAM and
> > a 486dx266 with 12 megs as well.
> I did say most, right? I don't use fetch all that much. Try this on your mac: select
> 200 megs worth of Photoshop files, double click on them to launch photoshop and
> try to switch away from it while it is opening the files. Can't do it, right? I can't do it
> on my 9500/132 with 300MB of ram. A lowly 486/66 with 32mb of ram does it with no
> problem, even with Win95. With NT you can switch away and actually do something too.
> There is a little bit of a system slowdown, but the system is still more than useable.
>
Cannot multitask = absolute
As for backgrounding, of the programs on my hard drive, at most 1 in 20
doesn't background well. Maybe half of those refuse to background. Not
suprisingly, almost everything that doesn't background well is more than
3 years old. Is that "most"?
The Window 95 box right next to me (12 megs of RAM) will lock up when
using Netscape, until all files are loaded. This happens during ANY
network or disk i/o, as near as I can tell. Of course, you can try and
say that isn't happening, but I've witnessed it.
The "little bit" of system slowdown in NT was noticable on an Alpha, btw,
when doing time-consuming tasks.
> > I've had more problems adding _anything_ to Windows.
> > SCSI drive to Mac: plug in cable, boot Mac, away you go.
> > SCSI drive to Windows: now where in the %$*#%*#@*%*#@ did I put that driver
> > disk?
> >
> My windows 95 system has 6 SCSI devices on it. The only one that needed a manufacturer's
> driver was the scanner. 2 Hard disks, a CDROM, a SyQuest, an Optical and the SCSI
> adapter were all detected by the system. I added a device, restarted the computer, and
> what do you know, there it is. OTOH, I have an optical drive on my mac that will not work
> without the INIT provided by the mfr.
Maybe your employer is less cheap than mine. However, the same devices
that take hours to configure on Windows (the _exact_ same devices) take
minutes on a Mac. That's been my experience, and millions agree.
> > Nicer than MacTCP? *boggle*
> >
> > Not if your software isn't 100% 32 bit, it isn't.
> I don't know what you base this on... I have not had a problem running a mix of 16 & 32
> bit internet applications on either 95 or NT.
Try using the dialer that came with Win95. It won't work with (among others)
ws_ftp, Netscape, winweb, or NCSA Mosaic. I gave up after that and went
back to the chameleon stack.
> Also, you did not comment on the wastefulness of the Appletalk protocol. I wonder why not?
I don't use Appletalk. It's not 80% handshaking, though, as I've gotten
very good transfer rates the few times I've used it (usually to back up
a system onto another system's hard drive.
> >
> > It shows.
> I could stoop to your level here and tell the world what your reply shows about you,
> but I think it's obvious...
Hmmm? That I'm a programmer with extensive experience with Macintosh, Windows,
and Unix? Thanks :) (okay, not so extensive with Windows)
> >
> > Most of Windows 95 is still vaporware. And it boggles me that a Gates-toadie
> > would accuse ANYONE of vaporware, you do remember that 95 was supposed to
> > be out in 93?
> > --
> > Russ Taylor
> The definition of vaporvare is software that has not yet been released. Since you can
> go into just about any store and buy Windows 95, it certainly is NOT vaporvare.
The point, silly person, is that Windows 95 is still mostly vaporware (most
of the announced features are -- gone --, including not running on DOS
and being 32 bit), and that Windows 95 was two years _LATE_, so a gates-toadie
has no business calling vaporware on anyone else's product line. If you
can find a major vendor that delays/cancels products as frequently as
the Gatesmeister, feel free to accuse them of vapor.
--
Russ Taylor
<A HREF="http://www.pacinfo.com">PacInfo</A>
Systems Administrator and Consultant, PacInfo
"They're inner-city kids, trying to work their way out the ghetto with
nothing but a foil and a dream"
Alex
> re: "This from experience: Back in March of 95, my beta win95 system
> running all16 bit software was more stable than the fleet of PowerMacs
> used in the prepress department at work. This may not be the case in all
> situations, but for the most part it will hold true. This is even more so
> with NT. NT will preemptively multitask16 bit apps, and -NEVER- crashes."
>
> Well, my question would be: what's wrong with the Power Macs at the
> prepress department? My experience and reading have led me to believe that
> Win95 is not all its cracked up to be stability wise when running 16-bit
> code. This seems to be the general opinion out there, I would say your
> situation is the unique one.
Just because it is possible for a 16 bit app to bring down the whole system, does not
mean it happens every time you start a 16 bit app. This instability issue with 16 bit
applications is greatly exxagerated, both in the .advocacy groups and in the news
media.
> re: "Also, I never said "much more superior." I said much more
> technologically advanced."
>
> My mistake. Sorry.
>
> re: "The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away from an app
> that is doing something, you are taking a large risk of the app failing.
> Example: file transfers. Most processes can not be put in the background,
> period."
>
> Funny, just yesterday I was multitasking just fine with no crashes on a
> Power Mac 6100/60. Here's what was going on...
>
> 1) Printing a dozen or so 30-70 page documents to a TI microLaser Pro 600.
> Print Monitor was handling this.
>
> 2) Copying about 20 megs of files from a 3x CD-ROM to a 1 Gig drive.
> Finder. After that, my PowerBook was copying those files from a shared
> folder on the PMac. Finder/AppleShare.
>
> 3) About four apps were in the background including Word Perfect and Adobe
> Acrobat. Though not doing something the entire time, I often was switching
> back and forth between everything, reading and doing and printing stuff in
> Perfect and Acrobat.
>
> The only place where PMT would have helped would have been in being able
> to open a file while stuff was being copied from the CD-ROM. But that was
> over so quick, who noticed?
>
> I would say quite a few processes can be put in the background.
Try doing this: format a hard disk or a syquest/optical. Can you do anything else while
the format is happening? No. This is a prime application for PMT. A 1.3MB optical
takes an hour to format, and during this time you can not use the system for anything else.
> re: "First, let's not include vaporware in this discussion. Copland does
> not yet exist. Have you ever worked with win95? Shell extensions can be
> very powerful, and are much simpler to program for than extensions. Also,
> win95 (NT even more so) will not fail to boot because of a driver
> conflict. Most of the time with95 will simply not load the conflicting
> driver. NT will always boot without loading the failed driver."
>
> Well, it would be nice if Mac OS just didn't load a conflicting extension
> rather than crashing.
>
> I still say the Mac OS extension system wins, especially from the users
> point of view (drag-n-drop-n-forget).
>
> BTW, don't forget that if an extension to Win95 decides to run amuck, it
> can. Won't be a problem for Mac OS 8.
>
> And, as for vaporware, you were the one to mention improvements to Win95
> coming up. I would say those are more likely to vaporize than Copland, and
> we know the new extension architecture is in place.
I do not recall mentioning any such future improvements, and if I did, I apologize.
I have tried to deal with the present here.
> re: "Currently there is only one system (daysar genesis MP) that supports
> this. What's more, there is only one program that will spread itself over
> more than one processor, and that's photoshop. OTOH, Windows NT has
> supported MP since its intro in 1993 (2?) and all 32 bit programs will
> take advantage of MP. Since NT preempts 16 bit apps as well as 32, MP is
> supported (albeit on a limited) basis by all applications."
>
> First, are we discussing WinNT or Win95? I'd like to keep that
> distinction, you can't just jump to WinNT whenever Win95 loses a point.
> They are separate comparisons entirely.
>
> The point is that Mac OS supports it and it is relatively easy to take
> advantage of it. Win95 does not support it.
This is where I must disagree. NT and Win95 are very similar. I have both installed on
my machine. I can run all my software (with one notable exception) under both OSes.
As soon as ATM is available for NT, I will not be using win95 any longer. As far as running
programs goes, the two are practically interchangeble. NT does require more hardware, yes.
Home users can use Win95 to play games. Professionals will use NT to make money, therefore
they can afford the extra hardware. They 9500's are selling, right? They are very expensive,
but it seems not to make a difference.
> re: "As mentioned before, it is generally easier to add hardware to a Mac.
> OK. But inexperienced users will cry if they have to open the case on any
> computer."
>
> Hmmm, you just gave another point to Macs. For most devices you don't have
> to crack the case. The same is simply not true on the PC. Just about
> everything you add requires cracking the case.
I have 3 external SCSI devices on my PC. And 3 internal ones. Very much like one of
the PMacs at work; 2 internal hard disks, a n internal cdrom, plus an external scanner,
optical and syquest. Until now it was impossible to put many internal devices into a Mac
because of limited physical space (this changes somewhat with the physically larger 9500,
and the Quadra 950 has always been an exception). On the other hand, adding external
devices to a PC has always been an option. And you can buy a case the size of a refrigerator
for your PC and add all the internals you want.
So, if I want to spend an extra $50-100 on an external hard disk, I will do it. If I have an empty
drive bay left in my case, that just widens my options, not restricts them.
> re: "Stability, from my years of experience is definitely NOT a draw. I
> have found Win 95 much more stable than any mac I have ever worked on. NT
> wins even more here; using your words "can't have any apps bring down the
> system." You are right; apps can't bring down the system."
>
> 16-bit and 16/32-bit mix apps can bring down Win95. If you have all
> Win95-native code, it is more stable in running apps. But it is not more
> stable under changes, whether they be hardware or software. Here is where
> Win95 is literally brittle.
Can, yes. Any program can bring down System 7. So? And under NT, 16 bit apps
are preemptively multitasked as well. The only thing I have seen to crash NT was a
bad SIMM.
> The difference in stability between Mac OS and Win95, in terms of running
> apps, is simply not as great as you are making it out to be. Yet the
> difference in stability when changing things is considerable, with Mac OS
> being a rock and Win95 being quite brittle.
YMMV here, on either platform.
> re: "No, but NT has OpenGL out of the box. This technology is much more
> widespread in high end 3d graphics than QD3D is or ever will be."
>
> It is more widespread, but don't be quick to predict the future ;-) I'll
> refrain from commenting on which is technologically better because, quite
> frankly, I haven't had enough experience with OpenGL on NT.
>
> re: "As for GX, it's a nice concept. I would like to have 65536 Glyphs in
> one font. However, installing this option (in my experience) really bloats
> the system and causes more instability. What's more, the only application
> that supports GX at this time is Ready Set Go!. The major players (Quark,
> Adobe, Frame) do not and have no plans to support GX in their major
> software because it would cause cross-platform problems. Looks to
> me like this one is dead in the water, unfortunately."
>
> It does bloat the system. Developers aren't behind it yet.
>
> re: "I would say that the networking is much more robust on Win95 (not to
> mention NT) than on the mac. Yes, the Mac has Appletalk. Win 95 supports a
> whole slew of networking protocols, including an ultra-stable 32 bit IP
> stack. Much nicer than MacTCP and OpenTransport. Also, Appletalk, as far
> as network protocols go is one of the worst. It is about 80% handshaking!
> What a waste!"
>
> My point was simply that not all the MIS people in the world are finding
> the upgrade friendly. Not that it isn't overall better in networking. Kind
> of like how GX is better at graphics, but it's not well supported.
>
> re: "When we have to format an optical on one of the networked Macs at
> work, we have to take it off the network. If we do not, and someone
> attempts to connect to it, it will not only crash the optical, but the
> computer connecing to it, and may crash everyone connected to the
> Appletalk network."
>
> I'm wondering, what's up with your computers at work? I offer consulting
> services... ;-)
Try doing this on an Appletalk network with file sharing (no server) and see what
happens. Windows machines (nt or 95) are much better at handling background IO,
whether it be disk or network bound than Macs.
> re: "The fact that the MacOS is fully 32 bit does not bring much of an
> advantage to it, however. It still lacks PMT and memory management."
>
> Except for two things: 1) There's no 'kludging' layer between old 16-bit
> code and the OS. 2) Speed. PowerPC 604's are brutal, while the P6 is going
> to wimper on Win95.
What about memory management though? Have you ever had to restart your mac
because memory got so fragmented that you could no longer do anything, even though
no programs or windows were opened? Apple has been promising a solution to
this for years. They are promising it now with Copland. I sure hope for their sake
they deliver it.
> re: "First, no vaporware! Second, NT runs on the same RISC chips as MacOS
> (and many others as well) and does it 40% faster on the same hardware as
> the MacOS. Now that's something!"
