Winblows 95 Birthday!
Ned Kelly
Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS. Winblows 95 has
turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
upon the world.
I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
it.
Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Tony Molina
nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
>favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS.
Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
back to what they were running.
Some have taken a little longer to fall in love with interface than others (1-7
days) but in the end they were all converts. Even one or two (ex)Macintosh users
too.
adios
tm
-*- Take time out today to pat a dog ... touch a tree -*-
TM 1996
Brian Hurt
to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina) writes:
>nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>>Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
>>favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS.
Linux is in no danger of being replaced by Windows 95 on my HD. This
would be true even if I had enough horse power to run W95 (which I don't).
>Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
>that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
>back to what they were running.
In every way W95 is superior to W3.1 (damning with faint praise). On the
other hand, I run both W95 and WNT at work, and given a choice I run WNT
(I'd still pick Linux over both of them).
David F. Skoll
In article <32201823...@news.melbpc.org.au>, Tony Molina
(to...@melbpc.org.au) wrote:
> Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients
> included) that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like
> it and wanted to go back to what they were running.
A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
win95 kept crashing.
--
David F. Skoll
Sal
>I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
>was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
>Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
>people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
(Yawn) ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (Yawn) ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
markbens@crc3.concentric.net@cris.com
In <32201823...@news.melbpc.org.au>, to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina) writes:
>Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
>that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
>back to what they were running.
>
Everyone I've ever talked to about it hates it with a violent passion.
The only place I've ever heard a good thing about it from is MicroSoft, and
their supporters in this newsgroup.
>Some have taken a little longer to fall in love with interface than others (1-7
>days) but in the end they were all converts. Even one or two (ex)Macintosh users
The interface sucks. It doesn't do anything right. They tried hard to copy
the MAC interface (folders, etc.) and screwed it all up. You can't even set it
to kill the parent screen when something is opened from it.
Michael Hermann
In article <4vq93d$l...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
|> In article <32201823...@news.melbpc.org.au>, Tony Molina
|> (to...@melbpc.org.au) wrote:
|>
|> > included) that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like
|> > it and wanted to go back to what they were running.
|>
|> came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
|> win95 kept crashing.
I know of only three people who installed Win95 (out of twenty or so
who do have a PC), all others remained with either OS/2 or Win 3.1.
Of the three doing the switch, two were using both 3.1 and OS/2
before, neither one did like Win95 much.
1 uses it because he needs some of the Win95 programs for his work,
but says that OS/2 2.1 was better than Win95 is
1 uses it for Win95 based games but thinks it is crap and uses either
Win3.1 or OS/2 when not using a Win95 program
The third switched from 3.1 but doesn't like it much either as the
backwards compatibility isn't sufficient for him.
I don't know a single person who likes it, seriously. But perhaps my
sample base is a little off as most of the poeple I know are CS majors
(the two using OS/2 are for example..) and apparently have higher standards
than joe average user
-Mike
Matt Inkson
Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
<4vo2fd$2...@news.ais.net>...
>
> Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
> favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS. Winblows 95 has
> turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
> upon the world.
>
> I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
> was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
> Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
> people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
> it.
>
> Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
>>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
difference.
The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
drsoran
Matt Inkson (min...@vision.net.au) wrote:
: Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
: > Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
: >>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
: difference.
: The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
: That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
See.. there's your flaw in logic. "Add more RAM!" That should
be the Win95 slogan. ;) "Start me off with 8 megs of ram... keep adding
two megs of RAM every 15 minutes until I can stay awake long enough to
see Word finish loading... then start adding 2 megs of RAM every hour..."
Linux is fine with 4 megs of RAM and a 386. Don't knock it until
YOU have tried it for "a few weeks."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu I love it when a .plan comes together.
"Blinky lights are the essence of modern technology."
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <01bb933b$52c4bfc0$44f4...@HAL.vision.net.au>, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au> writes...
>> Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
>> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
>
>>>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
>difference.
>The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
>That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
Don't get left behind..., what a bill gates leveraged monopoly bunch of shit.
Do you even know what linux is or are the only 'operating systems' you have
heard of bgDOS,bgW3.1,bgW95 and bgNT? You also started your post on the last
line of the post you are following up. COULD YOU PLEASE PASS THE JELLY?
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
Nobody ever got fired for buying bill gates...
Chris Yokum
Linux is DEFINATELY the most stable operating system I've ever used.
Win95 on my 486DX2-66 with 8 megs needs to be restarted at least
daily. I've had Linux up for almost a week straight. I know that that
isn't too long, but I only installed it 2 weeks ago, and I needed to
reboot to make sure my configuration changes worked, just in case I
actually did need to reboot sometime in the future. I'm running Linux
on a 386SLC-33 with 4 megs of RAM, and a 169 meg hard drive. Programs
doing similar things, such as Pine and Eudora, ftp and Ws_ftp, Lynx
and MSIE 3.0, and ircII and mIRC, take equal ammounts of time to load,
under an equal system load. (With mIRC, and Eudora loaded, it takes
about 10 seconds to load WS_FTP under win95. Under linux, it takes
about 10 seconds to start ftp, with 2 copies of ircII, Eggdrop, and
Pine all running) I'm hoping that soon I'll have 8 megs in my linux
box, and I don't think that there is much point to adding memory after
that, unless you're doing heavier work(compiling, or a web server) The
only time that the speed has been unusable is when compiling my
kernel, but that's quite understandable. What I usually do then is
unplug my hard drives, and boot linux on my 486, and compile it there.
And it FLYS. There's no question about it, linux beats Windows for
speed, and stability.
On 26 Aug 1996 16:17:36 GMT, drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu (drsoran)
wrote:
>Matt Inkson (min...@vision.net.au) wrote:
>: Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
>: > Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
>: > along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
>
>: >>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
>: difference.
>: The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
>: That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
>
William Tanksley
In article <26AUG199...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...) writes:
>In article <01bb933b$52c4bfc0$44f4...@HAL.vision.net.au>, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au> writes...
>>> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
For the Linux book, you might try "Unix for the impatient"-- I enjoyed
it. It's not Linux specific, though.
For the C book, I really liked "C for programmers", although I admit that
I wasn't looking for an interpreter-- I already had one. You'll give up
on Basic as soon as you learn about Scheme or Forth (depends on which
model you prefer, the system-provides-everything or the
programmer-controls-anything).
>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
>>difference.
Been trying that. It stinks. '95, by itself, is TOTALLY WORTHLESS
SCUM. Its UI is just barely caught up with Geos'90, and that only by
copying OS/2 and Mac. It still doesn't have pin-down menus!
It's stability is legendary. In the negative sense of the word.
Now, if you decide to fork out big bucks for new apps, W95 can run them--
barely. Buy more memory, though, or you'll be stuck doing less than you
were able to do before.
>>The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
>>That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
If the clock is wrong, we have to change it, and sometimes the way to do
that is to turn it back. That's not getting left behind; in fact, that's
the only way to *truly* get ahead.
The timid approach is to do only what your authority, Bill, tells you to
do. The bold approach is to invent your own solution, or find a different
one.
>Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
-Billy
>Nobody ever got fired for buying bill gates.
Not quite true. I got W'95 for my parent's new computer-- I wanted to give
it a chance, since I'd heard so much about it, and the only alternative
was MSdos6.22+win3.11, which is uniformly worse. They called me back a
while later, and although they couldn't fire me, they sure fired W'95.
It did nothing but get in their way. (It later crashed, due to the flaky
HD problem I mentioned-- which I still think was instigated by it, since
it matches so closely the symptoms mentioned by many others to me.)
I've since continued attempting to use W'95, simply because I'm waiting
for Merlin. If anyone wants to give away a Warp (preferably Connect),
I'd accept.
Linux is IT for my work, though. Cheap, easy to work with, plentiful
software at reasonable prices, and good networking.
byf...@direct.ca
>Everyone I've ever talked to about it hates it with a violent passion.
>The only place I've ever heard a good thing about it from is MicroSoft, and
>their supporters in this newsgroup.
I think it's mostly people with an interest in computers who hate it with a
violent passion. Among average users, the reaction could be more accurately
described as "lukewarm." Some are concerned about the rumors of instability,
but most simply don't see any compelling reason to make the switch unless
they have to. All the anniversary articles I've seen over the last week are
lukewarm, too--about the most they say is that Windows 95 caused a "brief
spike" in sales, but they also admit that the spike was only a fraction of
what retailers and wholesalers were hoping for.
>The interface sucks. It doesn't do anything right. They tried hard to copy
>the MAC interface (folders, etc.) and screwed it all up. You can't even set it
>to kill the parent screen when something is opened from it.
Yes, it does, but only if you're coming from the Mac or OS/2. Compared to
the interface for Windows 3.11, it's an improvement. People's reactions
to Win95's interface depends very much on what they're used to.
Incidentally, I also get a kick out of the suggestion a Windows advocate
in this thread made that, if you don't use Windows 95, you'll get left
behind. Not only have I yet to see a feature in a Win95 program that
couldn't have been implemented in Win 3.11, but the majority of computers
running in the world still run on DOS. And now, with the move to Win95,
it appears that there's another huge group of people who are simply
stepping off the upgrade treadmill.
And why not? If you're a casual or limited user, current hardware and
software can probably do everything you want to do with reasonable
efficiency. I don't share this attitude myself, but I know it's widespread
enough.
-----------------------------------
Bruce Byfield (byf...@direct.ca)
What we wanted was: sheet lightning,
What we wanted was: eight miles high,
What we wanted was: free-fall
And our turn to fly.
--Oyster Band, "All That Way For This"
Koro
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:11:39 GMT, to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina)
wrote:
> nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
> >Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
> >favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS.
> Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
> that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
> back to what they were running.
Because they were running the previous version of windows right?
Well, you can put me down as the first person on that list. I was
using win 3.1 during the first time I ever touched w95. It was on a
superior machine, but was much slower for some odd reason, and the
screen refreshes were slow. I also hated the interface, especially
the start menu.
Well, it's on to better things for me. I'm transitioning to LINUX.
> Some have taken a little longer to fall in love with interface than others (1-7
> days) but in the end they were all converts. Even one or two (ex)Macintosh users
> too.
Maybe it's the subliminal messages in the clouds of the startup
screen...
Well, it's hard to tie the pictures of two horses, an eagle, a guy who
looks alot like Jimmi Hendrix and is holding a guitar, and a man and
woman having sex in the clouds to enjoying the product...
KORO
ado...@isl.net
In <01bb933b$52c4bfc0$44f4...@HAL.vision.net.au>, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au> writes:
>
>
>Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
>>
>> Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
>> turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
>> upon the world.
>>
>> I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
>> was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
>> Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
>> people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
>
>> it.
>>
>> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
>
>difference.
>That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
HA!
I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
-Dave
Master of the Universe
http://www.isl.net/~adolphc/os2rules/os2rules.html
ado...@isl.net
Joris D inhuurkracht
This is just fine, but what about sales numbers? Does anybody have
them? And what about the estimated sales after 1 year. Surely
somebody around here remembers them (I don't, that's why I ask).