>
> Wait a minute: A) Copland is not vaporware. For over a year before Win95
> came out it was all I heard about from PC friends whenever I pointed out
> where Mac OS 7.x was superior to Win3.1. Now I can't mention up-coming
> features in an OS about 9 months away? B) Mac OS 7.x is over four years
> old. Win95 is less than four months old. And yet it is clear that Win95 is
> not the overall killer-superior OS that MS wishes it was. Yet it has four
> years in its favor. When you are saying don't mention Copland, is it
> because WinX.X needs a four year advantage to be comparable to Mac OS?
Fine. What about NT? it has been out for a few years not. Win95 is a hybrid
between NT and DOS. And as long as we are talking about vaporware,
Billy Gates' plan is to phase out Win95/DOS entirely, leaving only NT.
> Not trying to be a jerk, but it is legitimate for people reading these to
> consider what is coming in the next year. If there was no Copland, you
> would be screaming "switch because Apple has nothing for the future!" You
> would most definetly consider the future in your argument.
>
> Finally, I would expect WinNT to run faster. Native Copland isn't out yet.
And by the time Copland is out, NT4.0 will be out. And so on and so on and so on.
> re: "If you don't know what you are doing, you can screw up any system.
> Granted, it's harder to break a Mac. But that's one of the things that
> really irks me about the MacOS. It protects the user from himself way too
> much. That may be fine for someone who is completely computer illiterate
> (and to those people I do now and probably will always recommend a Mac),
> but it is a real pain in the ass for power users."
>
> How so? What do those brittle files contain in power that Mac OS does
> not/cannot have with a good control panel? This has always been a false
> argument of PC users, that Mac OS chokes off power in favor of stability.
> Sorry, but it doesn't hold water. Mac OS can be customized just as much,
> more so even, but it's done in a better way.
How about this one; multiple file associations. I have a file of type X; say its
encapsulated postscript. On the Mac, double clicking on the file will open the
application that created it, even if doing so makes no sence (case in point,
double clikcing on a Quark EPS file will launch quark; nothing is opened, however,
because quark can not open its own eps files). With win95, I can right click on
the file and get a menu of options, among which is opening the file in my choice
of applications. On my system the default for an EPS is Illustrator, but Photoshop,
Freehand and Acrobat Distiller are options as well.
> re: "Again, *VaporWare*"
>
> One year my friend, one year.
>
> re: "You have failed to prove your point here. Tell me again how the MacOS
> is technologically superior to Win95/NT. I'm talking about working with
> the system. I'm not talking about the GUI, and I'm not talking about
> installing new hardware."
>
> Well if your definition is purely PMT/PM, then you win for the next 9
> months. But that is clearly a limited definition, and does not prove
> anything overall. Are we comparing operating systems or are we comparing
> just two features of operating systems?
No, these are not two features. Those two things are the CORE of the OS. Without them
nothing works.
> I've shown how Mac OS is technologically superior overall by listing those
> technologies Win95 simply does not have or has in a very poor way.
>
> The GUI determins how you work with the system, and you first brought up
> GUI issues. Mac OS wins here.
The GUI on the mac may feel more solid than Win95 (it does, IMO) but it is definitely
not as customizable. Win95 shell extensions are very nice. For example; I can right click
on any file or folder and a menu pops up. Among the choices are: scan for viruses,
add to ZIP (a compressed archive format). Those two menu choices are shell extenstions.
Also, dragging a file or folder with the left mouse button works just like a Mac (same disk,
it moves, different disk, it copies, etc). Dragging a file with the right mouse button will pop
up a menu where you drop the file, with the following choices: Move Here, Copy Here, Create
Shortcut here. This is not the best thing since sliced bread, but it sure is nice to have.
Would you rather highlight a file, hit Command-M, select the newly created alias and drag it
off somewhere, or would you rather do the same thing in just one (ok, two) steps.
> Win95 has better multitasking and PM. But it lacks PnP, has an inferior
> GUI, has an inferior extension architecture. It's features don't work as
> well. It doesn't have comparable technologies on many levels. And it is
> tied to CISC x86 chips.
>
> Again, what are the terms? Are you defining them such that only the
> strengths of Win95 are shown? Are we comparing OSes and all that they are
> or not?
>
> Daniel
A comment on the CISC x86 chips... You said you run a 6100/60. This machine is slower
than a 486/66.. Hardly on the bleeding edge. OTOH, a Pentium 133 can be had for $2000 for
a complete system. an 8100/110 (benchmarked to be neck in neck with the 133) costs almost
twice that for the box alone...
-- Alex
Alex
wa...@macc.wisc.edu (Wade E. Masshardt) wrote:
> In article <475b6s$n...@kirin.wwa.com>, asch...@wwa.com (Alex) wrote:
>
>>The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away
>>from an app that is doing something, you are taking a large
>>risk of the app failing. Example: file transfers. Most
>>processes can not be put in the background, period.
>
> This is a huge steaming pile of crap. I have several apps running all day
> long (PageMaker, Illustrator, BBEdit, Netscape, Newswatcher, Anarchie,
> etc.) and have never had an app die on me because I switched it into the
> background. I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp via Anarchie or Fetch or
> Netscape) running in the background while working in PageMaker, MacWrite
> Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop. The transfers have all worked just fine.
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
A pile of shit it is not. Practical mutltitasking is not having several programs open,
it is having several programs open and DOING things.
By the way, you must have a shitload of memory on your machine. I know that when
I run photoshop, I have to give it all the memory in my system (minus 15MB) so I
can actually get some work done. Of course, doing this on a mac means you can't have
any other programs open.
I COULD open every program on my hard disk at the same time.. So what? What good
does that do.
Win 95, OTOH will let me give photoshop all available memory, and when I switch away
from it, it swaps the process to disk, and the memory is once again available... but Photohsop
is still runinning... and if it happens to be executing a filter, that portion of it does stay in memory.
In other words, it only takes the memory that it can actually use at the moment, not everything
that is allocated it in the Get Info box.
-- Alex
Douglas Alan
<mo...@dnai.com> writes:
BULLETPROOF: Name one OS that really is bulletproof. I dare
you.
Depends on what you mean by bulletproof. BSD-based Unix is pretty
bulletproof. Of course you can crash Unix pretty easily if you go out
of your way to do that intentionally, but it doesn't tend to crash by
itself unless beat on pretty severely. My Unix workstation (a Sun,
previously a DECstation) hasn't crashed once in the past five years.
And there was a VAXstation running BSD I administered once that stayed
up continously (it did not crash, nor was it rebooted or shutdown) for
more than a year. I was very sad when I had to shut it down one day
for a hardware upgrade and the uptime command said "up 403 days".
|>oug /\lan
<nes...@mit.edu>
Kendall
>Um, personally, I've got problems with both the Mac OS and Win95
>(I'll spare you all the bandwith -- if you'd care to discuss it,
> It seems to me that Macs crash less,
>
I have seen (copyrighted) tests of various Mac and PC systems
with good statistical samples which show that the MAC 7.5 OS is
the LEAST STABLE OS now available...worse than Windows
3.1X....Win95 is quite close to OS2 and NT is better than
all....
AF-X Test Pilot
>> can multitask, and my Mac multitasks Internet apps better than Windows 95.
>> For comparison, the systems are a Macintosh IIvx with 12 megs of RAM and
>> a 486dx266 with 12 megs as well.
Lie.
Win95 mutitasks native (32-bit) apps including Internet apps much
better than MacOS does.
>> I've had more problems adding _anything_ to Windows.
>> SCSI drive to Mac: plug in cable, boot Mac, away you go.
>> SCSI drive to Windows: now where in the %$*#%*#@*%*#@ did I put that
driver
>> disk?
Lie.
Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
Mac fanatics, stop spreading misinformation (lies).
John Bode
>In article <wade-31109...@f180-057.net.wisc.edu>
>wa...@macc.wisc.edu (Wade E. Masshardt) wrote:
>
>> In article <475b6s$n...@kirin.wwa.com>, asch...@wwa.com (Alex) wrote:
>>
>>>The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away
>>
>> This is a huge steaming pile of crap. I have several apps running all day
<snip>
>A pile of shit it is not. Practical mutltitasking is not having several programs open,
>it is having several programs open and DOING things.
>
<snip>
You can have several programs open *and* doing things on the Mac. I can have a
fractal generator running (i.e., generating and drawing the image) in the
background while working in ClarisWorks or whatever. The *effectiveness* of
the multitasking depends on the foreground application (some applications
explicitly do not allow other tasks to run). I don't use Photoshop, so I can't
comment on its behavior. Most games (especially shoot-'em-ups) that I know of
do not relinquish processor time (which makes sense in that context).
ClarisWorks seems to be one of the friendlier applications to run other
applications with.
This is the downside of co-operative multitasking. It's up to the application,
not the operating system, to see that other processes are allowed to run.
No shit.
John Bode
john...@tracor.com
L. L. Kilgore
(snip)
>The Window 95 box right next to me (12 megs of RAM) will lock up when
>using Netscape, until all files are loaded. This happens during ANY
>network or disk i/o, as near as I can tell. Of course, you can try and
>say that isn't happening, but I've witnessed it.
Sounds like that 12 meg Win 95 box next to you has serious
configuration problems that neither my 12 meg nor my 8 meg Win 95
boxes have ever had. I've never seen any sort of lock up with
network or disk activity. Netscape's performance is as smooth as it
ever was.
(snip)
>Try using the dialer that came with Win95. It won't work with (among others)
>ws_ftp, Netscape, winweb, or NCSA Mosaic. I gave up after that and went
>back to the chameleon stack.
The dial-up adapter works fine with both the 16 bit and 32 bit
versions of WS_FTP and Netscape. It also works with Eudora Lite, Free
Agent, CuteFTP and every other 16 or 32 bit winsock client I've tried
- with the exception that 16 bit apps will not autodial. Haven't
tried Winweb or NCSA Mosaic in Win 95.
Laura
Kendall
you may misunderstand 'crash'...most of us mean not that the
system failed, or was brought to a lock, but that an app froze
the system completely, and you had to terminate the app.
In Win95, on several machines, we have never had to reset or
turn off the computer..but we have had several times when we
had to terminate programs which have crashed.
Wade E. Masshardt
>In article <wade-31109...@f180-057.net.wisc.edu>
>wa...@macc.wisc.edu (Wade E. Masshardt) wrote:
>
>> In article <475b6s$n...@kirin.wwa.com>, asch...@wwa.com (Alex) wrote:
>>
>>>The fact is the Mac can not multitask. If you switch away
>>>from an app that is doing something, you are taking a large
>>>risk of the app failing. Example: file transfers. Most
>>>processes can not be put in the background, period.
>>
>> This is a huge steaming pile of crap. I have several apps running all day
>> long (PageMaker, Illustrator, BBEdit, Netscape, Newswatcher, Anarchie,
>> etc.) and have never had an app die on me because I switched it into the
>> background. I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp via Anarchie or Fetch or
>> Netscape) running in the background while working in PageMaker, MacWrite
>> Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop. The transfers have all worked just fine.
>
>A pile of shit it is not. Practical mutltitasking is not having
>several programs open, it is having several programs open and DOING
>things.
Did you even read what I posted? I said "I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp
via Anarchie or Fetch or Netscape) running in the background while working
in PageMaker, MacWrite Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop." As several
programs all open and doing things.
And your statement that "Most processes can not be put in the background,
period" is such an utter falsehood that I begin to question if you have
even used a Macintosh.
>By the way, you must have a shitload of memory on your machine. I
>know that when I run photoshop, I have to give it all the memory in
>my system (minus 15MB) so I can actually get some work done. Of
>course, doing this on a mac means you can't have any other programs
>open.
I have 24 megs (plus RAM Doubler), which is not very much for doing
PhotoShop work. Since I don't do "heavy duty" PhotoShop work I have it
set to a 12 meg partition.
>I COULD open every program on my hard disk at the same time.. So
>what? What good does that do.
>
>Win 95, OTOH will let me give photoshop all available memory, and
>when I switch away from it, it swaps the process to disk, and the
>memory is once again available... but Photohsop is still
>runinning... and if it happens to be executing a filter, that
>portion of it does stay in memory.
The way the Macintosh currently manages memory is somewhat limited. Due
to this PhotoShop for the Mac was written to manage its own memory, so
giving it too much (e.g., more than your physical RAM) can cause
performance to degrade badly, due to swapping. There is a utility (RAM
Charger or something) that has all applications sharing the same global
memory pool, so an app may think that it has the entire memory space to
allocate from, which would be bad for PhotoShop, since it would try to
grab everything.
>In other words, it only takes the memory that it can actually use at
>the moment, not everything that is allocated it in the Get Info box.