At Winblows 95's birthday, it's just the time to review the
targets that Micro$oft had set 1 year ago. Did they ship the
estimated packages? Or did Winblows 95 fail utterly???
Opinions appreciated.
-Dennis.
--
Ing. D.M. Joris, Software Specialist,
Philips CE/ASA Lab, tel: +31 40 27 33826
Building : SFJ-7 +31 40 27 35365
E-mail : jor...@iclab.ce.philips.nl fax: +31 40 27 37353
: g...@iaehv.nl (na 21:00 reply)
Homepage : http://www.iaehv.nl/users/gto
====================================================================
Butt-Head: That SUCKS, uh uhu uhu.
Beavis: Yeah.... and it SUCKS too, uhuhu uhu uh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Istvan Simon
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- MfG/Bye/Udv - Simon Istvan - mailto:si...@ws6a37.gud.siemens.co.at -
-- hint: my last name is my first name :-) --------------------------
Koro
On 26 Aug 1996 10:44:35 GMT, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au>
wrote:
> Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
> <4vo2fd$2...@news.ais.net>...
> >
> > Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
> > favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS. Winblows 95 has
> > turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
> > upon the world.
> >
> > I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
> > was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
> > Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
> > people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
> > it.
> >
> > Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
> > along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
> >>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
> difference.
> The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
> That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
Oh, so I'll blow 200 bucks on more ram just to make w95 run? I'd
rather have LINUX burning rubber on my crappy ass 486 than have w95
slow it to a crawl.
So why should I waste my money (which I have little of at the moment)?
To get w95 to run even remotely fast, I'd need to upgrade my
motherboard and CPU, buy a $200 ram upgrade, and burn $89 on W95.
Either that, or I could upgrade to LINUX completely free of charge.
KORO
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
: A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
: came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
: win95 kept crashing.
I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
solid.
Scott
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
Joris D inhuurkracht (jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl) wrote:
: Or did Winblows 95 fail utterly???
: Opinions appreciated.
Let's see -- Windows 95 is shipped on every new brand name PC sold except
for a few small shops and mailorder houses who'll do special orders.
Yeah, it's a failure.
Scott
ado...@isl.net
I used Win95 for three weeks at ISU an it crashed many times each day.
It was overall, terrible.
If you want the details, email me.
BTW, the most astounding crash was a win16 app (Winpopup) which caused the
crash of 30-some win95 workstations and an NT server.
HA!
ado...@isl.net
In <4vu7jp$7...@ns1.nl.cis.philips.com>, jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl (Joris D inhuurkracht) writes:
>This is just fine, but what about sales numbers? Does anybody have
>them? And what about the estimated sales after 1 year. Surely
>somebody around here remembers them (I don't, that's why I ask).
>
>At Winblows 95's birthday, it's just the time to review the
>targets that Micro$oft had set 1 year ago. Did they ship the
>
>Opinions appreciated.
>
>-Dennis.
Well, MS promised us all that Win95 would sell 40 mil by Xmas 95, but it took over twice that long to get 40mil sales.
ado...@isl.net
In <4vvkik$r...@redstone.interpath.net>, soft...@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes:
>Joris D inhuurkracht (jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl) wrote:
>: Opinions appreciated.
>
>Let's see -- Windows 95 is shipped on every new brand name PC sold except
>for a few small shops and mailorder houses who'll do special orders.
Ha!
You forget the OS/2 only companies like Indelible Blue and SIS.
Most PC companies WILL preload OS/2 on their PCs if the consumer demands it.
>
>Yeah, it's a failure.
>
>Scott
Ron Knights
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems wrote:
>
> David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
>
> : A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
> : came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
> : win95 kept crashing.
>
> I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
> who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
> ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
> people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
> nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
> solid.
>
Gee, I think maybe some people just have lousy systems that ran just fine under DOS and Windows 3.X.
Then their systems were taxed when they got Windows 95. Things wouldn't work, so they griped.
Patricia Flickner
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems wrote:
>
> David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
>
> : A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
> : came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
> : win95 kept crashing.
>
> I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
> who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
> ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
> people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
> nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
> solid.
>
> Scott
Yes, Scott. ME!!! Add me to the "I HATE Windows 95" clan! I've been
told that my Win95 problems are due to the fact that I used the upgrade
rather than installing it as a new operating system. The problems I've
had are multiple: Win95 cdroms work intermittently, if at all; at the
times thay don't work, Win95 isn't even recognizing that I have a cdrom
player; sound works intermittently; when I added a new cdrom player,
Win95 decided that I no longer had a cdrom player and removed any trace
of having a cdrom device in my device manager; had to manually go in and
change an address so that Win95 would at least recognize that there was
a Win95 cd in the player. Care for more? I had my tcp/ip setup
suddenly disappear, and I mean, TOTALLY disappear. I was doing e-mails
and got disconnected from my service; when I tried to reconnect, I
couldn't get back in. Took me and the guy from the service 2 hours to
figure that one out, and that only by a fluke. It's not the first time
that something just disappeared, and no, it's not a virus since I
maintain my virus checks, and didn't start until I installed Win95.
Never had a problem with 3.11. NEVER. Now, I'm hoping that by
installing Win95 as tho my pc was clean, I may actually have a good
running system. You think? I guess I'll let you know how it turns out
once it's been running awhile. Wish me luck.
So much for your third party.
Pat Flickner
Mike Hales
ado...@isl.net wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Well, MS promised us all that Win95 would sell 40 mil by Xmas 95, but it took over twice that long to get 40mil sales.
>
Only because they misjudged the willingness of business users to wait
for NT 4.0. Now that it's released, watch the numbers fly!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hales __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
mha...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
http://primenet.com/~mhales / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hales
> > Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
> > <4vo2fd$2...@news.ais.net>...
> > >
> > > Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
> > > favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS. Winblows 95 has
> > > turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
> > > upon the world.
Not many.
> > >
> > > I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
> > > was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
> > > Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
> > > people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
> > > it.
Drinking always helps when performing any technical task. Like
installing an operating system which you will depend upon for all your
applications for the next...?
Then, throw in some pills, too! What a loser.
--
Mike <Geez, I wonder why this thing don't work> Hales
Mike Hales
ado...@isl.net wrote:
>
> In <4vvkik$r...@redstone.interpath.net>, soft...@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes:
> >Joris D inhuurkracht (jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl) wrote:
> >: Or did Winblows 95 fail utterly???
> >: Opinions appreciated.
> >
> >Let's see -- Windows 95 is shipped on every new brand name PC sold except
> >for a few small shops and mailorder houses who'll do special orders.
>
> Ha!
>
> You forget the OS/2 only companies like Indelible Blue and SIS.
>
> Most PC companies WILL preload OS/2 on their PCs if the consumer demands it.
>
> >Yeah, it's a failure.
> >
> >Scott
>
Not to mention that even IBM bundles Win 95 on their pc's. Or the fact
that they have published a white paper describing their intention to
fully support win95/NT40.
Some failure...
Denny Payne
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems (soft...@mercury.interpath.com) wrote:
: David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
:
: : A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
: : came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
: : win95 kept crashing.
:
: I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
: who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
: ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
: people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
: nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
: solid.
:
: Scott
ME! I ran Win95 for about 6 months, and it gave me constant GPF's, it
even crashed once while sitting there all day doing nothing. Then it
overwrote one of it's own system .dll files, so no 32-bit programs would
work. Then after I got another copy of the .dll, no DOS boxes would work
(not even a DOS prompt). The error code?? "A device attached to the
system is not functioning." Well, gee can you be any LESS helpful?
I have switched to OS/2 and had less than 10 crashes in 3 months, all the
while doing more stuff quicker than before, because OS/2 can actually
multitask, and I don't fear GPF's anymore.
Denny
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Mynd you, moose bytes kan | Denny Payne at Illuminati Online |
| be pretti nasti.... | http://www.io.com/~nregel |
| -Monty Python and | |
| the Holy Grail | Team OS/2! Warped and loving it! |
| | |
| Never cared for what they say, never "42" - Douglas Adams |
| cared for what they know. But I know. |
| -Metallica "Nothing Else Matters" |
----------------------------------------------------------------
darknite
Pat wrote:
>
> kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) wrote:
> >What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
> >realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
> >of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs.
>
> That's total bull. 8mb? Do you realise just how big that is? My prefered
> OS - Acorn's RISC OS, runs in less than 400k (and I still think that's
> a bit bloated). Get real. It's just bad coding or some sort of storage
> conspiracy. Do you have the remotest idea what this 8+mb is used for?
> Does anyone? I'm damned if I can figure it out.
>
> Oh, and don't reply with 'your OS obviously can't do this that and the
> other...' There really is _very_ little that WinXX does that I can't.
>
> Wake up. They're taking you for a ride.
>
> Pat
Pat you took the words right out of my mouth :)
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <4vvkik$r...@redstone.interpath.net>, soft...@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes...
>Let's see -- Windows 95 is shipped on every new brand name PC sold except
>for a few small shops and mailorder houses who'll do special orders.
>
You haven't shown success or failure per se, you merely prove the existance
of a de facto monopoly owned by bg.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
Nobody ever got fired for buying bill gates...
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <3223C0...@primenet.com>, mha...@primenet.com writes...
>Only because they misjudged the willingness of business users to wait
>for NT 4.0. Now that it's released, watch the numbers fly!
Quite probably true. The mgms of the business computing industry (as BE would
say, the 'alpha males' who make decisions on matter of which they know not to
satisfy their egos), are poised and willing to drink at the fly of the bg
monopoly.
Christopher Cronin
Regarding the odd debate about whether or not people have a hard
time with Windows 95 or not.
I am very familiar with configuring operating systems. I know
far more than many others. I was surprised to see that Windows95
not only could not work with my Dynamic Drive Overlay (proprietary
to Conner), but it actually squashed the DDO so that I could not
boot my system from either the hard drive or get into my hard-drive
after a floppy boot.
I was able to remove the DDO after some work, and reformatted the
HD without it. Windows95 seems to be working fine now.
I guess the point here is that Windows95 has some difficulty
dealing with all configuartions of all systems. The resulting
problems for some folks, like me, have been awful. While there
are benefits to 95, there are problems. This is neither all bad
nor all good.
What concerns me is that Windows95 is marketed as an idiot-proof
system from set-up to operation (viz. plug-and-play hype and
extended help files assistance). Though the problems it has
on occassion caused take a certain expertise to solve or avoid.
Had I my druthers, I would have stayed with Win 3.11 and Dos 6.22.
My favorite software (InfoMap at www.jaring.my/~online) is about
to go into exclusive Win95 development, and my local slip/ppp
provider is going Windows95 exclusive so I have little choice
but to convert. DOS's strength was in its capacity to allow
programs to run with as little interference with systems as
possible. This led to quick operation for much software.
Windows is inherently all-encompassing. It is in this new
architecture/design scheme that Windows95 seems to casue
discomfort and occassional problems.
The barking by 95 fans and detractors seems overdone. It is
neither a great, nor am awful operating system. It is, though
the way my needs, and others, are heading.
And for those who say that problems people have as a result of
configuring or installing Win95 poorly is a result of their
ignorance . . .ask yourself . . . isnt't Win95 supposed to be
designed to work for the ignorant?
--
Larry Doering
In article <322424ed...@news.bway.net>,
Kenneth Weiss <kwe...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
>
>>HA!
>>I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
>>And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
>
>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
>left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
>think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
Because the very best Internet programmers have heard the wise words
of the Dear Leader, Chairman Gates, and have elected to abandon the
bourgeois concepts of software efficiency and functionality! They
have thrown off the shackles imposed by the imperialist oppressors
like Apple and IBM! Together, led by the wisdom and all-knowing
benevolence of the Dear Leader, they are marching forwards towards
the inevitable Red Dawn of proletarian victory!
All hail the wise words of the Dear Leader, Chairman Gates! The Web
is ripe for proletarian revolution, and all future operating systems
will look like Web browsers! Those who deny this self-evident fact
(or who deride it as silly and short-sighted) are class enemies, and
will be crushed like the fascist insects they are! The Dear Leader
has always embraced the Web browser as the ideal user interface,
and those who claim otherwise are deluded idiots and drooling running
dogs of the forces of world imperialism, and are enemies of the
truly peace-loving WinPeoples of the world!
Forward, proletarian heroes! Smash the class enemies! All glory
to the Dear Leader, Chairman Gates!
ljd
Redmond Rose~
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <322385...@gte.net>, Ron Knights <ronk...@gte.net> wrote:
> >Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems wrote:
>
> >Gee, I think maybe some people just have lousy systems that ran just fine under DOS and Windows 3.X.
>
> >Then their systems were taxed when they got Windows 95. Things wouldn't work, so they griped.
>
> purchased because they were ... *CHEAP*. That legendary virtue of PeeCees
> with respect to Macintoshes. Simply consider all the horror stories about
> Packard-Hell, I mean Bell.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
> Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Start it up. Hey I've heard from the local radio station that they are
really getting the calls for request. Mostly from what I've posted on my
web. I think I've just about crashed Microsoft due to gossip alone.
Check you the laters page on my web.
http://www.nwlink.com/~rosarium/mr-big.html
This is a song about Equal Oppertunity and it's definitely pointing in
Microsoft's direction. They took one women employee out in 4 point
restraints to a psych ward. They are rock and rolling now. I offered to
Fix this for Bill but he would talk to me.
God they're playing that Be a Temp song again. four letter words
work jobs fast cash temp.... Boy it's getting strange here in Seattle.
Loren Petrich
Kenneth Weiss
On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
>HA!
>I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
>And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
--
Ken Weiss
mailto:kwe...@bway.net
http://www.bway.net/~kweiss
(C)urrently (D)efeated (A)ffront
Koro
On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
> In <01bb933b$52c4bfc0$44f4...@HAL.vision.net.au>, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au> writes:
> >
> >
> >Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote in article
> ><4vo2fd$2...@news.ais.net>...
> >>
> >> Yep, this is the Windows 95 Birthday(tm)! How many people nuked it in
> >> favour of Winblows 3.1 again, Linux, or some other OS. Winblows 95 has
> >> turned out to be nowhere near worthy of the hype Billy Boy(tm) foisted
> >> upon the world.
> >>
> >> I tried this lame excuse for an OS for about an hour and a half, and I
> >> was drinking at the time I tried it, to soothe the pain of the slowness.
> >> Maybe they need to include a prescription of Ritalin with every copy, so
> >> people can pay attention as they wait for something to happen while using
> >
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
> >> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
> >
> >>>>Maybe you need to get some more RAM, use 95 for a few weeks and see the
> >difference.
> >The world is turning 95, don't be conservative, don't get left behind.
> >That's what happened to the DOS freaks.
> HA!
> I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
> And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
You're being to nice when you say 3 year old technology.
Let's see. 32-bit OS's are very old, and w95 isn't even fully 32 bit,
so we won't count that, PE multitasking was around before '85 for the
personall computing market and I'm sure it was around in UNIX far
before that. DOS, which still runs under w95, was around in '81 and
we had equivelants of it in the 70's. Long filenames are also
extremely old ideas (Macs weren't even the first to use them when they
started in about 1985). Face it, w95 is 1970's hightech and 1985 end
user technology. They're about 10-15 years late in bringing it to the
end users.
KORO
Koro
On 27 Aug 1996 07:20:25 GMT, jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl (Joris D
inhuurkracht) wrote:
> This is just fine, but what about sales numbers? Does anybody have
> them? And what about the estimated sales after 1 year. Surely
> somebody around here remembers them (I don't, that's why I ask).
> At Winblows 95's birthday, it's just the time to review the
> targets that Micro$oft had set 1 year ago. Did they ship the
> estimated packages? Or did Winblows 95 fail utterly???
> Opinions appreciated.
Everyone expected about 150 mil or something like that. It definately
floped reaching only about 50 mil.
KORO
Jerry Rowe
In <32201823...@news.melbpc.org.au>, to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina) writes:
>
>Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
>that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
>back to what they were running.
>
>Some have taken a little longer to fall in love with interface than others (1-7
>days) but in the end they were all converts. Even one or two (ex)Macintosh users
>too.
Well, it seems there are other opinions out there. I met an old friend in the supermarket
a couple of days ago. It seems that he, his brother in law, and some others all have
trouble keeping Win 95 running for any time at all. His BrInLaw's PC even has the latest
fixpack and still no go.
His experience is worse. He can't keep it up long enough to download the fixpak.
But, he also has Warp w/winos2 in another partition and has no trouble with it at all.
Now, I know some will think I made this all up, but it's true.
He is also running this now on his new Nexgen mother board.
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=-
Jerry L. Rowe - Certified OS/2 Engineer
JLR...@holli.com Team OS/2 - Warping the Internet
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=-
Is Microsoft a Tiger?
There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the Tiger.
Bruce Ediger
kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) wrote:
>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
Sweet Jesus! Digital's famous VMS was designed to work with as little
as 256 Kb at release 1.0! VMS at the 1.0 release was somewhat less
capable than NT nominally is, but still, it was a multi-user, virtual
memory, multi-tasking "32 bit" OS even back then (1979).
I used to run OS-9 on a Motorola 6809 system with 512 Kb. You could run
as many as 32 processes at once.
What kind of disgusting bloat-ware are you running that requires 8Mb of
physical memory to acheive acceptable performance?
Matthew J. Farrenkopf
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems (soft...@mercury.interpath.com) wrote:
: I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
: who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
: ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
: people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
: nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
: solid.
Three weeks ago my parents' computer, an HP w/16 MB of RAM, was running
nothing except the special HP menu/intro program, whatever the hell it's
called. The system crashed without warning. None whatsoever! The computer
had just been left on for a couple of hours. Leaving it on for a couple of
hours is not unusual for them. Even the entire day is not unusual for them.
Want more?
My supervisor installed Windows 95 on his system. Worked for about a month.
Then, while downloading something off the net, we had a quick power flicker.
95 crashed -- hard. Before thinking it was resulting hardware damage, no,
it wasn't. He ended up swapping EVERYTHING out -- drives, memory, video,
even motherboard. Nada.
He had his system backed up, but kept getting GPFs with the backup software,
which had previously worked.
He would install '95 copies of software on his system. They would not work.
The old software would work. He removed the old software. Tried
reinstalling it. Then neither the old nor the new software would work.
He reinstalled '95 multiple times. Took at LEAST six weeks for him to get a
basic '95 installation back up. All this occurred last October.
Before you try to say "He didn't know what he was doing," let me tell you
that he used to have his own computer business, is a ham radio operator, and
maintains the network for our billing, our CAD (in this case Computer-Aided
Dispatch) between Portland and Centralia, our telephone systems, including
multiple T1 lines, the radio links...
Shall I go on?
One employee came in here needing help with his system. He got it from my
supservisor. Turned out that '95 had been installing two devices at the
same location, when only one device existed!
A supervisor who is no longer with us has brought his system in multiple
times to have Mr. ComputerGuru fix it.
These are hassles I don't need, which is why I support Linux. 'nuff said.
--
Matthew J. Farrenkopf, EMT-B | Contrary to what some people want to believe,
Portland, OR 97212 | bowling is TRULY a sport of skill. Join your
-----------------------------| local bowling league today for a challenging
ma...@teleport.com | team sport!
William Tanksley
In article <4vvkfv$r...@redstone.interpath.net> soft...@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes:
>David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
>: A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
>: came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
>: win95 kept crashing.
>I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
>who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
>ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
>people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
>nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
>solid.
You keep seeing the stories, and you keep disbelieving them. Okay, why?
What details would it take to convince you? Would you like names (Isn't
that a little intrusive?) Okay, here's a few, sans last names.
Billy, Scott, Joseph.
These are only a few, but on the other hand, they're all the close friends
I have (well, one is me), and we didn't meet because we didn't like
Windoze, although we all dislike it now. I could also cite Tim, who still
likes MS in spite of his W'95 crashes. There are quite a few other
people I've talked to who claim to have been plagued by crashes, but
whose names I have forgotten.
In spite of this, I DO think that W'95 isn't a bad system; it's just that
it's not as good as most people and all magazines seem to think it is,
nor anywhere NEAR as good as B.G. said is was. I'm extremely annoyed at
MS' thoroughly undeserved industry dominance, and I've long suspected
fraud-- I'm glad to see that someone agrees with me (Caldera).
>Scott
-Billy
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <322424ed...@news.bway.net>, kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) writes...
>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
>left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
>think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
Becuase bg has a market share monopoly, I thought that was blatantly obvious.
GhostRider
On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:24:34 -0400, Patricia Flickner <pfl...@op.net>
wrote:
>Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems wrote:
>>
>> David F. Skoll (d...@doe.carleton.ca) wrote:
>>
>> : A local electronics company I deal with installed Windows 95 when it
>> : came out. A few weeks later, they removed it and reinstalled 3.1 because
>> : win95 kept crashing.
>>
>> I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
>> who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
>> ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
>> people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
>> nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
>> solid.
>>
>> Scott
>
>Yes, Scott. ME!!! Add me to the "I HATE Windows 95" clan! I've been
>told that my Win95 problems are due to the fact that I used the upgrade
>rather than installing it as a new operating system. The problems I've
>had are multiple: Win95 cdroms work intermittently, if at all; at the
>times thay don't work, Win95 isn't even recognizing that I have a cdrom
>player; sound works intermittently; when I added a new cdrom player,
>Win95 decided that I no longer had a cdrom player and removed any trace
>of having a cdrom device in my device manager; had to manually go in and
>change an address so that Win95 would at least recognize that there was
>a Win95 cd in the player. Care for more? I had my tcp/ip setup
>suddenly disappear, and I mean, TOTALLY disappear. I was doing e-mails
>and got disconnected from my service; when I tried to reconnect, I
>couldn't get back in. Took me and the guy from the service 2 hours to
>figure that one out, and that only by a fluke. It's not the first time
>that something just disappeared, and no, it's not a virus since I
>maintain my virus checks, and didn't start until I installed Win95.