>
>-- Alex
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months |
| of work another company could come along and copy your work and |
| market it under it's own name...without legal restraints to such |
| copying, companies like Apple could not afford to advance the |
| state of the art." |
| - Bill Gates '83 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joshua T. McKee
> system failed, or was brought to a lock, but that an app froze
> the system completely, and you had to terminate the app.
It depends on the context it's used in. If I say my system crashed, I
mean the entire system. If I say a program crashed, I mean the program,
not the entire system. With Windows 3.x and to a lessor extent, the mac
os, a program crash usually brings with it a system crash.
Josh
AF-X Test Pilot
wa...@macc.wisc.edu says...
>In article <47dbk6$2...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk>, chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk
>(AF-X Test Pilot) wrote:
>> Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver is?
I'd recommend you to check the reality before lying.
I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
Dos (ie, _without_ any driver loaded) and my SCSI hdd still operates.
Have you used PC, liar?
>> Mac fanatics, stop spreading misinformation (lies).
>Maybe you ought to consider taking your own advice?
I know what is truth but you guys do not.
Greg Lowndes
>Win95 on several machines at work and my own at home. It
>does indeed crash if you run unfriendly applications on it.
Which goes to show that if the application is unfriendly, then it
should not be a Windows programming error but an error by the
applications programmer.
===============================
Email To:
glow...@gol.com (Greg Lowndes)
International Buddhist University, Habikino, Osaka.
Wade E. Masshardt
(AF-X Test Pilot) wrote:
>In article <wade-04119...@f180-111.net.wisc.edu>,
>wa...@macc.wisc.edu says...
>
>>In article <47dbk6$2...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk>, chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk
>>(AF-X Test Pilot) wrote:
>
>>> Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
>
>>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver is?
>
> I'd recommend you to check the reality before lying.
I am not lying. By definition (of what a driver is), you need a driver to
use your hard disk. It is certainly possible that that the driver is
included in DOS or loads off the hard disk (this is what the Macintosh
does) or is in the ROM of your SCSI card. But you most definitely need a
driver.
> I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
>Dos (ie, _without_ any driver loaded) and my SCSI hdd still operates.
There is a driver loaded, even though you may not see it load.
> Have you used PC, liar?
Uh, yes.
>>> Mac fanatics, stop spreading misinformation (lies).
>
>>Maybe you ought to consider taking your own advice?
>
> I know what is truth but you guys do not.
Maybe not. Ask around if you can use a SCSI disk with having some form of
driver to interact with the disk.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "In other words, if you combine a Microsoft product with a Cray |
| product, you have a nice comfortable air-conditioned bench with |
| a cup-holder." |
| Martin Sohnius in comp.unix.advocacy |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
CNS Inc.
Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
Someone else (b) wrote:
>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver is?
(a) responded:
>I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
>Dos (ie, _without_ any driver loaded) and my SCSI hdd still operates.
You're both wrong.
The first SCSI adapters did need a driver, even for DOS. Now they do
not because they emulate a Western Digital controller (just like IDE)
so DOS and other OS (Even NT) can see them through the BIOS calls
without having to load a special driver.
SCSI standards are not always followed to the letter. I've seen older
(> 2 years ago) IBM "SCSI" hardware not work with other brands.
Alex
CNS Inc.
Ralph Goers
Test Pilot) writes:
:>
:>In article <wade-04119...@f180-111.net.wisc.edu>,
:>
:>>In article <47dbk6$2...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk>, chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk
:>
:>>> Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
:>>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver is?
:>
:> I'd recommend you to check the reality before lying.
:> I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
Well, I, for one, would sure like to know how you're doing it, since DOS DOES
require a driver for SCSI.
Wade E. Masshardt
Corn) wrote:
>wa...@macc.wisc.edu (Wade E. Masshardt) wrote:
>
>>>> This is a huge steaming pile of crap. I have several apps running all day
>>>> long (PageMaker, Illustrator, BBEdit, Netscape, Newswatcher, Anarchie,
>>>> etc.) and have never had an app die on me because I switched it into the
>>>> background. I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp via Anarchie or Fetch or
>>>> Netscape) running in the background while working in PageMaker, MacWrite
>>>> Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop. The transfers have all worked just fine.
>
>Does it DIE on you, or does it just slow down tremendously? Put a
>Photoshop render in the bg and watch the speed drop by 75% or so -
I wasn't claiming that the speed doesn't drop. The person I was replying
to said that MacOS can't multitask period. He also stated that most
programs can't be switched into the background and a lot of programs crash
when switched to the background. That is complete excretia and was what I
was answering.
>while you do NOTHING in the foreground! This always amazed me about
>Mac multitasking. Sure, some programs (Macintercomm, for one) get
>around this by kluding the multitasking of the Mac, but overall, Mac
>multitasking is horribly bad compared to NT. Heck, just load
>Photoshop. Now, while it's loading, multitask and load something
>else. Gotcha...
Yes, that is true. No one was claiming that the MacOS's cooperative
multitasking is more efficient than some implementation of preemptive
multitasking.
>Maybe in 1997, with Copeland...maybe...
Copland's preemptive multitasking will take care of this, provided the
application in question is rewritten to take advantage of Copland's
features.
>>>A pile of shit it is not. Practical mutltitasking is not having
>>>several programs open, it is having several programs open and DOING
>>>things.
>>
>>Did you even read what I posted? I said "I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp
>>via Anarchie or Fetch or Netscape) running in the background while working
>>in PageMaker, MacWrite Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop." As several
>>programs all open and doing things.
>
>Sure, but at what speed? At what speed reduction?
I don' know, since I have never timed transfers. It would be pointless
anyway, since I don't have a small section of network that I can isolate
to get rid of the other network traffic.
>>And your statement that "Most processes can not be put in the background,
>>period" is such an utter falsehood that I begin to question if you have
>>even used a Macintosh.
>
>You are correct - most everything goes in the bg without problems.
>
>>The way the Macintosh currently manages memory is somewhat limited. Due
>>to this PhotoShop for the Mac was written to manage its own memory, so
>>giving it too much (e.g., more than your physical RAM) can cause
>>performance to degrade badly, due to swapping. There is a utility (RAM
>
>The Mac memory management routines are horrible. Maybe in '97, eh?
>
>There's a LOT going for the Mac, but multitasking and good use of
>memory aren't among them.
Both of these problems will be taken care of in Copland.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Why don't we wait for backup?" |
| - Bob, Marathon 2:Durandal |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Corn
>>> This is a huge steaming pile of crap. I have several apps running all day
>>> long (PageMaker, Illustrator, BBEdit, Netscape, Newswatcher, Anarchie,
>>> etc.) and have never had an app die on me because I switched it into the
>>> background. I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp via Anarchie or Fetch or
>>> Netscape) running in the background while working in PageMaker, MacWrite
>>> Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop. The transfers have all worked just fine.
Does it DIE on you, or does it just slow down tremendously? Put a
Photoshop render in the bg and watch the speed drop by 75% or so -
while you do NOTHING in the foreground! This always amazed me about
Mac multitasking. Sure, some programs (Macintercomm, for one) get
around this by kluding the multitasking of the Mac, but overall, Mac
multitasking is horribly bad compared to NT. Heck, just load
Photoshop. Now, while it's loading, multitask and load something
else. Gotcha...
Maybe in 1997, with Copeland...maybe...
>>A pile of shit it is not. Practical mutltitasking is not having
>>several programs open, it is having several programs open and DOING
>>things.
>
>Did you even read what I posted? I said "I OFTEN have file transfers (ftp
>via Anarchie or Fetch or Netscape) running in the background while working
>in PageMaker, MacWrite Pro, Illustrator or Photoshop." As several
>programs all open and doing things.
Sure, but at what speed? At what speed reduction?
>And your statement that "Most processes can not be put in the background,
Mike Swaim
: Well, I, for one, would sure like to know how you're doing it, since DOS DOES
Depends on what you're doing, and the SCSI controller. My controller
includes BIOS software to make the first two SCSI hard disks visible to
DOS. When I reformatted my disks, I copied Win95 off my CD onto a ZIP
disk, reformatted the drives, installed DOS 6.2 and did an upgrade
straight from my ZIP drive. Never installed a DOS driver. Now if I had
wanted to use the CD-ROM on the machine, I'd have had to install drivers,
but for hard disk like devices, I don't need drivers.
--
Mike "Special Agent in charge of Chaos" Swaim | sw...@phoenix.net
disclamer: I lie.
Brian D. Stark
>cla.edu> <47fhsm$g...@news4.digex.net>
>Reply-To: glow...@gol.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp52-151.gol.com
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Are you joking? In a perfect world an operating system does not crash.
When an operating system does crash, it is the fault of the operating
system. If an application crashes its the fault of the application, but
it should not bring the whole system down. Note there are no perfect
worlds.
Brian
Bernd Backhaus
> Well, I, for one, would sure like to know how you're doing it, since DOS
> DOES require a driver for SCSI.
No, it doesn't. At least not for the first two hard discs. If you have an
adapter with a BIOS on it thatis, like the 152x/154x. Plug in Adapter, plug in
SCSI discs (with IDs 0 and 1) ther you go. No driver needed.
Cheers,
Bernd.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernd Backhaus email: b.bac...@dortmund.netsurf.de
Brueckstr. 20 Compuserve: 100111,3061
44787 Bochum Fidonet: 2:2448/53.8
Germany
Brian Walworth
>In article <478g6n$m...@colossus.holonet.net> Cormac Foster
><mo...@dnai.com> writes:
>My Unix workstation (a Sun, previously a DECstation) hasn't crashed
>once in the past five years.
>And there was a VAXstation running BSD I administered once that stayed
>up continously (it did not crash, nor was it rebooted or shutdown) for
>more than a year. I was very sad when I had to shut it down one day
>for a hardware upgrade and the uptime command said "up 403 days".
I have a NetWare Filer Server a few feet away from my desk thats been
up and running for 948 day (a little over 2 and a half years !!!).
However, in a few yeeks I'm going to down it to upgrade the OS.
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Walworth (bria...@interaccess.com)
System Admin.
Urban Design Group, Inc.
39 South LaSalle Street - Suite 1010
Chicago, IL 60603
312-541-1407 Fax: 312-541-1410
Wade E. Masshardt
b.bac...@dortmund.netsurf.de wrote:
>rg...@rgoer.candle.com wrote 05 Nov 95 in article
<47j2i8$q...@phobos.Candle.Com>:
>
> > Well, I, for one, would sure like to know how you're doing it, since DOS
> > DOES require a driver for SCSI.
>
>No, it doesn't. At least not for the first two hard discs. If you have an
>adapter with a BIOS on it thatis, like the 152x/154x. Plug in Adapter,
plug in
>SCSI discs (with IDs 0 and 1) ther you go. No driver needed.
So, the driver is on the BIOS. You STILL need some software routines that
know how to talk to the SCSI adapter. As far as I knew, that was the
definition of a driver. Maybe I am wrong.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't |
| understand things with alloys and compositions and things with |
| . . . molecular structures." |
| Ash, "Army of Darkness" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Andy Wilks
>
>Someone (a) wrote:
>
> Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
>
>
>>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver is?
>
>>I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
>>Dos (ie, _without_ any driver loaded) and my SCSI hdd still operates.
>
>
No, Someone(a) Wade is correct. All IO device need a driver. Wanna see em...
DOS MEM /D will show them all
Conventional Memory Detail:
Segment Total Name Type
------- ---------------- ----------- --------
00000 1,039 (1K) Interrupt Vector
00040 271 (0K) ROM Communication Area
00050 527 (1K) DOS Communication Area
00070 2,656 (3K) IO System Data
CON System Device Driver
AUX System Device Driver
PRN System Device Driver
CLOCK$ System Device Driver
A: - C: System Device Driver
COM1 System Device Driver
LPT1 System Device Driver
LPT2 System Device Driver
LPT3 System Device Driver
COM2 System Device Driver
COM3 System Device Driver
COM4 System Device Driver
Luckily, SCSI adapters vendors have put and INT13 interface in their ROM
and DOS can talk directly to a SCSI HD using the System Device Driver.
> The first SCSI adapters did need a driver, even for DOS. Now they do
> not because they emulate a Western Digital controller (just like IDE)
> so DOS and other OS (Even NT) can see them through the BIOS calls
> without having to load a special driver.
This is true, It is not necessary to specify a controller specific driver
in the CONFIG.SYS file.
But a device driver is required to allow access to any logical device.
Andy
Ed Ellers
says...