>Never had a problem with 3.11. NEVER. Now, I'm hoping that by
>installing Win95 as tho my pc was clean, I may actually have a good
>running system. You think? I guess I'll let you know how it turns out
>once it's been running awhile. Wish me luck.
>
>So much for your third party.
>
>Pat Flickner
Are we haveing a bad day??? Tell someone who really cares!!!! Better
yet start another news groups so you guys can whine to each other. I
have had Win95 on my system and have yet to have these so called
problems. Why take the blame for not knowing how to config the OS when
you can hop on the band wagon and say the OS is shit. Oh well to each
his own.......:oP
GhostRider
Pat
kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) wrote:
>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs.
That's total bull. 8mb? Do you realise just how big that is? My prefered
darknite
Kenneth Weiss wrote:
>
> On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
>
> >HA!
> >I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
> >And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
>
> realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
> to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
> left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
> think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
> Ken Weiss
> mailto:kwe...@bway.net
> http://www.bway.net/~kweiss
> (C)urrently (D)efeated (A)ffront
Hello, where have you been, under a rock? The best internet apps, are
written for UNIX, Win 95 sucks
Robert Ewaschuk
: >HA!
: >I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
: >And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
: What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
: realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
: of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
: to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
: left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
: think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format
8 megs? Seems like lots on my friends amiga..In fact, heonly had one
meg...It *was* slow, but it didn't crash...It multitasked (Yes...There's
that magic buzzword, and NO, MS did not invent multitasking. :) )...
In fact, his 6 - 8 year old amiga far and away outdoes my 2 year old PC.
Of course, it's hampered by windows. :-) (Becuase linux doesn't like my
hardware and lack of space)...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Rob aka Sylvester There's no time lost and no time wasted
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca with a friend -The Killjoys, 1994
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Loren Petrich
In article <50312g$o...@news.ais.net>, Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote:
>Kenneth Weiss (kwe...@bway.net) wrote:
>: What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>: realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>: of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
>: to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
>: left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
>: think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
>Actually, the best Internet proggies are UNIX-based! Also, Linux runs
>just fine on 8 Meg of RAM. Linux has a definite price advantage that
>Winblows anything can't compete with. By carefully choosing equipment,
>you can have a perfectly functional Linux box.
Actually, there is the serious question of whether a WWW-browser
format is a good way to manage files, though it is certainly a good way to
view them. IMO, it's the MacOS that has done the best there; the Finder
represents files as either captioned icons or as names with tiny icons;
these can be dragged-and-dropped, and renamed on the spot. Not
surprisingly, directories are represented as files that produce directory
windows when opened. One deletes files by dragging them to a special
directory called the Trash, which one can then empty.
Consider how widely the MacOS has been imitated, to a greater or
lesser degree, and I'd be surprised if the WWW-browser metaphor for files
really gets anywhere. In fact, one can try that on one's files with
whatever browsers one has, and see if it's any good.
Ned Kelly
Kenneth Weiss (kwe...@bway.net) wrote:
: What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
: realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
: of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
: to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
: left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
: think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
Actually, the best Internet proggies are UNIX-based! Also, Linux runs
just fine on 8 Meg of RAM. Linux has a definite price advantage that
Winblows anything can't compete with. By carefully choosing equipment,
you can have a perfectly functional Linux box.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Peter Suetterlin
In article <322436c0...@news.direct.ca>,
ghost...@cyberspace.ca (GhostRider) writes:
>
>Are we haveing a bad day??? Tell someone who really cares!!!! Better
>yet start another news groups so you guys can whine to each other. I
>have had Win95 on my system and have yet to have these so called
>problems. Why take the blame for not knowing how to config the OS when
>you can hop on the band wagon and say the OS is shit. Oh well to each
>his own.......:oP
>
>GhostRider
Sorry? I thought all people were shouting `everyone should use Win95
because it is absolutely easy to install and you don't have to know
anything about computers and your system..."
If I know computers and how to configure the OS I get a (real) OS
where I can do and configure what *I* like without having to think
about half a dozen tricks to bribe the OS to do so, if at all.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter "Pit" Suetterlin http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~pit
Universitaets-Sternwarte Goettingen
Tel.: +49 551 39-5048 p...@uni-sw.gwdg.de
-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * --
Come and see the stars! http://www.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~ps/SFB
Sternfreunde Breisgau e.V. Tel.: +49 761 278588
__________________________________________________________________________
Gary Freeman
p...@spiff.uni-sw.gwdg.de (Peter Suetterlin) writes: > In article <322436c0...@news.direct.ca>,
> ghost...@cyberspace.ca (GhostRider) writes:
> >
> >Are we haveing a bad day??? Tell someone who really cares!!!! Better
> >yet start another news groups so you guys can whine to each other. I
> >have had Win95 on my system and have yet to have these so called
> >problems. Why take the blame for not knowing how to config the OS when
> >you can hop on the band wagon and say the OS is shit. Oh well to each
> >his own.......:oP
> >
> >GhostRider
>
> Sorry? I thought all people were shouting `everyone should use Win95
> because it is absolutely easy to install and you don't have to know
> anything about computers and your system..."
>
> If I know computers and how to configure the OS I get a (real) OS
> where I can do and configure what *I* like without having to think
> about half a dozen tricks to bribe the OS to do so, if at all.
>
> Peter
Hi,
I support Win95 on about 60 PCs ranging from 386s with 8 meg of ram
to Pentium 133s with 64 megs of ram.
I have yet to find something like easy installation, why not pay through
your teeth for a MAC (ackk!) instead of hashing generic hardware with
an OS that tries hard to query and setup what is currently in place.
When something is recognized as something it's not with win95, it's
usually because it was installed wrong (i/o base, irqs, etc...).
Flaming the most advanced "poor-mans" system is quite bizarre!
Why not buy a NT machine (native -Alpha or Mips) and see if that's
any easier to config... The problem is, all to many of the new
rush of PC users thought that configuring their Win95 box was going
to be a breeze, without having an inkling where to start looking if things
went wrong.
Why don't you take a computer course? Did you find cars to be a "flop"
before you learned to drive?
Cheers...
William Tanksley
In article <322424ed...@news.bway.net> kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) writes:
>On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
>>HA!
>>I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
>>And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
Nice question. What could I do with 8M? Well, let's see.
- run Acorn OS 16- times over (but I don't know what I'd do with it)
- run Geos 8+ times over, write several books, spreadsheets, etc
- run Linux once, but quite well; typeset some math, write several
hundred C, C++, Ada and Perl WWW programs
- run OS/2 moderately well, play some DOS games and tweak some
configuration files, then start 8 copies of Geos and (see also Geos)
- barely run windoze95, crash, start again, use the pathetic included
WP to write a memo; spend $400 more to buy a real WP, type up several
chapters in, being careful to keep each chapter in its own file 'cause
it'll crash and take it all down otherwise, waiting for each typed
character to show on the screen...
- run win 3.11 acceptably, crash, otherwise the same as '95 but with
more crashes and more speed.
Hmm. Microsoft: where do YOU want to go today?
>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
>to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
>left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
Hypertext? Oh, no! I'm trembling in my BOOTS. Isn't this the format
that most internet browsers are now trying to escape? VRML?
>think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
Ba-lo-ney. The most hyped ones certainly are, though.
>Ken Weiss
-Billy
Tim Gerchmez
On 28 Aug 1996 10:16:59 GMT, ma...@teleport.com (Matthew J.
Farrenkopf) wrote:
>My supervisor installed Windows 95 on his system. Worked for about a month.
>Then, while downloading something off the net, we had a quick power flicker.
>95 crashed -- hard. Before thinking it was resulting hardware damage, no,
>it wasn't. He ended up swapping EVERYTHING out -- drives, memory, video,
>even motherboard. Nada.
>
>He had his system backed up, but kept getting GPFs with the backup software,
>which had previously worked.
>
>He would install '95 copies of software on his system. They would not work.
>The old software would work. He removed the old software. Tried
>reinstalling it. Then neither the old nor the new software would work.
>
>He reinstalled '95 multiple times. Took at LEAST six weeks for him to get a
>basic '95 installation back up. All this occurred last October.
>
>Before you try to say "He didn't know what he was doing," let me tell you
>that he used to have his own computer business, is a ham radio operator, and
>maintains the network for our billing, our CAD (in this case Computer-Aided
>Dispatch) between Portland and Centralia, our telephone systems, including
>multiple T1 lines, the radio links...
He may have known what he was doing, but he obviously never found the
problem. You say he re-installed Win95 multiple times? In that case,
how could the problem be the fault of Win95, if he tried completely
fresh copies each time? This was *obviously* a hardware problem, if
you really told the story the way it happened. Blaming it on Win95 is
entirely unfair.
--
"Ohhhhh... Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..." - Beavis, watching man on fire
running through city streets.
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz
In <322424ed...@news.bway.net>, kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) writes:
>>HA!
>>I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
>>And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
>to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
>left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
>Ken Weiss
>mailto:kwe...@bway.net
>http://www.bway.net/~kweiss
>(C)urrently (D)efeated (A)ffront
Umm.. You don't know much do you? The WWW browser will be integrated
with OS/2 Ver. 4.. And 8mb is fine to run OS/2 on, I do. (Without the
OO inerface loading up, but I can load that later if I have the need).
David H Dennis
Larry Doering, who has obviously been following the situation
in North Korea with rather more interest than most, hilariously
wrote us as follows:
> >left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
> >think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
>
> of the Dear Leader, Chairman Gates, and have elected to abandon the
> bourgeois concepts of software efficiency and functionality! They
> have thrown off the shackles imposed by the imperialist oppressors
> like Apple and IBM! Together, led by the wisdom and all-knowing
> benevolence of the Dear Leader, they are marching forwards towards
> the inevitable Red Dawn of proletarian victory!
I'm sorry. This is the funniest message I've read on USENET in
some time, so I have to respond to it.
I wonder if Larry is referring to the Great Leader or the Dear
Leader? And if Chairman Gates is the Dear Leader, who was the
Great Leader?
But those are mere quibbles.
While I'm here, though, I'd like to make my observations about
Windows95's birthday:
I have run Windows95 on a Pentium/75 with 16MB, and 486 DX2/66
with 16MB. I have also run DOS+Windows 3.1 on the Pentium and the
486, but the 486 only had 8MB RAM at the time. I have run Linux
on a 486 DX2/66 with 8, 16 and 32MB RAM. I have run SGI Irix on a
Personal Iris 4D/30TG, a 5-year old machine I recently bought for
$ 2,000. I've also run SunOS on a one-year old Sun clone system
that cost me $ 4,600 plus monitor. I've run both OS/2 and
Windows NT. In short, I probably have more experience with more
platforms than the average person in these debates.
Some observations:
(1) The most fun machine to use is the SGI, even though it's now
a hopelessly prehistoric machine. It feels no slower than the
Pentium/75 running Windows95, even though it's only a shade faster
on paper than the 486/66. The multitasking works (in fact,
it works better than my newer Sun running SunOS) and the GUI
design is a joy. (Header afficianidos, then, will not be surprised
to see what machine this message was posted from).
(2) Although it's been a while since I've used the Linux system,
and although I never actually used X-Windows on it, the 8MB
Linux machine was definitely the smoothest operating among the
PC-based systems. How much X/Windows would change this is hard
to say; my Linux machine died a sad death, victim of an evil
combination of daily news expirations and overheating disk
drives. I blame this on the fools who design most PC hardware,
not on Linux itself. However, those who would run an ISP or
similar high-uptime ventures should be cautioned not to rely
on cheapie hardware for their systems. The addition of memory
(to 16MB and then 32) was due to my attempts to run news on the
machine. The machine ran great with 8MB for all other applications;
even kernel compiles didn't faze it.
Although I know this isn't an option for most people, I suggest
that those considering PCs to run Unix at least consider
getting a real Unix workstation like a SGI or Sun. I have both
a Sun and a SGI, and I love them; they have far more personality,
are easier to maintain and are generally more reliable. You may
well find the intelligent design in these systems to be a breath
of fresh air after struggling with your PC memory one too many
times. If you compare like to like, a real workstation isn't that
much more expensive than a high-end, premium quality PC. If
you can get away without having to use commercial software, a
Unix workstation or Linux box will give you far better results
than a Windows system.
(3) The Windows machines trail by a substantial margin. Windows95
fans will be reassured to hear that the Pentium/75 running Windows95
was the least bad option if you must run Windows for some reason.
However, the 486 running Windows95 was a joke: The machine turned
from tolerably fast under 3.1 to a mercilessly horrible slug under
95. This was true even when we made the ultimate sacrifice and
put in 16MB RAM. Windows95 did not seem to improve the running
of the Pentium machine over 3.1, but neither did it decline
significantly. However, the new interface changed running the
PC from a truly disgusting experience to something nearly tolerable -
until the fake "multitasking" once again led me into doom.
Unfortunately, my experience is that Windows95 is no more reliable
than Windows 3.1. It's not less reliable than old Windows, either.
It's a toss-up. I was hoping originally that Windows95 would give
me higher speed and better multitasking; I was completely wrong.
Multitasking on Windows95 works about as well as multitasking under
Windows 3.1 - that is, not at all. However, there are two major advances
that make me cautiously recommend Windows95 to those who presently are
struggling with Windows 3.1. First, Microsoft's networking software
really does work. I have a Windows95 box connected to the Internet, and
it was pretty easy to set up, and the networking is quite reliable.
The second is the user interface, which really was pretty nicely
thought out. I find the Start button and the taskbar to be
substantial improvements over the Windows 3.1 way of doing things.
Also, the DOS command window's ability to pull up both DOS and
Windows programs is very slick. I certainly wouldn't trade my
SGI's interface for the Windows95 interface - but it's at least
not dreadful, as 3.1 was.
As an honest Windows hater, I can say there's nothing I'd rather
do than forget the fact that the name "Windows" ever existed.
In the near future, I'm planning to get a SGI WebForce Indy,
and then I'll quickly phase out most use of PCs other than as
testbeds for my web pages. However, for those of us who have to
use PCs, Windows95 is just enough of an advance to keep us less
unhappy than we would have otherwise been.
Incidentally, one strange statistic: Since Windows95 was released,
sales of Windows95 represent about 60% of Windows sales and sales
of 3.1 represent the remaining 40%. When you consider that Windows95
is bundled with most new PCs, I think you can see my point when I
say 95 has been more failure than success, despite what look like
massive sales numbers. (These statistics are from the Wall Street
Journal of a few days ago).
(4) I wanted to like OS/2. Honest: I really did. But even after
boosting my then-hot 486 DX2/66 to 16MB RAM, OS/2 still didn't run
Windows applications at any speed. It was wonderful when I did
DOS development; I could spend my time looking at a nice workstation-
like display and flipping between the various windows with my
editor and FoxPro environment. But once I started being shoved
towards Windows, I found Windows under OS/2 to be way, way too
slug-like for my needs. Sad, but nothing I did fixed it. :-(
(5) Windows NT 4.0 (I had Beta 2) solves Windows95's greatest
problem: It DOES multi-task, and it does it well. But its memory
requirements are vast. I was trying to develop 16-bit Visual Basic 4
applications under NT, and the VB4 application was using some 30MB RAM
when my whole application (circa 3MB source code) was loaded. As a
result, even performance on a 48MB Pentium/120 with ample disk
space was pathetic. Also, PointCast network doesn't work.
The bottom line is that if you must use a Windows system, get at
least a Pentium/75 and get Windows95 (or NT 4.0 with an unlimited
budget for memory). But unless you must - don't.
I hope this has been helpful - or at least interesting.
D
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <504fh0$u...@master.ftn.net>, Gary Freeman <webm...@aerodat.com> writes...
>Flaming the most advanced "poor-mans" system is quite bizarre!
>
>Why not buy a NT machine (native -Alpha or Mips) and see if that's
>any easier to config... The problem is, all to many of the new
>rush of PC users thought that configuring their Win95 box was going
>to be a breeze, without having an inkling where to start looking if things
>went wrong.
I'll flame them both to a crisp, because they are produced by gangsters.
Danielle Grossenbacher
>Gee, I think maybe some people just have lousy systems
>that ran just fine under DOS and Windows 3.X.
>Then their systems were taxed when they got Windows 95.
>Things wouldn't work, so they griped.
Well, my experience was a little different: brandnew
AST Ascentia 910N portbale: sorry to tell you, Win95 crashes pretty often.
So the cause must be something else, I guess.
Koro
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 06:57:45 -0400, kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss)
wrote:
> On 27 Aug 1996 01:48:15 GMT, ado...@isl.net wrote:
> >HA!
> >I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
> >And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
> What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
> realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
> of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs. When Win95 and probably NT go
> to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
> left in the dust as software authors just finally give up.
LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
8MB.
> Why do you
> think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
<chuckle> can you say defacto standard?
KORO
Martin M. Cron
On 26 Aug 1996 mark...@crc3.concentric.net wrote:
> In <32201823...@news.melbpc.org.au>, to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina) writes:
> >Strangely enough, not a single person (friends, family and clients included)
> >that I know who has tried Windows 95 said they didn't like it and wanted to go
> >back to what they were running.
> >
>
> Everyone I've ever talked to about it hates it with a violent passion.
> The only place I've ever heard a good thing about it from is MicroSoft, and
> their supporters in this newsgroup.
>
> >Some have taken a little longer to fall in love with interface than others (1-7
> >days) but in the end they were all converts. Even one or two (ex)Macintosh users
>
> The interface sucks. It doesn't do anything right. They tried hard to copy
> the MAC interface (folders, etc.) and screwed it all up. You can't even set it
> to kill the parent screen when something is opened from it.
Speaking from experience I see? You are dead wrong. You can kill the
parent screen when something is opened from it.
Like most 95 bashers, you are bashing the interface without getting to
know it.
The underlying operating system, of course, could be a lot better. But the
front end has a lot of things that I appreciate.
Look Before you Leap,
-Martin Cron
David J. Owens
e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> wrote in article
<504afh$i...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> In <3223C0...@primenet.com>, Mike Hales <mha...@primenet.com> writes:
>
> >Only because they misjudged the willingness of business users to wait
> >for NT 4.0. Now that it's released, watch the numbers fly!
> =========
>
> Companies will realize it doesn't make sense to spend for an NT machine
> to put on a secretaries desk when he is quite productive on DOS/Windows.
Yes, it does make sense to spend a few hundred dollars to give ALL
employees the rock-solid computing environment offered by NT 4.0.
The increase in productivity gained from the absence of crash-related
workstation downtime will pay for the NT hardware and software
upgrades within a couple of years.
Companies are starting to realize that computers are cheap, but
people are expensive. If you can spend some money on your
computers and make your employees more productive, you will
save money in the long-run.
> Companies that do make use of heavy "application integration" to run
> their business (i.e., forms flow, mail, etc.) will discover that NT won't
> run their current application suite, thus they will be forced into an
> extensive and expensive "systems upgrade."
See the above. The cost of any upgrades will be more than made
back by the increase in productivity gained by a more stable operating
system.
> These companies wil also find that OS/2 can easily handle their legacy
> requirements and that IBM is a more rightous and competent partner
> for systems development than Microsoft.
It is a myth that NT has poor legacy support, Mr. Larson. Almost
ALL DOS and Win16 applications for business will run on Windows
NT. Maybe you think OS/2 is better just because it can run DOS
games better than NT?
>
> Eric Larson
> e-l...@uiuc.edu
>
>
>
>Only because they misjudged the willingness of business users to wait
>for NT 4.0. Now that it's released, watch the numbers fly!
=========
Companies will realize it doesn't make sense to spend for an NT machine
to put on a secretaries desk when he is quite productive on DOS/Windows.
Companies that do make use of heavy "application integration" to run
their business (i.e., forms flow, mail, etc.) will discover that NT won't
run their current application suite, thus they will be forced into an
extensive and expensive "systems upgrade."
These companies wil also find that OS/2 can easily handle their legacy
requirements and that IBM is a more rightous and competent partner
for systems development than Microsoft.
Eric Larson
e-l...@uiuc.edu
Matthew J. Farrenkopf
Tim Gerchmez (fut...@blarg.net) wrote:
: On 28 Aug 1996 10:16:59 GMT, ma...@teleport.com (Matthew J.
: Farrenkopf) wrote:
: >95 crashed -- hard. Before thinking it was resulting hardware damage, no,
: >it wasn't. He ended up swapping EVERYTHING out -- drives, memory, video,
: >even motherboard. Nada.
: He may have known what he was doing, but he obviously never found the
: problem. You say he re-installed Win95 multiple times? In that case,
: how could the problem be the fault of Win95, if he tried completely
: fresh copies each time? This was *obviously* a hardware problem, if
: you really told the story the way it happened. Blaming it on Win95 is
: entirely unfair.
How could it be the hardware? He swapped everything out! I witnessed him
swapping some parts, and he claimed to have swapped the rest. I think what
he ended up doing is taking out some of the nonessential hardware, was able
to reinstall it, then add in the rest one by one. This after installing '95
without having to do this.
His installation still doesn't work 100%. I know he has little problems.
The one I know of specifically is that it doesn't display some of his icons
correctly. Where they are supposed to be in the background color, they are
white.
Bill Somrak
Koro wrote:
>
> LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
> 8MB.
The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
for
computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
god"
and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and
find
a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
Have a happy day, and a good weekend!