>I am not lying. By definition (of what a driver is), you need a driver to
>use your hard disk. It is certainly possible that that the driver is
>included in DOS or loads off the hard disk (this is what the Macintosh does)
>or is in the ROM of your SCSI card. But you most definitely need a driver.
On most PC systems that use SCSI for the main hard disk it's a ROM on the
SCSI card, not a driver (as in the common usage) that has to be loaded from
magnetic media. This is actually an extension of the BIOS that is
executed before any attempt is made to boot the OS; the ROM on a VGA board
(or EGA before it) works the same way, as did the ROM on XT hard disk
controllers. (Actually, some PC systems -- particularly those based on
Intel's "Plato" motherboard -- have the SCSI boot code in the main BIOS ROM
now.)
So the SCSI code on these PC systems is no more a "driver" than is the BIOS
itself -- or the boot ROM in a Mac.
Jeffrey R. Broido
>This is true, It is not necessary to specify a controller specific driver
>in the CONFIG.SYS file.
>
>But a device driver is required to allow access to any logical device.
Andy,
Actually, even this isn't always true. I think what we can learn from
this thread is that all SCSI controllers are different and each has its own
quirks. Mine, for example, a DTC 3290 EISA SCSI-2 cacheing controller with 4Mb
of its own cache RAM, which I bought three years ago, requires real mode drivers
loaded from config.sys if one boots from a drive not connected to it. If one
does boot from one of its drives, one needs no drivers and all partitions and
logical devices are accessible.
Jeff
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey R. Broido "No Statements Flagged
Morristown, NJ in this Assembly."
Jerry Shekhel
:
: I was under the impression that Copland's "Blue Box" will preserve this
: advantage for all apps even if legacy apps are run in the background,
: unlike Win95 which does a complete downshift to CMT.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is completely untrue, although it seems a very popular claim among
the MS/Win95 bashers. Win95 does *not* "downshift" to CMT; it only
serializes access to the 16-bit system libraries. So for example, while
a 16-bit app is drawing a line inside GDI, 32-bit apps continue to run in
the background, preemptively scheduled. Only when they need to draw
something or otherwise use the GDI are they forced to wait. And they don't
wait until the 16-bit app returns control to the OS, as they would with CMT;
they only need to wait until the GDI code terminates.
: Daniel
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
je...@cybercom.net
, , ,
"Is maith liom Mi Mheain an tSamhraidh." - M. Ni Chobhthaigh
*sunbird*
> I am not lying. By definition (of what a driver is), you need a driver to
> use your hard disk. It is certainly possible that that the driver is
> included in DOS or loads off the hard disk (this is what the Macintosh
> does) or is in the ROM of your SCSI card. But you most definitely need a
> driver.
well then any argument about it is dead, isn't it? all hard drives require
drivers. on a peecee or a mac.
the ones that load automatically make things easier, and automatic loading
is available on the PC for many types of hard drives, tape drives,
floppies, CD-ROM's, etc. The only driver I had to load on my system was for
the SoundBlaster 16, and that because I have a newer version.
now what was your point?
> There is a driver loaded, even though you may not see it load.
point? point!?!
> > I know what is truth but you guys do not.
> Maybe not. Ask around if you can use a SCSI disk with having some form of
> driver to interact with the disk.
sure you can. i can write a program that would talk directly to the card.
but who would want to do that?
*sunbird*
Tom Maki
>In message <47hqnf$f...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk> -
>chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk (AF-X
>Test Pilot) writes:
>:>
>:>In article <wade-04119...@f180-111.net.wisc.edu>,
>:>wa...@macc.wisc.edu says...
>:>
>:>>In article <47dbk6$2...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk>, chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk
>:>
>:>>>Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
>:>>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver
>:>>is?
>:>
>:> I'd recommend you to check the reality before lying.
>
>require a driver for SCSI.
I would say a "driver" is needed for *any* device you want to use, under
*any* OS. I think this is obvious (or should be ;).
-Tom ma...@acm.org http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/g561/maki0019
"a good picture may well be worth a thousand words, but on the WWW,
even bad imagemaps cost tens of thousands of words."
*sunbird*
> Well, I, for one, would sure like to know how you're doing it, since DOS DOES
> require a driver for SCSI.
often a SCSI card will have a BIOS requiring no special driver be loaded
from the config files. if this were not the case the device would not
be bootable.
*sunbird*
Joe Ragosta
Shekhel) wrote:
> This is completely untrue, although it seems a very popular claim among
> the MS/Win95 bashers. Win95 does *not* "downshift" to CMT; it only
> serializes access to the 16-bit system libraries. So for example, while
> a 16-bit app is drawing a line inside GDI, 32-bit apps continue to run in
> the background, preemptively scheduled. Only when they need to draw
> something or otherwise use the GDI are they forced to wait. And they don't
> wait until the 16-bit app returns control to the OS, as they would with CMT;
> they only need to wait until the GDI code terminates.
OK. Let's say you're right. 16 bit app takes control to run some GDI code.
16 bit app crashes and never returns control to the OS. Now you're 32 bit
apps never get the GDI code they need so they can't complete the task.
Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
--
------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
jrag...@dca.net
100% Chemical -- and proud of it.
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message at no charge.
tunaman
>
>In <47j2i8$q...@phobos.Candle.Com>,
>rg...@rgoer.candle.com (Ralph Goers) writes:
>>In message <47hqnf$f...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk> -
>>chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk (AF-X
>>Test Pilot) writes:
>>:>
>>:>In article <wade-04119...@f180-111.net.wisc.edu>,
>>:>wa...@macc.wisc.edu says...
>>:>
>>:>>In article <47dbk6$2...@hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk>, chung...@mailserv.cuhk.hk
>>:>>(AF-X Test Pilot) wrote:
>>:>
>>:>>>Even under old DOS, you don't need driver to operate SCSI harddisks.
>>:>
>>:>>You most certainly do need a driver. Maybe you don't know what a driver
>>:>>is?
>>:>
>>:> I'd recommend you to check the reality before lying.
>>:> I have only 1 SCSI hdd on my PC. I can boot up my machine with plain
>>:>Dos (ie, _without_ any driver loaded) and my SCSI hdd still operates.
>>:> Have you used PC, liar?
>>
>>require a driver for SCSI.
>
>*any* OS. I think this is obvious (or should be ;).
>
The difference being that *SOME* SCSI adapters have a BIOS (Basic Input/
Output System) which can handle system calls WITHOUT the need for an external
driver, while others have no BIOS, thus needing drivers to be loaded in the
config/autoexec.
tunaman
--
*****************************************************************
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |\ http://www.deltanet.com/users/tunaman *
* ~>~~>>~ >>~> >~>>~~> | \ tun...@deltanet.com *
* ~~>>~ >~~>>~>~~>~>~~ | \ Team OS/2 *
* >~>>~>>~~>~>>~>~>>~ J O \ Warpin' While I Work *
*****************************************************************
Elias Martenson
>In article <jragosta-081...@ppp-1027.dca.net>, jrag...@dca.net says...
>>> This is completely untrue, although it seems a very popular claim among
>>> the MS/Win95 bashers. Win95 does *not* "downshift" to CMT; it only
>>> serializes access to the 16-bit system libraries. So for example, while
>>> a 16-bit app is drawing a line inside GDI, 32-bit apps continue to run in
>>> the background, preemptively scheduled. Only when they need to draw
>>> something or otherwise use the GDI are they forced to wait. And they don't
>>> wait until the 16-bit app returns control to the OS, as they would with CMT;
>>> they only need to wait until the GDI code terminates.
>>
>>OK. Let's say you're right. 16 bit app takes control to run some GDI code.
>>16 bit app crashes and never returns control to the OS. Now you're 32 bit
>>apps never get the GDI code they need so they can't complete the task.
>>
>>Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
>Nope, the kernel releases the mutex (if needed) as part of app cleanup.
Woow, I'm impressed.
If win95 is so secure. Howcome it's so easy to crash it?
--
Elias Martenson ! When I come up with a good joke,
el...@omicron.se ! it will be here.
Ian Ellison-Taylor
>> This is completely untrue, although it seems a very popular claim among
>> the MS/Win95 bashers. Win95 does *not* "downshift" to CMT; it only
>> serializes access to the 16-bit system libraries. So for example, while
>> a 16-bit app is drawing a line inside GDI, 32-bit apps continue to run in
>> the background, preemptively scheduled. Only when they need to draw
>> something or otherwise use the GDI are they forced to wait. And they don't
>> wait until the 16-bit app returns control to the OS, as they would with CMT;
>> they only need to wait until the GDI code terminates.
>
>OK. Let's say you're right. 16 bit app takes control to run some GDI code.
>16 bit app crashes and never returns control to the OS. Now you're 32 bit
>apps never get the GDI code they need so they can't complete the task.
>
>Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
Nope, the kernel releases the mutex (if needed) as part of app cleanup.
Ian.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Stefan Paetow
>re: "Which goes to show that if the application is unfriendly, then it
>should not be a Windows programming error but an error by the
>applications programmer."
>
>from crashes caused by errors on the part of applications programmers.
>
>If Win95 pukes everytime a 16-bit 'unfriendly' app decides to die, then
>it's not a very well protected OS, is it?
>
>I believe that was the original posters point.
>
>Daniel
Right, right! Why did Microsoft give us such a shitty deal? They promised
us something better! But hey, there still is OS/2 Warp. At least it
conforms to IBM's promises (memory excl.)
Regards
..
Michael Hermann
|> In article <815737...@millennium.co.uk>, Scott Fordham
|> <sc...@millennium.co.uk> writes
|> >
|> >Windows95 may have a few problems but at least Microsoft are looking to
|> >backwards compatibility. Which is more than I can say about that company
|> >who make the other type of machine (you know, the one for secretaries !!)
|>
|> Like that one! :-)
Win95 isn't better at backwards compatibility than the other type you
don't want to mention.
Single application mode is a joke, if that is the only way for MS to
be backwards compatible, I can just as well stick with plain DOS
|> >And as for the critics who claim that the system resources are to high for
|> >running Windows95. Get real, I remember when 386 16sx PCs cost
|> >3,500 and you could run bugger all on them.
|>
|> Me too, so I bought a 286 for 1,500 quid (UKP) makes me shake just to
|> think what I could get for 3,500 now.
It is a matter of what else you could run at what speed. Win95 uses a
lot of resources but nowadays most things do. Still it is a little on
the high side for what it does.
|> > If your machine is not
|> >up to the job then get with the times and get a real PC. Get rid of the
|> >386 you purchased 3 years ago and spend some money. If you can't or won't
|> >spend the money then the answer is simple, Stick with your old OS and stop
|> >bloody moaning about things.
|>
|> Well said - I'm now running a 16meg P90, bloody fast when you look back.
|> Remember waiting 30 seconds for AmiPro to load ? Takes less than 3 now.
This is due to the HD and RAM, same thing would happen on a 468 or even 386
|> >I personally love Windows95, although I think that it could be improved
|> >but this would be at the cost of backward compatibility (which the sad
|> >sack live in the past people would shout about - Microsoft just can't win).
|>
|> It seems they can't, but of course they have - look at the figures, has
|> anything else sold so well recently ?
What else was hyped that much ? Given that it didn't exactly sell phenomenal
|> The OS is fine (for me), but the sooner the apps catch up the better.
As always, OTOH the old apps should work too. Given some reviews I've
seen, they actually are faster
-Mike
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: > This is completely untrue, although it seems a very popular claim among
: > the MS/Win95 bashers. Win95 does *not* "downshift" to CMT; it only
: > serializes access to the 16-bit system libraries. So for example, while
: > a 16-bit app is drawing a line inside GDI, 32-bit apps continue to run in
: > the background, preemptively scheduled. Only when they need to draw
: > something or otherwise use the GDI are they forced to wait. And they don't
: > wait until the 16-bit app returns control to the OS, as they would with CMT;
: > they only need to wait until the GDI code terminates.
:
: OK. Let's say you're right. 16 bit app takes control to run some GDI code.
: 16 bit app crashes and never returns control to the OS. Now you're 32 bit
: apps never get the GDI code they need so they can't complete the task.
:
: Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
No. Win95 traps the crash and wipes away the app, releasing the GDI
semaphore. This whole scenario is unlikely to begin with, given that you're
talking about the GDI itself crashing, which practically never happens.
The GDI checks parameters thoroughly and is in general a fairly mature
piece of code, although a bad display or printer driver running underneath it
may crash. In practice this never happens.
: Joe Ragosta
: jrag...@dca.net
Ian Ellison-Taylor
>ia...@microsoft.com (Ian Ellison-Taylor) writes:
> [...stuff...]
>>>Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
>
>
>
>If win95 is so secure. Howcome it's so easy to crash it?
I think we have our wires crossed. I made no claims about the
relative security of Win95 good or bad (YMMV). Somebody asked
what seemed like a perfectly reasonable question and I thought I
answered it in a totally flamebait-less way. I guess not.
Sigh.
Lloyd Parsons
>> Right, right! Why did Microsoft give us such a shitty deal? They promised
>> us something better! But hey, there still is OS/2 Warp. At least it
>> conforms to IBM's promises (memory excl.)
>Did Microsoft or the press? Seems that the press hyped Windows 95 up
>quite a bit over Microsoft. Microsoft delivered on their promise of a
>protected os. Windows 95 is better protected when compared with Windows
>3.x. The level of protection provided is what is debatable. After using
>Windows 95 for a while now, I'm quite pleased with its level of memory
>protection. I no longer need to reboot my PC for unknown reasons every
>hour like I did with Windows 3.x. Of course, I'm going to place Windows
>NT onto a partition of my new P5-133 to do code development on. If I had
>a choice, I would make the entire system NT, but I must remain backward
>compatible for the time being (which means WFW 3.11).
>Windows 95 isn't the best by far, but it is a giant step ahead of Windows
>3.x in terms of crash resistance.
>Josh
Microsoft AND the press overhyped the product. MS even admitted to
that just before the release.
As to delivering what was promised, MS missed by a mile. What we got
was an incremental upgrade to Win3.1x, what was promised was an
all-new, from the ground up, 32-bit OS.
As an incremental upgrade W95 is excellent, as all-new, not even
close.
// Lloyd Parsons
// Herrin, IL
// lpar...@midwest.net
//
Steve Shattuck
j>code. 16 bit app crashes and never returns control to the OS. Now
j>you're 32 bit apps never get the GDI code they need so they can't
j>complete the task.
j>Sounds like the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
A simple matter of [alt][ctrl][del], flush the 16-bit app, and back in
business. You OS/2 guys love to make mountains out of mole hills. Go
back to formatting your floppy disks and leave us alone in the Windows
areas.
赏突
韧突teve shat...@execpc.com via Windows 95
韧图
CMPQwk 1.42 #329
... The truth is more important than the facts.
Bernd Backhaus
> In article <5xOu3...@bbbo.dortmund.netsurf.de>,
> b.bac...@dortmund.netsurf.de wrote:
> >No, it doesn't. At least not for the first two hard discs. If you have
> >an adapter with a BIOS on it thatis, like the 152x/154x. Plug in
> >Adapter,
> So, the driver is on the BIOS. You STILL need some software routines
> that know how to talk to the SCSI adapter. As far as I knew, that was
> the definition of a driver. Maybe I am wrong.
If yu want to see it that way, you're right. Then of course _everything_ needs
a driver to run, be it in the kernel, a module or whatever. The original
article though suggested that DOS in contrast to MacOS would needa separate
driver you'd have to install. Which is not true for most modern adapters which
emulate a WD interface which is accessed by the DOS system driver.
Tom Pritchard
DA> pretty
DA> bulletproof. Of course you can crash Unix pretty easily if
The best OS I have seen is CMS or MVS/JCL on IBM mainframes. I have run CMS
for a long time, and it has not crashed very much. Most often, it is the user
who runs out of patience for the system to recover. MVS is supposed to be much
better. ttyl
Anastassios Retzios
>>If Win95 pukes everytime a 16-bit 'unfriendly' app decides to die, then
>>it's not a very well protected OS, is it?
>>
>>I believe that was the original posters point.
>>
>>Daniel
>Right, right! Why did Microsoft give us such a shitty deal? They promised
>us something better! But hey, there still is OS/2 Warp. At least it
>conforms to IBM's promises (memory excl.)
If Win95 was a fully protected OS, users would be crying foul that it
was not very compatible. Actually, using Win95 both on nets and as
stand alone, I am more than surprised that with the architectural
compromises to ensure compatibility, this OS is remarkably stable.
One can construe hundreds of scenarios and little lines of code that
crash an OS -and it can be done to OS/2 as well- but stability in
"real life" is where it counts. And in actual heavy use, Win95 is
performing very well -at least for me.
Win95 will only grow more stable as the MS experience increases, as
16-bit and MS-DOS apps fade away, and as the end to maintain
compatibility diminishes. My belief is that within a year Win95 will
be the client OS of choice even for people who think that going to NT
workstation makes great sence.
Anastassios Retzios
>Did Microsoft or the press? Seems that the press hyped Windows 95 up
>quite a bit over Microsoft. Microsoft delivered on their promise of a
>protected os. Windows 95 is better protected when compared with Windows
>3.x. The level of protection provided is what is debatable. After using
>Windows 95 for a while now, I'm quite pleased with its level of memory
>protection. I no longer need to reboot my PC for unknown reasons every
>hour like I did with Windows 3.x. Of course, I'm going to place Windows
>NT onto a partition of my new P5-133 to do code development on. If I had
>a choice, I would make the entire system NT, but I must remain backward
>compatible for the time being (which means WFW 3.11).
>Windows 95 isn't the best by far, but it is a giant step ahead of Windows
>3.x in terms of crash resistance.
Your experience mirrors mine. I expected Win95 to be more crash-prone
than it actually is. This was more than a pleasant surprise. I
believe too much was made of small code programs which will attempt to
crash OSs. You can construct these destructive lines of code for any
OS, but real life use is what it counts.
Actually, Win95 got really bad press from the weekly mags -PC Week and
Infoworld- because Microsoft domination threatens the weekly mags
revenue source, ads. A lot of articles were really biased. So, among
those who follow the computer press, there was apprehension about
Win95 which was quite unwarranted. This OS installs very well and it
is much more stable even on heavy-use networks -where most of my
experience is-.
Joshua T. McKee
: close.
I agree with this...if you want "all-new" look at Windows NT.
Josh
Rich Graves
(Anastassios Retzios) wrote:
> Actually, Win95 got really bad press from the weekly mags -PC Week and
> Infoworld- because Microsoft domination threatens the weekly mags
> revenue source, ads. A lot of articles were really biased. So, among
> those who follow the computer press, there was apprehension about
> Win95 which was quite unwarranted. This OS installs very well and it
> is much more stable even on heavy-use networks -where most of my
> experience is-.
Name two. I can name a dozen large networks that have banned Win95 because
of all the problems it brings. A half dozen with publicly posted policies
discouraging users from installing Win95 are on my Web pages. Microsoft
removed the "Fortune 1000 Companies Moving to Windows 95" press release
from their Web server because the fact is, they aren't.
Please move followups to advocacy where I won't see them.
--
rich
llu...@networking.stanford.edu
moderator of the win95netbugs list
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html
Hoodoznik
access the same hard drive before driver is loaded?
David "The Great One" Digger"
MADD
T. McKee) wrote:
->: As an incremental upgrade W95 is excellent, as all-new, not even
->: close.
->
->
->I agree with this...if you want "all-new" look at Windows NT.
->
->Josh
Windows NT will run on the next generation Power macs using the CHRP
platform jointly developed by IBM, Moto, and Apple.
Ian Littlewood
>for Win95?
Because Win NT is incompatible with many DOS apps; that, of course, is
why Microsoft introduced Win95; so that as MS-DOS applications are no
longer produced (as Microsoft and, I believe it was, Electronic Arts,
have stated they will no longer do), more and more Windows apps will
be produced with the theory being that 32 bit apps will become the
norm; that way, when the REAL "new O/S" is released; basically, based
around NT, then people will already be using software that they will
be able to transfer over to the new systems; it also allows them that
buffer period where people's hardware will catch up; in 5 years, how
many people will still be using 386's? Most will have 486 and Pentium
systems, so the new OS will run no problem on even legacy hardware.
Reaper
...gotta get in on this w/ a coupla points against mac...
Apple is so screwy they haven't yet included ANY shadowing.
For a platform in which the CPU spends 75% of its time running ROM
toolbox routines, you'd think they'd have the sense to put in shadow RAM!!!!!
I can't figure out if they are stupid, cheap or both? Or maybe I'm TOTALLY
missing something? ...
I love my mac, and win's latest attempt at
imitation flatters the mac os' appeal, but holy smoke IMAGINE the speed
improvement that something as lowly even as putting JUST THE JUMP TABLE
ROUTINE in shadow RAM would make! That way the whole 4M ROM could stay
mostly in ROM, with only the most frequently hit portions being shadowed
to RAM.
Copeland needs to address a few more minor things too, I'm sure. For
instance, the event queue needs to be polled per app, not just by the
fore app. The disk cache, as the "write thru" extension has proved, is
often BETTER LEFT TOTALLY SHUT OFF. But these are minor things.
I suspect that once Apple's copeland comes out there will be plenty more
things for MS to imitate. I just hope Apple is smart enough to learn
what IBM proved over a decade ago: shadow RAM works wonders for speed.
tr
--
[] The Reaper / One of The Chosen
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>Why keep windows 95 when windows NT is able to run all new applications
>for Win95?
=========
Except for programs that use the new UI, and those that use VXD's, and those
sniggly games that directly access system hardware, and if you don't need
backward compatibility, feel the Win 3.1 interface is great, and have at least 24
megs of RAM in a Pentium, then NT is for you.
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Kendall
95 up
> ->>quite a bit over Microsoft. Microsoft delivered on their
promise of a
> ->>protected os. Windows 95 is better protected when compared with
Windows
> ->>3.x. The level of protection provided is what is debatable.
After using
> ->>Windows 95 for a while now, I'm quite pleased with its level of
memory
> ->>protection. I no longer need to reboot my PC for unknown
reasons every
> ->>hour like I did with Windows 3.x. Of course, I'm going to place
Windows
> ->>NT onto a partition of my new P5-133 to do code development on.
If I had
> ->>a choice, I would make the entire system NT, but I must remain
backward
> ->>compatible for the time being (which means WFW 3.11).
> ->
> ->>Windows 95 isn't the best by far, but it is a giant step ahead
of Windows
> ->>3.x in terms of crash resistance.
>
> Why keep windows 95 when windows NT is able to run all new
applications
> for Win95?
Because of legacy apps and hardware (or is this not obvious)??
Matt Maurano
Win95 boot up space: can be squeezed on a cd
MacOS 800k floppy (<7.1.x) 1.44M (>7.5)
My wintel machine crashes more in five minutes than my sparc crashes
in two years, and more than my mac crashes in a day.
(it crashes once, i do a hard reboot, I get some work done, it
crashes...)
ken wilson
>
>How can an OS load a driver from hard drive if according to you it can't
>access the same hard drive before driver is loaded?
I'll but in here OBVIOUSLY it would load the drivers from the UNCOMPRESSED
space on the host drive so it can access the compressed drive.!!!! :}
send $10.00 for this reply to k...@pacifier.com
--
. |\/\/\/|
. | |
. | 0 0)
. C _)
. | ,___|
. | /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Pacifier Online Data Service Dialup SLIP/PPP User
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Jeffrey R. Broido
>For a platform in which the CPU spends 75% of its time running ROM
>toolbox routines, you'd think they'd have the sense to put in shadow RAM!!!!! ...
Of course, shadowing only makes sense if the ratio of the speed of ROM to RAM is
very low. If ROM access benefits from cacheing and has a high raw speed as well,
which is quite possible if fast ROM chips are used, there's no benefit at all to
shadowing.
IBM compatibles don't have anything like 4Mb of ROM routines. Aside from the
long obsolete ROM Basic, what's optionally shadowed is the small bios module on
the video adapter and part of ths system bios, in ROM in the first place so it
can be used during the boot-up process.
We then must consider why Macs have 4Mb of ROM. Is it to make the initial system
load fast? Is it to discourage imatation Macs (the most likely explanation, I
think)? Is it to save system RAM for more dynamic use? In any case, do you
happen to know the ROM speed on a typical Mac as compared to RAM speed? If it's
even close, I can see no reason to shadow. If the ROM speed is much slower,
rather than shadow I'd think that it would make sense to do away with most of
the ROM and simply load most of the kernel from the hard disk.
The jump table, however, is another issue. It makes sense that if the routines
are in ROM that the jump table would be, too, and it also makes a lot of sense
to shadow that, I think, again assuming that the ROM speed is relatively slow.
What do you think? Am I missing something?
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey R. Broido "No Statements Flagged
Morristown, NJ in this Assembly."