--
******************************************************************
* /\_/\ /\_/\ * mailto:coo...@ncweb.com *
* Hi! | O O | | O O | * http://www.ncweb.com:80/users/lws *
* = v = = v = * kb8eb @ wa8bxn.oh.usa.na *
* from ^ ^ *************************************
* "Data" & "Geordi" * It's a BABY; NOT a Choice! *
* Bill (my 2 cats) * Please Spay or Neuter *
* say "Hello" too! * your pet cat or dog! *
******************************************************************
Erik
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:49:31 -0400, Bill Somrak <coo...@ncweb.com> posted:
>Koro wrote:
>As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merelyfor
>computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer god"
>and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO! >
>My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and find
>a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
>Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
It would seem that a more reliable litmus test of someone who spends too much
time with their computer is not someone who uses the operating system that
meets their needs, but one who either is on the treadmill for the latest
version of needless software and hardware, and one who detracts from the
more reasoned choices of those who do not feel this driving need to conform
and be part of the mainstream in everything.
While I realize that it must be very comforting you to be a sheep, and stand
in your spot in the slaughterhouse queue with all the other minions, your
attacks on those who are brave enough to be different speaks a lot of your
personality. People like you stood by letting Hilter slaughter millions
upon millions of Jews, let Stalin rise to power in a blaze of sympathy from
those who wouldn't be brave enough to be different. In fact, it is poeple
like YOU, those mindless zombies of mediocracy that damn this once-great
country to a state of impotence!
So, I wish for you to go and continue to slave your thoughtless life away
in a sweatshop to earn the money for your next silicon fix, and never
realize there is another option, to use computers as tools instead of
as a diety that infuses you with a false sense of superiority. And when
you lie back on your deathbed, you will realize that he who dies with the
fastest processor and the most recent operating system upgrade ... is still
dead.
Have a nice life. :-)
Faron Faulk
David H Dennis <da...@amazing.com> wrote:
<snip>
>95. This was true even when we made the ultimate sacrifice and
>put in 16MB RAM.
'ultimate sacrifice'? 16mb simms are $81.
>Unfortunately, my experience is that Windows95 is no more reliable
>than Windows 3.1. It's not less reliable than old Windows, either.
>It's a toss-up. I was hoping originally that Windows95 would give
>me higher speed and better multitasking; I was completely wrong.
>Multitasking on Windows95 works about as well as multitasking under
>Windows 3.1 - that is, not at all. However, there are two major advances
Multitasking doesn't work? Sounds like you're running all 16 bit
apps, which get cooperatively multitasked. If you're using 32 bit
apps, they're preemptively multitasked like just like with Windows NT.
faron
the opinions in this message are mine and not my employers.
Denny Payne
David H Dennis (da...@amazing.com) wrote:
[a lot of stuff about Linux, and more stuff about Win/Win95 problems..]
but...
:
: (4) I wanted to like OS/2. Honest: I really did. But even after
: boosting my then-hot 486 DX2/66 to 16MB RAM, OS/2 still didn't run
: Windows applications at any speed. It was wonderful when I did
: DOS development; I could spend my time looking at a nice workstation-
: like display and flipping between the various windows with my
: editor and FoxPro environment. But once I started being shoved
: towards Windows, I found Windows under OS/2 to be way, way too
: slug-like for my needs. Sad, but nothing I did fixed it. :-(
:
One question...why did you only try Windows apps? Native OS/2 apps can do
many (nearly all) of the same functionality of Windows apps (some can even
do things beyond the capability of Windows, GalCiv for example). FWIW, my
486/133 with 16meg is a screamer, both in OS/2 or Win-OS/2. I think you
kind of gave OS/2 the short end of the stick without exploring all of its'
capabilities.
I do agree with all of your comments about Win95, however.
Denny
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Mynd you, moose bytes kan | Denny Payne at Illuminati Online |
| be pretti nasti.... | http://www.io.com/~nregel |
| -Monty Python and | |
| the Holy Grail | Team OS/2! Warped and loving it! |
| | |
| Never cared for what they say, never "42" - Douglas Adams |
| cared for what they know. But I know. |
| -Metallica "Nothing Else Matters" |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
>Koro wrote:
>>
>> LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
>> 8MB.
Yea so the Amiga is dead (other than running the channel listing on
your cable station) at least it tried something really new. It was a
victim of the me-too-ism of the computer industry. I learned a heck of
a lot about what a bitch a true multi-tasking OS is to work with. And
I made a wack of cash developing for the little guy too. And learned
enough to swear off ever programming in 'C' again.
>> KORO
>
>The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
>
>As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>for
>computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>god"
>and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
>
>My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and
>find
>a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
>Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
>
>Have a happy day, and a good weekend!
This is what really gets me, sir!!!. Is not alt.destroy.microsoft
appropriate for slamming Microsoft??
Really the question or statement should be ' You should be hanging out
on'
rec.catamites.for.bill
or maybe
rec.toss.bills.salad
I am where I should be. Think about where you belong.
Remember the only difference between a brown noser and a shit head
is one of depth perception
>--
> ******************************************************************
> * /\_/\ /\_/\ * mailto:coo...@ncweb.com *
> * Hi! | O O | | O O | * http://www.ncweb.com:80/users/lws *
> * = v = = v = * kb8eb @ wa8bxn.oh.usa.na *
> * from ^ ^ *************************************
> * "Data" & "Geordi" * It's a BABY; NOT a Choice! *
> * Bill (my 2 cats) * Please Spay or Neuter *
> * say "Hello" too! * your pet cat or dog! *
> ******************************************************************
We await silent Trysteros empire
Denny Payne
Koro (ksa...@best.com) wrote:
: On 27 Aug 1996 07:20:25 GMT, jor...@bcl1.seri.philips.nl (Joris D
: inhuurkracht) wrote:
:
: > This is just fine, but what about sales numbers? Does anybody have
: > them? And what about the estimated sales after 1 year. Surely
: > somebody around here remembers them (I don't, that's why I ask).
:
: > At Winblows 95's birthday, it's just the time to review the
: > targets that Micro$oft had set 1 year ago. Did they ship the
: > estimated packages? Or did Winblows 95 fail utterly???
:
: > Opinions appreciated.
:
: Everyone expected about 150 mil or something like that. It definately
: floped reaching only about 50 mil.
: KORO
In who's fantasy? Try about 5 mil and you might be getting close.
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <504kaf$b...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, wtan...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (William Tanksley) writes...
>Hmm. Microsoft: where do YOU want to go today?
Where will you be forced to go today by the fucking monopoly. SHOUT out against
the monopoly of bgss (billgatessoftshit).
Denny Payne
Bill Somrak (coo...@ncweb.com) wrote:
: Koro wrote:
: >
: > LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
: > 8MB.
:
: The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
:
: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
: for
: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
: god"
: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
:
: My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and
: find
: a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
: Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
Perhaps you should GET A CLUE and realize that this thread is crossposted
to such groups as comp.os.os2.advocacy, and probably comp.os.linux.* or
others. These 'Win95 detractors' such as myself tend to have more
experience with different operating systems and thus have some sort of
intelligent basis (ie, observation) on which to compare the OS's. Yours
is the 'false bravado' for assuming that anyone will listen to your
inexperienced opinion.
Craig Maloney
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:49:31 -0400 in comp.os.linux.advocacy Bill Somrak (coo...@ncweb.com) wrote:
: Koro wrote:
: >
: > LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
: > 8MB.
: > KORO
: The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
A nice catch-all statement for advocacy fodder.
: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
: for
: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
: god"
: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
Yet another quaint catch-all. Maybe you should get out of the house more
often and take a look around. Unix is used for many high end applications
(remember Jurassic Park? That was created under Unix). Those ATM machines
use OS/2. This internet thingy uses lots of OS'es, primarily Unix.
People make a living using Unix. Yadda Yadda. I think this should be a FDF
(Frequently Dispelled Fallacy)
: My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and
: find
: a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
: Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
Likewise, those people detracting Linux and Unix as "Nerd Only" OS'es should
try ALT.COMPUTER.CLUELESS.WAKEUP.SMELL.COFFEE
: Have a happy day, and a good weekend!
You too.
: --
: ******************************************************************
: * /\_/\ /\_/\ * mailto:coo...@ncweb.com *
: * Hi! | O O | | O O | * http://www.ncweb.com:80/users/lws *
: * = v = = v = * kb8eb @ wa8bxn.oh.usa.na *
: * from ^ ^ *************************************
: * "Data" & "Geordi" * It's a BABY; NOT a Choice! *
: * Bill (my 2 cats) * Please Spay or Neuter *
: * say "Hello" too! * your pet cat or dog! *
: ******************************************************************
Bob Barker would be proud.
--
||| Craig Maloney | Phone: [313] 390-8096 | Automotive Safety Center |||
||| Opinions expressed are my own. | Ford Motor Company |||
||| "Hello technical support? Yeah, I have a problem. My machine is |||
||| vibrating and spitting sparks everywhere. Is that normal?" |||
Charles Dye
cmal...@sld024.cpd.ford.com (Craig Maloney) wrote:
>Yet another quaint catch-all. Maybe you should get out of the house more
>often and take a look around. Unix is used for many high end applications
>(remember Jurassic Park? That was created under Unix). Those ATM machines
"Oh! This is Unix; I know this!"
Sorry; couldn't resist. (Actually, I think the "Unix" graphics were
done on a Mac or Amiga or some such bitty box.)
Mark Komarinski
William Tanksley (wtan...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: In article <26AUG199...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...) writes:
: >In article <01bb933b$52c4bfc0$44f4...@HAL.vision.net.au>, "Matt Inkson" <min...@vision.net.au> writes...
: >>> Maybe it's time for someone to write a Linux book for raw beginners,
: >>> along with a C book for old BASIC fans.
:
: For the Linux book, you might try "Unix for the impatient"-- I enjoyed
: it. It's not Linux specific, though.
Been there done that. Check out my "Linux Companion". It's not for raw
newbies, but assumes you know some DOS and Windows.
-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - koma...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
Smile. It makes people wonder what you're up to.
Shaken Angel
: : As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
: : for
: : computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
: : god"
: : and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
: : ******************************************************************
: : * /\_/\ /\_/\ * mailto:coo...@ncweb.com *
: : * Hi! | O O | | O O | * http://www.ncweb.com:80/users/lws *
: : * = v = = v = * kb8eb @ wa8bxn.oh.usa.na *
: : * from ^ ^ *************************************
: : * "Data" & "Geordi" * It's a BABY; NOT a Choice! *
: : * Bill (my 2 cats) * Please Spay or Neuter *
: : * say "Hello" too! * your pet cat or dog! *
: : ******************************************************************
This guy has two cats named after Star Trek characters and he has the gall
to call *other* people "NERD/GEEKS"?
Warning -- possible geekflamebait: I am a UNIX systems administrator,
fairly traditionally geeky looking, I talk about geek concepts constantly
with other geeks who are geeky in much the same way that I am, barring
possible variances like OS of choice or horn-rimmed versus wire-framed,
and I *hate* Star Trek with a passion usually reserved for Spanish
Inquisition-era religious zealots.