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>Ah, but then all those programs you excluded from running on NT will never be
>certified by MS as win95 programs. You can only put the label MS certified
>win95 app on your app if it runs on NT as well (that is, the same executable).
>I suggest you at least try to think about MS marketing strategy before you make
>such pointless remarks.
===============
As I said, if you want to go all Win 32 fine, but the rest of us have backward
legacy applications to deal with. Similarly, who decreed that all Win 32
applications were going to receive the MS seal of approval?
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Koen D'Hondt
>In <m.duran-1411...@port28.codetel.net.do>, m.d...@mail.codetel.net.do (MADD) writes:
>
>>for Win95?
>
>Except for programs that use the new UI, and those that use VXD's, and those
>sniggly games that directly access system hardware, and if you don't need
>backward compatibility, feel the Win 3.1 interface is great, and have at least 24
>megs of RAM in a Pentium, then NT is for you.
>
certified by MS as win95 programs. You can only put the label MS certified
win95 app on your app if it runs on NT as well (that is, the same executable).
I suggest you at least try to think about MS marketing strategy before you make
such pointless remarks.
Greets,
Koen.
Jim Conner
>certified by MS as win95 programs. You can only put the label MS certified
>win95 app on your app if it runs on NT as well (that is, the same executable).
What is all this "certification" bullshit? Is this company, which appears
incapable of releasing anything but mediocre software, demanding that
developers live up to some Microsoft-defined "standard"? Give me a
break. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but maybe someone can explain to me this
"certification" system in a way that won't make my blood boil....
Jim Conner
jc...@cornell.edu
Kelly R. Denehy
>
>In article <48d11d$n...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, <ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>In <m.duran-1411...@port28.codetel.net.do>,
m.d...@mail.codetel.net.do (MADD) writes:
>>
>>>Why keep windows 95 when windows NT is able to run all new applications
>>>for Win95?
>>=========
>>
>>Except for programs that use the new UI, and those that use VXD's, and those
>>sniggly games that directly access system hardware, and if you don't need
>>backward compatibility, feel the Win 3.1 interface is great, and have at least
24
>>megs of RAM in a Pentium, then NT is for you.
>>
>certified by MS as win95 programs. You can only put the label MS certified
>win95 app on your app if it runs on NT as well (that is, the same executable).
>such pointless remarks.
>
>Greets,
>Koen.
I suggest you at least try to do some research before you make such pointless
remarks. Microsoft DOES certify Win95 programs if they utilize a feature of
Win95 that NT doesn't support (this has become a great loophole for developers
to get around that requirement).
Kelly R. Denehy
Al Rudderham
>>Ah, but then all those programs you excluded from running on NT will never be
>>certified by MS as win95 programs. You can only put the label MS certified
>>win95 app on your app if it runs on NT as well (that is, the same executable).
>
>What is all this "certification" bullshit? Is this company, which appears
>incapable of releasing anything but mediocre software, demanding that
>developers live up to some Microsoft-defined "standard"? Give me a
>break. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but maybe someone can explain to me this
>"certification" system in a way that won't make my blood boil....
>
>Jim Conner
>jc...@cornell.edu
The original post isn't exactly correct, but he has the right idea.
The "certification" is the "Designed for Windows 95" logo campaign.
In order to be allowed to use that logo (which is trademarked) on the
package and in advertising the software has to conform to certain
rules. Compatibility with NT 3.51 (with a bunch of exceptions) is one
of the rules.
Don't know if that makes your blood boil or not. Seems to me that if
there weren't rules specifying what the logo meant, it wouldn't have
any meaning at all...
Omnitech Employee
bjor...@sofus.hiof.no (Bjorn Anders Jorgensen) reported...
>>Compatibility with NT 3.51 (with a bunch of exceptions) is one
>>of the rules.
>What kind of exceptions are they talking about ?
>Are theese "rules" public available ?
If you use Win95 features that do not exist on NT due to architecture
differences (like VxDs - a feature? -, DirectDraw, etc).
Omnitech Employee
Rogier...@inter.nl.net (TheRoge) reported...
>I think it's a good thing
>that MS has introduced this 'Logo-program', because you can be sure
>you are buying a real Win32 application, and not some 16bit program
>that doesn't support long-filenames etc., while the package never
>mentions this ('Runs under Win95' doesn't say very much, since most
>Win16 programs do).
Not just that, but the certification also forces the software to have
an uninstallation feature. Something all applications should've
started doing years ago!
TheRoge
>What is all this "certification" bullshit? Is this company, which appears
>incapable of releasing anything but mediocre software, demanding that
>developers live up to some Microsoft-defined "standard"? Give me a
>break. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but maybe someone can explain to me this
>"certification" system in a way that won't make my blood boil....
It's not a demand in that sense. See it as a seal that signals to the
consumer that they buy an application that is really 32bit, uses
long-filenames, uses several specific Win95 GUI-functions etc.
A developer is not obligated to have his app(s) approved, but it can
help with sales of his product of course. I think it's a good thing
that MS has introduced this 'Logo-program', because you can be sure
you are buying a real Win32 application, and not some 16bit program
that doesn't support long-filenames etc., while the package never
mentions this ('Runs under Win95' doesn't say very much, since most
Win16 programs do). It's better for the end-user.
Eddie
Hmmmm.....
Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
This baby has not crashed on me once since the install.
You guys have "something configured wrong"
Are you loading old 16 bit drivers?
or is this a general bitch and moan thing?
The Baggman
gone in about 2 years. The idea is shelve 16-bit software, and
go to Windows NT. This 32-bit O/S is backward compatible to
ease the market, and the user, into it.
Jeff Pitsch
Actually it's 4-5 years '95 will be shelved, if it's shelved at all.
There are a number of reasons it's good to keep around especially since
Microsoft seems to forget that RAM is still extremely expensive.
Getting users to buy the amount of RAM that is required to run NT is
not going to be easy. Besides, NT needs to be configured more for home
use anyway if people are going to buy it. That's the other thing wrong
with NT....why spend $300.00 on an operating system when you could go
out and for $100.00 buy an OS. Users aren't going to do it.
There is one other thing I'd like to say here..I'm getting sick of
people slamming on Win '95 and saying how much better NT is. Well,
people how much time has it taken Microsoft to get NT to be as good as
it is? NT 3.1 was not a good product. Give Win '95 some time and I
think it will come around as a good OS, if for nothing else, it will be
good for home users.
Jeff Pitsch
Kevin Davis
>m...@maurano.com (Matt Maurano) wrote:
I think your answer is in the statement that it requires a CD for a
Win95 Boot disk.
Rick M.
>This from a guy who absolutely HATED the old windows.
>
>Tom
>
I installed Win95 on my Gateway P5-90 and haven't had a single hang
since. I'm kinda of wondering if the folks that are having problems
with Win95 are really having BIOS version problems.
Just a thought.
rick
Thomas Randall
: m...@maurano.com (Matt Maurano) wrote:
: >This isn't a very hard question to answer:
: >Win95 boot up space: can be squeezed on a cd
: >MacOS 800k floppy (<7.1.x) 1.44M (>7.5)
: >My wintel machine crashes more in five minutes than my sparc crashes
: >in two years, and more than my mac crashes in a day.
: >(it crashes once, i do a hard reboot, I get some work done, it
: >crashes...)
: Hmmmm.....
:
: Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
: This baby has not crashed on me once since the install.
: You guys have "something configured wrong"
: Are you loading old 16 bit drivers?
: or is this a general bitch and moan thing?
I haven't had one crash yet either. The program is awesome so far!
Joshua T. McKee
: > I haven't had one crash yet either. The program is awesome so far!
: >This from a guy who absolutely HATED the old windows.
: >
: >Tom
: >
: I installed Win95 on my Gateway P5-90 and haven't had a single hang
: since. I'm kinda of wondering if the folks that are having problems
: with Win95 are really having BIOS version problems.
I think that most of the people complaining about Windows 95's stability
haven't actually used it, or they're comparing it to OS/2, NT and UNIX.
It might not be as stable as those 3 os's, but it is a hell of an
improvement over Windows 3.x. You can actually use it to get things
accomplished with some confidence that the system wont up and die on you
for no reason.
Josh
Mike O'Connell
> m...@maurano.com (Matt Maurano) wrote:
>
> >This isn't a very hard question to answer:
> >Win95 boot up space: can be squeezed on a cd
> >MacOS 800k floppy (<7.1.x) 1.44M (>7.5)
> >My wintel machine crashes more in five minutes than my sparc crashes
> >in two years, and more than my mac crashes in a day.
>
> >(it crashes once, i do a hard reboot, I get some work done, it
> >crashes...)
>
> Hmmmm.....
>
> Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
But wait... since Windows '95 is Plug and Play, how could it configure
itself wrong? (Sorry, the sarcasm couldn't be stopped)
> This baby has not crashed on me once since the install.
Count yourself lucky, not as the norm. I run a installation of around 30
systems and every last one of them has needed, at least on a weekly basis,
some form of work. At least 5 systems have had their hard disks corrupted
to such an extent that data recovery wasn't possible.
> You guys have "something configured wrong"
>
> Are you loading old 16 bit drivers?
I know this may come as a complete shock to you, but not every piece of
hardware on the market has 32-bit drivers! Upgrading sometimes isn't a
possibility... and then you have to depend on Win '95s much-hyped
"backwards compatibility." Unfortunately the badly hidden secret is that
it's compatibilty is, and never was, ready for prime time (Hence snide
comments like your own).
> or is this a general bitch and moan thing?
Nah... although I think anyone can bitch once they've been forced to wait
45 minutes on a long-distance technical support call.
Ralph Goers
t.nb.ca> <49gtqk$7...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> - jpi...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Pitsch ) writes:
:>
:>
:>There is one other thing I'd like to say here..I'm getting sick of
:>people slamming on Win '95 and saying how much better NT is. Well,
:>people how much time has it taken Microsoft to get NT to be as good as
:>it is? NT 3.1 was not a good product. Give Win '95 some time and I
:>think it will come around as a good OS, if for nothing else, it will be
:>good for home users.
Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with that NT
code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty much the
same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
Ralph
Federico Berrino
>Ralph
..Moreover if one can see the point in buying a far better
architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
is Win95 faster than WfW 3.11 ? No as any test proves and nor with 32
bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
Why?
Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
operating system. That's why.
Actually I cannot believe that even experienced user have fallen in
the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
Steve Shattuck
o>itself wrong? (Sorry, the sarcasm couldn't be stopped)
Not on machine that are not completely Plug n Play compatible, but
anyone that really knew Windows 95 would have known that.
> This baby has not crashed on me once since the install.
o>Count yourself lucky, not as the norm. I run a installation of around
o>30 systems and every last one of them has needed, at least on a weekly
o>basis, some form of work. At least 5 systems have had their hard disks
o>corrupted to such an extent that data recovery wasn't possible.
Not surprising. We have 800 Windows 95 machines and are converting
about 200-300 per month. We have maybe 5% of those that have had crash
problems, but then we know how to install and set it up. Given your
obvious lack of knowledge, I'm surprised you can get anything to work.
o>I know this may come as a complete shock to you, but not every piece
o>of hardware on the market has 32-bit drivers! Upgrading sometimes
o>isn't a possibility... and then you have to depend on Win '95s
o>much-hyped "backwards compatibility." Unfortunately the badly hidden
o>secret is that it's compatibilty is, and never was, ready for prime
o>time (Hence snide comments like your own).
Given that you SPAMMED this message everywhere in the world, I guess
there is an agenda here that goes far beyond helping.
o>> or is this a general bitch and moan thing?
Your the one bitching and moaning. Incompetence is the likely cause.
o>Nah... although I think anyone can bitch once they've been forced to
o>wait 45 minutes on a long-distance technical support call.
Not surprising, probably dialed a wrong number given the tone of your
previous BS. My only question is are your a TEAMER or a MAC FREAK? You
clearly don't run Windows 95.
赏突
韧突teve shat...@execpc.com via Windows 95
韧图
CMPQwk 1.42 #329
... Compassion is NOT a substitute for Justice.
James P. Klett
ocon...@icomsim.com (Mike O'Connell) wrote:
>Xref: news5.cis.umn.edu comp.sys.mac.advocacy:84691
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:115315 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:91512
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc:54348 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc:94875
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:5561
>Path:
umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.ma
thworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.
com!ix-pal-il2-06.ix.netcom.com!user
>From: ocon...@icomsim.com (Mike O'Connell)
>Newsgroups:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp
os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.adv
ocacy
>Subject: Re: Windows 95 sucks? In what way?
>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 1995 00:15:52 -0500
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 42
>Message-ID: <oconnelm-031...@ix-pal-il2-06.ix.netcom.com>
>References: <changi0.9m.27ZMcq$0...@giga.gw.umn.edu>
<48am5h$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <48dt24$s...@shellx.best.com>
<49hsl4$g...@news1.panix.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-pal-il2-19.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Dec 02 9:14:50 PM PST 1995
>X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.1.1
>Status: N
>
>In article <49hsl4$g...@news1.panix.com>, Eddie wrote:
>
>> m...@maurano.com (Matt Maurano) wrote:
>>
>> >This isn't a very hard question to answer:
>> >Win95 boot up space: can be squeezed on a cd
>> >MacOS 800k floppy (<7.1.x) 1.44M (>7.5)
>> >My wintel machine crashes more in five minutes than my sparc crashes
>> >in two years, and more than my mac crashes in a day.
>>
>> >(it crashes once, i do a hard reboot, I get some work done, it
>> >crashes...)
>>
THEY BOTH SUCK!!!
I could go on and on with the why's, but if you honestly can't
figure them out, then It's not worth the time
JIM
___
___....-----'---'-----....___
=========================================
___'---..._______...---'___
(___) _|_|_|_ (___)
\\____.-'_.---._'-.____// klet...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Anastassios Retzios
>> Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
>But wait... since Windows '95 is Plug and Play, how could it configure
>itself wrong? (Sorry, the sarcasm couldn't be stopped)
Just one question: why would a Mac user spent time in a Windows
advocacy newsgroup? Don't you have anything better to do.
Second: Win95 PnP works fine with PnP peripherals: 3 elements are
required for full PnP compliance: a PnP OS, a PnP BIOS and a PnP
peripheral. Motherboards with PnP BIOS have been commonplace for at
least a year, Win95 is PnP capable, but very few peripherals are PnP
certified. Although Win95 contains information on a number of "legacy
peripherals", this is by no means exhaustive and it may fail to work
properly in an old machine with a non-PnP BIOS. Therefore, whatever
configuration failures exist, are not a direct result of improper
working by Win95
>> This baby has not crashed on me once since the install.
>Count yourself lucky, not as the norm. I run a installation of around 30
>systems and every last one of them has needed, at least on a weekly basis,
>some form of work. At least 5 systems have had their hard disks corrupted
>to such an extent that data recovery wasn't possible.
From a installation of 10 time that size and having no problems I
suggest that you get yourself fired so that your company can hire
someone capable enough to run this limited setup.
>> You guys have "something configured wrong"
>>
>> Are you loading old 16 bit drivers?
>I know this may come as a complete shock to you, but not every piece of
>hardware on the market has 32-bit drivers! Upgrading sometimes isn't a
>possibility... and then you have to depend on Win '95s much-hyped
>"backwards compatibility." Unfortunately the badly hidden secret is that
>it's compatibilty is, and never was, ready for prime time (Hence snide
>comments like your own).
This "backwards compatibility" is much better than of any other 32-bit
OS and it works fine for all major software and hardware products. If
your site depends on a Win95 hater to get their problems sorted out,
they are in for a surprise. Maybe you should suggest that they scrap
the whole lot and replace it with dead-end Macs, right?
>> or is this a general bitch and moan thing?
>Nah... although I think anyone can bitch once they've been forced to wait
>45 minutes on a long-distance technical support call.
An occurence unknown outside the Windows world, I suppose!!!
Anastassios Retzios
>..Moreover if one can see the point in buying a far better
>architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
>I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
>is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
>decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
I wonder what kind of experience on Win95 you have. Obviously, not
much. Actually, on any 486 with 8 Mb of RAM, Win95 is faster than
Winfwg 3.11.
>is Win95 faster than WfW 3.11 ? No as any test proves and nor with 32
>bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
Again, either you are in the moon, or you are not paying attention to
the benchmarking results published in a variety of periodicals.
>is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
If one removes the need for backward compatibility, there is no reason
why Win95 will not be as stable as NT. These two OSs address
different needs and as long as a need for very good backwards
compatibility remains, Win95 will have a major role to play. I am not
convinced the in the client, Win NT workstation is always the best
solution. Those who run Win95 and have experience on day to day
operations know that this OS is quite stable. It is the outsiders who
speculate away on the basis of press comments.
>is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
>Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
>Why?
>Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
>operating system. That's why.
One of the great myths keeps on going. As Win95 can run Win32
software -even faster than WinNT-, I wonder what makes it DOS based?
The fact that DOS programs are supported? The fact that some of the
GDI is 16-bit based? These apply to OS/2 as well but none would call
OS/2 DOS-based but nutheads who only intend to prove their point
independent of the truth.
>Actually I cannot believe that even experienced user have fallen in
>the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
>return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
>other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
Well, it is nice that you do not believe the hype. Now, stay in your
corner and let the world go by.
Anastassios Retzios
>The real reason is that this "hrbrid" of a wanna-be O/S will be
>gone in about 2 years. The idea is shelve 16-bit software, and
>go to Windows NT. This 32-bit O/S is backward compatible to
>ease the market, and the user, into it.
I disagree. Not because I do not like NT, quite the contrary. Win95
will evolve into WinNT lite and it will eventually prove more
appropriate as a general client that NT workstation. NT workstation
includes tremendous amount of code that the average client does not
need. Where security is paramount, only NT workstation will do but
this is not generally the case.
Tony Chow
>
> rg...@rgoer.candle.com (Ralph Goers) wrote:
>
> >In message <49evdv$k...@altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net> <49fssi$14...@darwin.nbne
> >t.nb.ca> <49gtqk$7...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> - jpi...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Pitsch ) writes:
> >:>
> >:>
> >:>There is one other thing I'd like to say here..I'm getting sick of
> >:>people slamming on Win '95 and saying how much better NT is. Well,
> >:>people how much time has it taken Microsoft to get NT to be as good as
> >:>it is? NT 3.1 was not a good product. Give Win '95 some time and I
> >:>think it will come around as a good OS, if for nothing else, it will be
> >:>good for home users.
> >:>
>
> >Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with that NT
> >code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty much the
> >same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
>
> >Ralph
>
> architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
> I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
> is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
> decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
>
> bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
>
>
> Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
>
> Why?
>
> Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
> operating system. That's why.
>
> the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
> return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
> other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
People who plan to stick with Win3.x on a Pentium must be out of their
minds. Windows 95 is NOT NT, but it's light years ahead of 3.x. It
brings preemptive multitasking to systems with limited amount of RAM, as
well as better multimedia support and ease of use. It is a very
reasonable upgrade for the masses. Your purist centiment simply doesn't
apply to the experience of most end-users
Jacob Waltz
>head...@mutinanet.shiny.it (Federico Berrino) wrote:
>>..Moreover if one can see the point in buying a far better
>>architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
>>I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
>>is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
>>decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
>
>much. Actually, on any 486 with 8 Mb of RAM, Win95 is faster than
>Winfwg 3.11.
>
Interesting that you say this, because I recently ran across a comparison of
Winfwg 3.11 vs Win95 on a pentium machine ... i think it was in the latest
Comupter Shopper, but I'm not sure. Anyhow, the benchmarks they did
showed that, on the system they used, Win95 was, at best, roughly equal to
Winfwg 3.11, and their recommendation was something like "If you do upgrade,
don't do it for speed" . Of course, the problem with this is that Win95
really should have more memory than Winfwg3.11 ... I wish I would have
remembered more about the article ... hell , why don't I just pull it up!
Okay, here are some quotes, straight from
http://www.zdnet.com/~cshopper/content/9512/feature1/sub1.html
The major article is about 120 MHz Pentiums, all with 16 MB RAM. Systems
from Micron, Dell, Gateway, and Compaq, to name a few. I should also point out
that the speed decreases were related to the use of 16-bit apps under Win95,
not the 32-bit stuff (which is undoubtedly faster). ANyhow, to get to the
point:
"However, Windows 95 runs those apps much slower than Windows For
Workgroups..."
"...Windows 95 transformed these 120MHz Pentium systems into the functional
equivalent of 90MHz Pentium machines."
And the final statement,
"...you still may find plenty of your own reasons to upgrade to Windows 95.
Just make sure it's not for speed."
ciao,
--
jacob waltz "As a matter of fact,
los alamos national laboratory I am a rocket scientist."
wa...@pcjiw.lampf.lanl.gov
Jeff Pitsch
>>:>There is one other thing I'd like to say here..I'm getting sick of
>>:>people slamming on Win '95 and saying how much better NT is. Well,
>>:>people how much time has it taken Microsoft to get NT to be as good
as
>>:>it is? NT 3.1 was not a good product. Give Win '95 some time and
I
>>:>think it will come around as a good OS, if for nothing else, it
will be
>>:>good for home users.
>>:>
>
>>Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with
that NT
>>code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty
much the
>>same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
>
>>Ralph
>
>
>bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
>
>is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
>
>is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
>Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
>
>the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
>return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
>other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
>
spend the amount of money it would take to run NT then you've fallen
into that Microsoft trap as well. Win95 is a much better product than
3.11 and it has far better backwards compatibility than NT does. If
you think there is no call for backwards compatibility than your
absolutely wrong. RAM prices will have to drop $20-$30 per meg before
normal home users and corporations will be moving to NT, because
otherwise it it just to much of an expense to move that way. In the
meantime, they can get a much more stable system that will run most it
not all their apps for about $100 a workstation.
Jack Love
>
>In article <49rqiq$s...@phobos.candle.com>,
>Ralph Goers <rg...@rgoer.candle.com> wrote:
>>
>>Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with that NT
>>code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty much
the
>>same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
>>
>
>wasn't backwards compatible to everyone's old hardware with
>dos drivers and old apps. Win95 is a necessary marketing move
>to get an installed base so the application writers are forced
^^^^^^
not quite right: have the opportunity to write to 32 bit (if they
have a brain in their head) is more so. Microsoft forcing people
to do things is such a chant around here
>to write 32bit versions of everything instead of continuing
>the cycle.
>
>Les Mikesell
> l...@mcs.com
kevin eugene scruggs
>ocon...@icomsim.com (Mike O'Connell) wrote:
|
||| Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
|
||But wait... since Windows '95 is Plug and Play, how could it configure
||itself wrong? (Sorry, the sarcasm couldn't be stopped)
|
|Just one question: why would a Mac user spent time in a Windows
|advocacy newsgroup? Don't you have anything better to do.
|
|Second: Win95 PnP works fine with PnP peripherals: 3 elements are
|required for full PnP compliance: a PnP OS, a PnP BIOS and a PnP
|peripheral. Motherboards with PnP BIOS have been commonplace for at
...specially iffn you need new apps to take advantage of the
enviroment...
Too bad most of the public has been suckered into believing that
this isnt so.
|
|This "backwards compatibility" is much better than of any other 32-bit
|OS and it works fine for all major software and hardware products. If
|your site depends on a Win95 hater to get their problems sorted out,
|they are in for a surprise. Maybe you should suggest that they scrap
|the whole lot and replace it with dead-end Macs, right?
When it hurls at a sound blaster, one begins wonder...
--
||| Windoze 95: Been there, done that, RETURNED IT...
/ | \
kevin eugene scruggs
|head...@mutinanet.shiny.it (Federico Berrino) wrote:
||..Moreover if one can see the point in buying a far better
||architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
||I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
||is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
||decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
|
|I wonder what kind of experience on Win95 you have. Obviously, not
|much. Actually, on any 486 with 8 Mb of RAM, Win95 is faster than
|Winfwg 3.11.
In terms of performance, those arent significantly different.
|
||is Win95 faster than WfW 3.11 ? No as any test proves and nor with 32
||bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
|
|Again, either you are in the moon, or you are not paying attention to
|the benchmarking results published in a variety of periodicals.
Some of aren't naive enough to trust a media benchmark.
|
||is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
|
|If one removes the need for backward compatibility, there is no reason
|why Win95 will not be as stable as NT. These two OSs address
Actually, I have found backwards compatibility to be better
under NT. One notable example is msvc++ 1.52. NT will run it
fine, 95 wont & dual boot feature in NT is much nicer if one
needs to deal with legacy dos apps that wont run in a v86,
|different needs and as long as a need for very good backwards
|compatibility remains, Win95 will have a major role to play. I am not
|convinced the in the client, Win NT workstation is always the best
|solution. Those who run Win95 and have experience on day to day
|operations know that this OS is quite stable. It is the outsiders who
Just so long as it doesn't hide any of your hardware or
suddenly decide that it has found some new ones...
|speculate away on the basis of press comments.
|
||is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
||Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
|
||Why?
|
||Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
||operating system. That's why.
|
|One of the great myths keeps on going. As Win95 can run Win32
|software -even faster than WinNT-, I wonder what makes it DOS based?