-- a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. John "Adder" Fink, ULC/KSC -- jbf...@ogre.lib.muohio.edu
Graduate of English, administrator of UNIX, unabashed perkygoth,
world's most amicable sociopath, industrial music fan, friend to children
everywhere, worker of libraries, and Thorn in the Side of Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shut up. It's the future.
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <3226C7...@ncweb.com>, coo...@ncweb.com writes...
>The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
Yes, and Billy Joel is not a failure. Foreigner was not a failure. Styx was
not a failure. But you know what? They all gobble the wad!
>As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>for
>computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>god"
>and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
And Henry Cow never had a top 40 hit. How fucking esoteric! Go eat your
Arch Deluxe now, after all, you're an adult.
>My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and
>find
>a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
>Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
Others can go to alt.bg.bud.billy-joel.macdonalds.shithead-who-sells-chevys
>Have a happy day, and a good weekend!
Aw what the heck, you have a good weekend too!
Sam Duncan Idaho Freeman Clemmons Sharma
In article <3226C7...@ncweb.com>, coo...@ncweb.com wrote:
>Koro wrote:
>>
>> LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
>> 8MB.
>> KORO
>
>
>for
>computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>god"
>and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
how !
can !
opinions !
like THIS !
be!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
IMHO!
just my 2 X 10 e6 microcents.
John Lopez
Pat <p...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in article
<501efs$l...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>...
> That's total bull. 8mb? Do you realise just how big that is? My prefered
> OS - Acorn's RISC OS, runs in less than 400k (and I still think that's
> a bit bloated). Get real. It's just bad coding or some sort of storage
> conspiracy. Do you have the remotest idea what this 8+mb is used for?
> Does anyone? I'm damned if I can figure it out.
>
> Oh, and don't reply with 'your OS obviously can't do this that and the
> other...' There really is _very_ little that WinXX does that I can't.
Hey, I've got a C64 over here, you want it?
I just got an add for memory here - 16MB SIMMS for $88 (non parity - $107
with). Is that out of your league?
William Tanksley
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.960829...@homer13.u.washington.edu> "Martin M. Cron" <mar...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>On 26 Aug 1996 mark...@crc3.concentric.net wrote:
>> Everyone I've ever talked to about it hates it with a violent passion.
>> The only place I've ever heard a good thing about it from is MicroSoft, and
>> their supporters in this newsgroup.
>> The interface sucks. It doesn't do anything right. They tried hard to copy
>> the MAC interface (folders, etc.) and screwed it all up. You can't even set it
>> to kill the parent screen when something is opened from it.
>Speaking from experience I see? You are dead wrong. You can kill the
>parent screen when something is opened from it.
I think he was referring to modal dialogs. If so, well, the Mac can't do
that either-- and Win95 just might be able to, by right clicking on the
startbar. (Can it? I've seen this work for some DOS programs, although
it often crashes.)
>The underlying operating system, of course, could be a lot better. But the
>front end has a lot of things that I appreciate.
Hmm. I think that this is fairly accurate. The only things about the
front end that I really hate are the lack of pinnable menus and the
tendancy of things to change geometries on the fly. This second
characteristic means that I'll often be clicking on some button or window
frame, only to find it sliding out from underneath my pointer, or having
something else pop up over it. This is really nasty with passwords.
So we have one inconveniance and one danger-- not all that bad. Some
work was done on this interface, even if most of that work wasn't by MS.
:)
>-Martin Cron
-Billy
William Tanksley
>> LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
>> 8MB.
>The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
The first two statements are true, but irrelevant. The last statement is
true only in a marketing sense-- important, indeed, but having nothing to
do with OS quality.
>As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely for
>computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer god"
>and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
For a non-geek you're pretty emphatic about OSes. (An emphatic humble
opinion??)
OS/2 has proven useful for quite a few non-geeks; Linux is highly useful
for many who need its capabilities.
At any rate, all of these OSes meet the criteria as performing useful
work at an acceptable speed in 8megs of memory.
>My ONLY wish is that all these Win95 detractors would "get a life" and find
>a newsgroup where their false bravado and whining would be acceptable.
>Perhaps they should try: ALT.COMPUTER.NERD.GEEK.GEEK.GEEK
Would alt.destroy.microsoft be appropriate? :)
-Billy
William Tanksley
In article <322736...@ix.netcom.com> Quantum Leaper <dbe...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Bill Somrak wrote:
>> The AMIGA is DEAD ... not longer in production .. a FAILURE!
>The Amiga is dead, LONG LIVE the Amiga the set top box!!!! The
>Commodore computers (Amiga and 8-bits) were bought a few months
>ago...BTW their still willing to sell the Amiga and tech to anyone who
>willing to put it back into production. It doesn't matter it the
>computer is 'DEAD' or not its still the BEST multitasking OS on any
>PC!! You try running Linux or OS/2 on 512K!
Agreement with all except the last couple. It's no longer the best, and
it's no longer the only small-resources OS. (The Amiga platform still
has the best designed collection of hardware.)
PC-Geos can run in 512K, and does more graphics than Amiga, including
24-bit color, scaled outline fonts, and full WYSIWYG systemwide. It
shares another characteristic with the Amiga OS: it's been marginalized
by the anticompetitive fraud of B.G. &co.
-Billy
Tim Gerchmez
On 28 Aug 1996 12:36:12 GMT, Pat <p...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>kwe...@bway.net (Kenneth Weiss) wrote:
>>What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
>>realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
>>of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs.
>
>That's total bull. 8mb? Do you realise just how big that is?
Do YOU realize that this is 1996?
--
"Ohhhhh... Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..." - Beavis, watching man on fire
running through city streets.
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Quantum Leaper
Bill Somrak wrote:
>
> Koro wrote:
> >
> > LINUX, OS/2 and the Amiga are just a few OS's that run very well under
> > 8MB.
Charles Dye
wtan...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (William Tanksley) wrote:
>PC-Geos can run in 512K, and does more graphics than Amiga, including
>24-bit color, scaled outline fonts, and full WYSIWYG systemwide. It
>shares another characteristic with the Amiga OS: it's been marginalized
>by the anticompetitive fraud of B.G. &co.
No surprise there; the original GEOS was designed to work in 64K. I
might or might not still have the setup disks for C64 GEOS v1.0.
Quantum Leaper
> Agreement with all except the last couple. It's no longer the best, and
> it's no longer the only small-resources OS. (The Amiga platform still
> has the best designed collection of hardware.)
>
> 24-bit color, scaled outline fonts, and full WYSIWYG systemwide. It
> shares another characteristic with the Amiga OS: it's been marginalized
> by the anticompetitive fraud of B.G. &co.
>
have Multitasking!!! Also PC-GEOS is a DEAD OS from last I heard,
Berkley (I forget their new name) is working on Porting GEOS to the
Newton type systems. I haven't use PC-GEOS in about a year, but I
didn't think it was BETTER than the Amiga OS. Any modern OS should
support Multitasking!! Either way, I had forgot about PC-GEOS running
in 512K on the PC, also who has 512K on PC now anyway? 286s? Even the
only person I know running a 286, has 640K.
One other thing about PC-GEOS, isn't free or something like that on the
PCs?
Andrew Fremantle
=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>SomEbOdy WroTe:
>
>: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>: for
>: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>: god"
>: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
>Well, I will agree... there are not as many apps for Linux as for
>Winblowz95... But at least they are free. 95% of apps you download
>from the Net have those stupid beggars' nag screens, different
>functionality-limiting features, registration codes and crap like
>that. Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
>terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
>erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
>decompile, disassemble... etc.] I see nothing like this when dealing
>with Linux programs.
>Why did there appear computer viruses? Because of MS-DOS/Windoze.
>Why did there appear software piracy? MS-DO$/Windoze.
>Thanks to what millions of users every day stare at dark blue
>screens with `General Exception Fault' messages?? M$-DOS/Winblows.
>Eraze your Winblowz partition today! Uze Linux/FreeBSD instead.
>Make Uncle Billy starve.
>M$-Windows user to techsupport: "Who is General Failure and
>why is he reading my hard drive?"
>M$-DOS error mesage: "No keyboard detected. Please press F1
>to continue".
>--
>*-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
>*-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
>*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
>*-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
I Agree fully with your opinion of WinFroze, but I disagree with your
opinion of Micro$loth DOS. Granted, DOS was a breeding ground for
viruses with it's lack of security, but for it's time it was an
excellent OS. Unfortunately, that time has past. I am a DOS fan, and I
find M$ trying to squeeze me into using it's WinFlaws products. I will
not tolerate this. This is the reason I am moving into UNIX [ Linux,
specifically ]. At this time, I find DOS/Windows3.1 more useful than
Linux, but keep in mind i've been using Micro$loth for years and linux
for about 2 weeks. In some respects, I find DOS superior to Linux. For
really processor intensive graphics applications [ games, mostly ] DOS
is better than Windoze OR linux because it allows the game to access
the hardware directly. but overall, Linux is better. I find the
prospects of having my own ftp/www server very tempting, and under
DOS/Winfroze I would not have a hope in hell of doing it. And don't
try that age-old Micro$loth line, but Windows95 doesen't use dos....
bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
management and a new face.
Steve Withers
In <322436c0...@news.direct.ca>, ghost...@cyberspace.ca (GhostRider) writes:
>On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:24:34 -0400, Patricia Flickner <pfl...@op.net>
>wrote:
Win95 horror stories removed.
>>So much for your third party.
>>
>>Pat Flickner
>
>Are we haveing a bad day??? Tell someone who really cares!!!! Better
>yet start another news groups so you guys can whine to each other. I
>have had Win95 on my system and have yet to have these so called
>problems. Why take the blame for not knowing how to config the OS when
>you can hop on the band wagon and say the OS is shit. Oh well to each
>his own.......:oP
>
>GhostRider
Denying the guy's experiences isn't very productive. I have my own
Win95 tales to tell......it came down to either replacing half
my hardware - or running another OS.
NT 3.51 works fine.
NT4.0 beta2 was.....beta, so I wiped it.
OS/2 (all versions) works fine.
Linux (all versions) works fine.
But Win95 will only run in safe mode and crashes and doesn't
run Mech Warrior II anywhere near as well as OS/2 does in a DOS
box.....
I could go on....but you get my drift.
The only reason I can see for running Win95 is if you *MUST* MS Office
(32-bit) and you can't afford Win NT.
Otherwise, almost anything is better.
*************************************************************
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
steve....@ibm.net / swit...@vnet.ibm.com
Canadian since '58 / Kiwi since '87 / OS2 since April '92
Life just keeps getting better!
*************************************************************
cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz
In <504afh$i...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> writes:
>Companies will realize it doesn't make sense to spend for an NT machine
>to put on a secretaries desk when he is quite productive on DOS/Windows.
But remember, if that secratary can't type all that fast.. VTD comes along..
>These companies wil also find that OS/2 can easily handle their legacy
>requirements and that IBM is a more rightous and competent partner
>for systems development than Microsoft.
People say otherwise, but OS/2 is quite a good platform to run games on
too. But then IBM is said that OS/2 is not for the home market. Still,
if daddy uses OS/2 at work, he might be compelled to use it at home aswell..
=BORG=
gods@airmail.net@airmail.net
In <501qsv$g...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cx...@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher Cronin) writes:
>I am very familiar with configuring operating systems.
Ditto, had OS/2 Warp Beta, NT 3.5, and Win95 Beta on one system back
a few years. Run NT 4.0 (beta) and OS/2 Warp 4.0 (beta) right now.
>I guess the point here is that Windows95 has some difficulty
>dealing with all configuartions of all systems.
Very True of all OS's with the exception of Mac. The reason Mac's are
(I should say were) the Idiot-Proof PC is because Apple could actually test
the different configurations (set hardware base). With Mac Clones, they will
start having problems as well...
>and my local slip/ppp
>provider is going Windows95 exclusive so I have little choice
>but to convert.
Now this, I don't understand. Granted, you are very competent on OS's.
How's your TCP/IP? Are you saying that your Internet Provider is going
to set up a program that checks to make sure the client is Windows 95?
They are going to require you to run some kind of OS Version Daemon on
your system to log in? Or do you mean they will only provide Windows 95
internet software?
I mean, I've had 3 providers in the last 2 years and I have yet to actually
use any of the crappy software they sent me to sign on and use the internet.
(Remember Mosaic? Ha!). Are they ignoring Macs and Unixes, and dedicated
servers? Will this OS Version Daemon keep NT users from loggin on as well?
Hmmm.. my guess is that the worse you'd have to do to log on with OS/2 or
Windows 3.1 would be to write a login.cmd file...
>The barking by 95 fans and detractors seems overdone. It is
>neither a great, nor am awful operating system. It is, though
>the way my needs, and others, are heading.
Untrue. This could be said for OS/2 or NT, but not really for 95.
Sure, Windows 95 is more 'advanced' than Windows 3.1 (heck, a box of
cheerios is more advanced than Windows 3.1), and it does provide some
unique and usefull features... but comparitively, it is WAY behind in technology.
(We're talking true pre-emptive multitasking OS's that can actually handle
multiple threads like OS/2 and NT here!)
>And for those who say that problems people have as a result of
>configuring or installing Win95 poorly is a result of their
>ignorance . . .ask yourself . . . isnt't Win95 supposed to be
>designed to work for the ignorant?
>--
It's against the law to have an idiot-proof piece of software because the
Help Desk industry is the fastest growing industry in the US (Laugh if you want,
but its true!).
Please Note: This is not a bash on any specific person or company (perhaps
an operating system, but lets not name names) and though I favor an Operating
System of a different color (I believe he wore blue robes with white stars,
but they insist its a bird of prey) you'll notice that my references against
a certain year-old OS have always been equated by 2 OS's from different
vendors (no naming names but the code name is Bill the Borg and Lou the
4rth Stooge).
DAnn
(Go...@Airmail.Net)
---Warped/2---
Merlin: It's A Kind Of Magic!
David F. Skoll
> In <4vvkfv$r...@redstone.interpath.net>, soft...@mercury.interpath.com
> (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes:
>I keep seeing stories like this -- someone knows some vague third party
>who doesn't like Windows 95 because it "keeps crashing". Has there
>ever been one concrete case backed up with *details* on one of these
>people who tried using Windows 95 and couldn't? I doubt it. If only
>nameless, vague third parties are dissatisfied, it must be pretty
>solid.
I personally find Windows 95 very unstable. I use a CAD package
called Protel Advanced Schematic 3, which crashes quite often. About
four times out of five, it renders Windows unusable after a crash.
The Windows screen saver and Protel interact very badly. I use
the Energy Star features; if Protel is running a macro when the screen
saver kicks in, I can't shut it off and have to reboot Windows.
Microsoft Word crashes with a general protection fault if you try to
load a "bad" rtf file -- I can e-mail you the details if you want.
I have a version of Tcl/Tk which supposedly works under Win95.
Wrong. It crashes it.
The company I mentioned which removed Win95 in favour of NT and 3.1 is
not "nameless"; it's called Philsar Electronics and has plenty of
bad experiences to relate.
--
David F. Skoll
<a HREF="http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~dfs/">
Click here for my home page</a> "Query two pi" on typewriter.
David F. Skoll
In article <322424ed...@news.bway.net>, Kenneth Weiss
(kwe...@bway.net) wrote:
> >HA!
> >I have 8meg RAM (soon 64), and used win95 for 3 weeks (about 6hrs/day)
> >And I must say, moving to win95 would be moving to 3yr old technology.
> What the hell did you expect to run with 8MBS? That's hardly a
> realistic amount of RAM to expect any OS to run in with the exception
> of DOS and certain Win 3.xx programs.
Linux runs very happily in 8MB.
> When Win95 and probably NT go
> to a hypertext based format, even more OS/2 and Mac losers will be
> left in the dust as software authors just finally give up. Why do you
> think the very best Internet apps are written for the Windows format?
"very best Internet apps". Yeah, right. Why is it that virtually
all Internet servers are Unix boxes? Why is it that MS Exchange
is completely buggy and cannot interact well with Internet mail
transport agents? Why is it that free OS's like Linux are more
stable, provide better internetworking, and are faster than
Windows?
David F. Skoll
In article <506shi$m...@news.microsoft.com>, Faron Faulk
(far...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> Multitasking doesn't work? Sounds like you're running all 16 bit
> apps, which get cooperatively multitasked. If you're using 32 bit
> apps, they're preemptively multitasked like just like with Windows NT.
Why the distinction?
Actually, the problem is not 16- or 32-bit applications. The problem
is a two-bit operating system.
David F. Skoll
> As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
> for
> computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
> god"
> and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
You're wrong. I now have a Linux machine at work (as well as a Win95
one) because we realized that for some applications, Linux is simply
better. Furthermore, my Linux machine recently saved a co-worker
about a hour's worth of work -- he wanted to do something that Win95
simply couldn't do. I ftp'd his files to my Linux box, did what he
needed, and ftp'd it back. This was a dramatic (and traumatic)
experience for our solidly-Win95 shop.
red...@mhv.net
I saw a Staples Office Supply paper advertising winDOS95 with a $30.00
rebate to buy it in celebration of its birthday.
Now M$ has to pay people to buy it and it's only a year old.
I never seen OS2 discounted like this until the next release was due.
Bruce Ediger
d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) wrote:
>In article <506shi$m...@news.microsoft.com>, Faron Faulk
>(far...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>> Multitasking doesn't work? Sounds like you're running all 16 bit
>> apps, which get cooperatively multitasked. If you're using 32 bit
>> apps, they're preemptively multitasked like just like with Windows NT.
>
>Why the distinction?
>
>Actually, the problem is not 16- or 32-bit applications. The problem
>is a two-bit operating system.
I think it's deeper than just a mediocre operating system. Why is there
such a division between "16-bit" and "32-bit" in the first place? What
could have possessed the designers of the 8086, 80286 and 80386 to keep
piling on hack after hack? Other architectures have a distinct maximum
address size, and that's what's referred to as the bitness of the CPU.
The x86 stuff is so complicated, and so grotesque, that you can have
16-bit (which is actually more like 20-bit, but with some grossness)
and a sort of 32-bit mode (which is actually more like 36-bit, but I
could be wrong on this one. Read an intel i386 or i486 book to see
why...).
It's the underlying 80x86 architecture that's causing the pain. A quick
hack in '79 or '80 or so that will follow us like a slimy monster well
into the next century. Thousands and millions of man-years have already
been lost on this horrible crap. How much longer will we be burdened
by it? As long as Microsoft makes money off of morons with it.
Shawn Langley
red...@mhv.net wrote in article <509f7d$q...@news.mhv.net>...
| Now M$ has to pay people to buy it and it's only a year old.
| I never seen OS2 discounted like this until the next release was due.
Get a life
John Sheehy
nre...@io.com (Denny Payne) writes:
>Perhaps you should GET A CLUE and realize that this thread is crossposted
>to such groups as comp.os.os2.advocacy, and probably comp.os.linux.* or
>others. These 'Win95 detractors' such as myself tend to have more
>experience with different operating systems and thus have some sort of
>intelligent basis (ie, observation) on which to compare the OS's. Yours
>is the 'false bravado' for assuming that anyone will listen to your
>inexperienced opinion.
Just because you have used many different operating systems doesn't mean
you have any insight at all into what other people use them for. It
also does not guarantee that you are without prejudice or bigotry.
Anyone who demands that they're correct just because of their
"credentials" is only going to impress the fool, because anyone who is
alert knows is that the more people "know", the more they disagree with
each other. Expertise leads more easily to diversity of thought than to
a central focus.
Yours is an equally false bravado.
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
John Sheehy
Quantum Leaper <dbe...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The Amiga is dead, LONG LIVE the Amiga the set top box!!!! The
>Commodore computers (Amiga and 8-bits) were bought a few months
>ago...BTW their still willing to sell the Amiga and tech to anyone who
>willing to put it back into production. It doesn't matter it the
>computer is 'DEAD' or not its still the BEST multitasking OS on any
>PC!! You try running Linux or OS/2 on 512K!
Why would anyone want to do that, except as a curiosity? The cost
difference between 512K and 16 megs is about $80 these days.
You're making a point that is only truly visible to someone who is stuck
with a machine that is impossible or expensive to upgrade with memory.
The Amiga looses it's MT edge once you start having lots of ram and
multitasking several _busy_ apps ("busy", as in, not waiting for a
keystroke).
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
John Sheehy
sbw...@ibm.net (Steve Withers) writes:
>Denying the guy's experiences isn't very productive. I have my own
>Win95 tales to tell......it came down to either replacing half
>my hardware - or running another OS.
That's the problem I had with Warp!
>NT 3.51 works fine.
>
>NT4.0 beta2 was.....beta, so I wiped it.
>
>OS/2 (all versions) works fine.
>Linux (all versions) works fine.
Funny. When I was having problems with OS/2 running on my 486, which
ran Win3.1 and Win95 without problems, I was told by OS/2 advocates that
this was because OS/2 required better hardware than Windows....
>But Win95 will only run in safe mode and crashes and doesn't
Do you think that most peoples' Win95 systems only boot into Safe mode?
>run Mech Warrior II anywhere near as well as OS/2 does in a DOS
>box.....
But it runs many other programs, especially Win3.1 ones, much better.
>I could go on....but you get my drift.
I do. When something is wrong with OS/2, it is the inferior hardware.
When something is wrong with Win95, it is the Kernel. Got it.
>The only reason I can see for running Win95 is if you *MUST* MS Office
>(32-bit) and you can't afford Win NT.
>
>Otherwise, almost anything is better.
That's a rather sweeping generalization, isn't it? I have Warp, Linux,
and Win95 on my machine, and I use mostly Win95. It's shortcomings are
less of a problem in practice than they are in the theories of
niche-platformers, and the available software I find much more useful.
I'm sure I'm not the only person in this category.
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><