Not in my EXPERIENCE, and I run/have had run both.
John Bontempi
[snip]
>is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
true
>is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
>Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
Sort of....
M/S have declared ( about 2 months ago) that there will be NO
convergence between 95 and NT. So you could say ( in a roundabout way)
that 95 is a new architecture base for apps.
>Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
>operating system. That's why.
Right and wrong. 95 is DOS based (to an extent) - no question about
it. NT is NOT a brand new OS. It has been around for 2-3 years already.
The improvements are new, the system is not..
>Actually I cannot believe that even experienced user have fallen in
>the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
>return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
>other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
Well, I cannot agree with you there. I am reasonably experienced, and I
don't beleive in hype ( from any source). I have migrated from 3.11 to
95. I also have NT 3.51 installed on my machine. I routinely make
comparisons and cross checks between the two O/S's.
I agree that 95 is not faster than 3.11 ( though it certainly appears so
on my system), but I find it to be more stable than 3.11. Maybe I am
just very lucky, but the apps that are in use are very intensive on
memory, os and hdd..
NT is much much better, but not yet "there" ( if you understand what I
mean). When it will look and act ( within the limits ) like 95 - then
will I have the ideal OS.
In the meantime........... 95 is here - warts and all.
Just my 2c worth.........
Ciao for now
>>>>> John
****************************************
Internet: ita...@iafrica.com
FidoNet : 5:7102/113
Cape Town..... South Africa
USR 28.8 & WIN 95
****************************************
Leslie Mikesell
Ralph Goers <rg...@rgoer.candle.com> wrote:
>
>Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with that NT
>code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty much the
>same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
>
Sure but they already tried that and nobody bought it because it
wasn't backwards compatible to everyone's old hardware with
dos drivers and old apps. Win95 is a necessary marketing move
to get an installed base so the application writers are forced
Keith Barnes
AR>software -even faster than WinNT-, I wonder what makes it DOS based?
AR>The fact that DOS programs are supported? The fact that some of the
AR>GDI is 16-bit based? These apply to OS/2 as well but none would call
AR>OS/2 DOS-based but nutheads who only intend to prove their point
AR>independent of the truth.
Hey Dave - is this true or is it a lie? Is some of OS/2 really 16 bit
code then? Pah - not a proper 32 bit op system at all then, just as I
thought. Fancy you trying to tell me it was....
Keith
====================================
Keith Barnes, Nottingham, England
Internet: kba...@kbarnes.win-uk.net
Message timed at 6:06PM on 12/07/95
====================================
ş CMPQwk 1.42 1046 ş$765.90 - beast plus 15% gratuity
Little Caesar
(Anastassios Retzios) wrote:
- ocon...@icomsim.com (Mike O'Connell) wrote:
-
- >> Sounds like another case of Bad configuration to me.
-
- >But wait... since Windows '95 is Plug and Play, how could it configure
- >itself wrong? (Sorry, the sarcasm couldn't be stopped)
-
- Just one question: why would a Mac user spent time in a Windows
- advocacy newsgroup? Don't you have anything better to do.
Just one question: what would be the point of a Windows advocacy group
that was only frequented by Windows users? Who exactly would you be
advocating to?
--
damir smitlener |
da...@mindspring.com |
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu |
Christopher L. Estep
>
>>Haven't you ever wondered what you'd be using if MS had started with that
NT
>>code and thrown all the Win 95 programmers at that? Probably pretty much
the
>>same thing you're going to be buying in 2 or so years is my bet.
>
>>Ralph
>
>
>..Moreover if one can see the point in buying a far better
>architecture spending also money for upgrading its system
>I cannot see any advantage in doing the same thing for a system which
>is, at the very end, just whistle and bells (just forget to operate
>decently faster with w95 with a 486 and 8MB of Ram):
>
>is Win95 faster than WfW 3.11 ? No as any test proves and nor with 32
>bit apps it beats wfw 3.11;
Surprisingly, on the SAME system that had WfWG 3.11 on it, Windows 95
performs MUCH better (especially the stability). Also, I no longer need
Trumpet to connect to ANY provider; I can use the INCLUDED Windows 95 TCP/IP
stack (derived from Windows NT). Getting Trumpet to work (with WfWG) was
almost impossible; whereas getting Windows 95 TCP/IP running was a breeze
from Day One. I run more applications (and more KINDS of applications)
simultaneously with Windows 95 than I did with either WfWG or OS/2. And,
this is a mere 386DX-40 with 8 MB; not even CLOSE to being a Pentium with 24
MB that is the "comfortable minimum" for NT Workstation.
>
>is Win95 stable like WinNT 3.51? No and nor with 32 bit apps
Depends on the applications. There is a lot of commonality between
applications for Windows 95 and NT (in most cases, you can use the same
application on either platform). True; Windows 95 doesn't have NT's
stability, but it doesn't have NT's KNOWN appetite for RAM and CPU cycles,
either. I use WinVN as my newsreader in Windows 95; it is not just identical
to WinVN for NT, but IS WinVN for NT (the same application).
>
>is the Win 95 the base for a new architecture ? No, as the same
>Microsoft plans Nt to be the apps of the future.
Actually, the base for the "OS of the future" is a cross between 95 and NT;
Cairo is currently planned to have Windows 95's ease of use (and it's UI)
with an object-oriented version of NT's architecture.
>
>Why?
>
>Because W95 is still a Dos based ENVIRONMENT while NT is a brand new
>operating system. That's why.
Not much of Windows 95 is based on DOS; however, there is more DOS support in
Windows 95 than in NT. However, the target market for Windows 95 is not as
powerful as the intended NT target market machine-wise. There is more NT in
Windows 95 than a lot of people realize; in fact, consider this: the HCL for
Windows 95 and the HCL for NT/Intel are IDENTICAL
>
>Actually I cannot believe that even experienced user have fallen in
>the microsoft trap. I think it is time to recover from insanity and
>return back to win3.11 waiting for further NT developpement and some
>other hardware improvement. Don't believe the hipe !!!
WHAT trap? Windows 95 is an excellent "training ground" for the NT user of
the future. Not only can you still use the DOS and 16-bit Windows
applications (in large part) that you had from the DOS and Windows past, you
can run the Windows 95 (and NT) applications available TODAY (in fact, MOST
Windows NT applications will run on Windows 95 today, and vice-versa).
It also prepares you for the forthcoming object-oriented NT 4.x that Cairo
will be. If it's a trap, it's one with velvet jaws. Windows 95 is, oddly
enough, a better prepatory ground for Cairo than NT 3.51 with the NTExplorer
UI. There is very little in fact in NT that cannot be added to the EXISTING
Windows 95, let alone the "Nashville" and "Memphis" succesors to Windows 95.
One item they are looking closely at adding to Nashville is NTFS file-system
support. The hooks for NTFS are in Windows 95 today, even though NTFS is
not. NTFS is an integral part of the C2-certified security in Windows NT;
adding NTFS to Windows 95 will be a way of expanding the market for Windows
to places that need C-type security but want the applications of the current
Windows 95 and NT, but don't have (or can afford) NT-class hardware.
True; many of us running Windows 95 WOULD rather run NT (I am one of them).
However, Windows 95 is a neat compromise; I can bring my existing
applications, and add new applications from the Windows 95/NT
common-application family.
__________________________________________________________________
Christopher L. Estep Windows 95 Consultant
SAI/TechNet, Inc. President and CEO
christop...@acenet.com "Internet Spoken Here."
The opinions expressed ARE those of my company, because I AM
the company!
"Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again" - RAH
__________________________________________________________________
Anastassios Retzios
>Interesting that you say this, because I recently ran across a comparison of
>Winfwg 3.11 vs Win95 on a pentium machine ... i think it was in the latest
>Comupter Shopper, but I'm not sure. Anyhow, the benchmarks they did
>showed that, on the system they used, Win95 was, at best, roughly equal to
>Winfwg 3.11, and their recommendation was something like "If you do upgrade,
>don't do it for speed" . Of course, the problem with this is that Win95
>really should have more memory than Winfwg3.11 ... I wish I would have
>remembered more about the article ... hell , why don't I just pull it up!
>Okay, here are some quotes, straight from
>http://www.zdnet.com/~cshopper/content/9512/feature1/sub1.html
>The major article is about 120 MHz Pentiums, all with 16 MB RAM. Systems
>from Micron, Dell, Gateway, and Compaq, to name a few. I should also point out
>that the speed decreases were related to the use of 16-bit apps under Win95,
>not the 32-bit stuff (which is undoubtedly faster). ANyhow, to get to the
>point:
>"However, Windows 95 runs those apps much slower than Windows For
>Workgroups..."
>"...Windows 95 transformed these 120MHz Pentium systems into the functional
>equivalent of 90MHz Pentium machines."
>And the final statement,
>"...you still may find plenty of your own reasons to upgrade to Windows 95.
>Just make sure it's not for speed."
I have read the article and I do not disagree. I was referring to
benchmarks of Win95 + Win32 apps vs. Wfwg 3.11 + Win16 apps. The
latter is slower that the former. I actually fail to understand the
conclusion of that article. Nobody should go out and buy Win95 to
speed up Win16 apps. The main reason for buying a 32-bit OS is to run
32-bit software. This combination is faster and more stable than its
predecessor.
Ralph Goers
t.nb.ca> <49gtqk$7...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> - aret...@deltanet.com (Anastassios Retzios) writes:
:>
I think you are missing the point. It is MUCH easier to throw away code than
it is to write new code. It would have been much easier to create "NT Lite"
by starting with NT than creating Win 95.
Ralph
Steve Sheldon
>I have read the article and I do not disagree. I was referring to
>benchmarks of Win95 + Win32 apps vs. Wfwg 3.11 + Win16 apps. The
>latter is slower that the former. I actually fail to understand the
>conclusion of that article. Nobody should go out and buy Win95 to
>speed up Win16 apps. The main reason for buying a 32-bit OS is to run
>32-bit software. This combination is faster and more stable than its
>predecessor.
No, the main reason for me is so that I can start up a PC-Arc
processing session in a DOS windows and then switch over to another DOS
window and do something else with PC-Arc, and then maybe run another windows
app in the meantime.
With old DOS/Windows, after running that first PC-Arc session, I'd have to
go home because my computer was useless to me for the next 20 hours.
That and the increased productivity due to the user interface design.
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions] '94 Acura Integra LS
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day '85 Honda Spree
she...@iastate.edu ProMap by night '91 Bridgestone MB5
BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
kevin eugene scruggs
|In <4aal8i$4...@news2.deltanet.com| aret...@deltanet.com (Anastassios Retzios) writes:
|
||I have read the article and I do not disagree. I was referring to
||benchmarks of Win95 + Win32 apps vs. Wfwg 3.11 + Win16 apps. The
||latter is slower that the former. I actually fail to understand the
||conclusion of that article. Nobody should go out and buy Win95 to
||speed up Win16 apps. The main reason for buying a 32-bit OS is to run
||32-bit software. This combination is faster and more stable than its
||predecessor.
|
| No, the main reason for me is so that I can start up a PC-Arc
|processing session in a DOS windows and then switch over to another DOS
|window and do something else with PC-Arc, and then maybe run another windows
|app in the meantime.
Which I never had any problem whatsoever doing with Win3.1.
|
| With old DOS/Windows, after running that first PC-Arc session, I'd have to
|go home because my computer was useless to me for the next 20 hours.
|
|
Must've been doing SOMETHING wrong 'cause I do that sort thing
all the time with win3 and have had for the past 2 years with
not problem whatsoever...
tom...@erols.com
With it's reliance on 16-bit DOS code and FAT file sttructure, Win95 is clearly an
interim project. NT is the target OS and next year (1996) as the Pentium Pro becomes
more popular both NT and OS/2 will benefit. Microsoft really has a cash cow
with Windows 95. Just think when they release "Nashville" or will it be
called Windows 96 millions of people will run to the midnight madness sale
to be the first on the block with the new OS. It'll be better than Win95, but
people will need to pay another $79 to get the update. Then I really do believe
we'll see movement away from FAT based OS's to NT and OS2. Win96 won't be as popular as Win95.
Tom
Centreville, VA