Win95 and games: good news...
Yann Nicolas
DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
work...
Well think again... For a while I thought I *had* to run all my DOS programs
in a window and realized that eventhough most normal games would still
work (X-COM 2, Doom, etc...) other wouldn't (System Shock, Wing
Commander III, etc...). A little bummed out, I read the (great) help file and
finally realized that you can actually allocate all your computer
resources to your DOS programs... After a normal installation of the
game (any) in a DOS box, you can go to the Windows Explorer (Win95's
file manager), select the .exe program of the game, chose properties
and then chose to run it as a DOS program... Now, the "neat" feature
is that you can assign a different config.sys and autoexec.bat to
*each* program... That's great because you can finally easily optimize
each settings...
Of course, it took a little twitching for some games (WC3 was a little
hard for me), but once it's done, it works flawlessly...
There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)
PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
I tried it and didn't like it...
(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~)
|\| Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
|\| ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)
Kevin Hurley
: OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
: DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
: games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
: work...
: Well think again... For a while I thought I *had* to run all my DOS programs
: in a window and realized that eventhough most normal games would still
: work (X-COM 2, Doom, etc...) other wouldn't (System Shock, Wing
: Commander III, etc...). A little bummed out, I read the (great) help file and
: finally realized that you can actually allocate all your computer
: resources to your DOS programs... After a normal installation of the
: game (any) in a DOS box, you can go to the Windows Explorer (Win95's
: file manager), select the .exe program of the game, chose properties
: and then chose to run it as a DOS program... Now, the "neat" feature
: is that you can assign a different config.sys and autoexec.bat to
: *each* program... That's great because you can finally easily optimize
: each settings...
: Of course, it took a little twitching for some games (WC3 was a little
: hard for me), but once it's done, it works flawlessly...
: There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
: Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)
: PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: I tried it and didn't like it...
Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
time.
--
Kevin Hurley
Alexandria, VA
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: : I tried it and didn't like it...
: Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
: time.
Bullshit. OS/2 sucks for games, period. I have tried Warp, and DOS
games do not want to run. So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere
near as well as Windows 95. Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has
also been doing the same thing.
OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program. Instead it offers nice
little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future. It is Win95 (yes, I am using it
right now). Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
Jef
Derek Suzuki
>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>: Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>: time.
"Ultimate Compatibility Mode". This is basically an automated equivalent
of Warp's dualboot feature. It saves the state of the OS, sends you back to
real DOS, then reloads the OS from disk. There is also the option to run
games in DOS boxes, which is more what you had in mind.
>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program. Instead it offers nice
>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
Most of the DOS settings should be the same for any game. You can
just copy one of the built-in game objects to get mostly optimal settings.
As for separate config files, you can assign a list of drivers and TSRs to
each individual program object. All of the stuff you would normally set in a
text file is accessible through the settings dialog.
>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future. It is Win95 (yes, I am using it
>right now). Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
Sigh, at least you didn't use the term "ROOLZ". Anyway, even the
MS crowd says that NT is the future.
Mark Bassett
Win95 and games: good n.. by Derek Suz...@ocf.berkele
> >right now). Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??
Mark
Fulcrum Brown
Oh yeah, it has to be true. I read it in PC Gamer. They're
the definitive source of all things true!!!!
(If you couldn't figure it, that was sarcasm)
sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Fulcrum Brown
University of Washington
Scott Alter
>
> PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
> I tried it and didn't like it...
>
Oh-Shit/2 is great, if you don't need sound for your programs.
___________________________________________________________________________
Scott Alter sca...@crl.com
San Antonio, Texas
I'm so conservative I even press my socks...
___________________________________________________________________________
Galasso Emilio N
Clayton Cahill <cha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
>et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
>
>
>I actually am curious.
I actually played and sold WC3 before I began running Win95... but I CAN say
that Dark Forces works fine. It's really hard to tell that you're even
running it under Win95 until you hit the loading portions of the game...
they take a lot longer. However, I can understand that since there's a lot
of memory management going on... but once the game is going, it plays damn
fast.
Let's see, what games have I tried under Win95... Dark Forces, Tie Fighter,
X-Wing CD, X-Com 2, Descent, Doom II, Alone in the Dark III... hmm, I know
I've played more but I can't think of them right now. Tie Fighter, X-Wing,
X-Com 2, Descent, oh.. Heretic too... they all ran in Window as well. Mind
you, it's kinda too slow to be playable in a Window (except maybe X-Com)
but it's neat to see it run that way. The only problem I found is that Win95
didn't seem to give the Windowed game control of the palette when it was
in focus... all of them ran fine in full-screen though.
I also had most of these running under OS/2 with no problems either... though I
never got the chance to try Descent or X-Com II under OS/2. Tie Fighter,
X-Wing, Heretic, etc all ran in a window under OS/2 as well.
--
Emilio Galasso
a260...@cdf.toronto.edu
University of Toronto, Computer Science.
John Michael Martz
> Not to mention decend support and on-line help files. Nothing is more
> frustrating with Warp than dealing with IBM's turd support staff. Very
> rude people, and very unhelpful. IBM's marketing people never bothered
> to inform support they were trying to win over Windows users, it seems.
> With OS/2, and error is an error, and there will be no explanation.
What? OS/2's on-line help system is fine, and in my two calls to IBM tech
support, I've had not problems. Perhaps you came off as a rude asshole as
you do in the above post? Notice how it draws a rude response?
JOHN
* John M. Martz: Psychology Dept, UNC-CH * *
| CB# 3270, Davie Hall | B = f(P,E) |
| Chapel Hill, NC 27599 | --Kurt Lewin |
* JOHN_...@UNC.EDU * *
John Michael Martz
beginning to get bad-mouthed in this thread (not by James, below, so
don't berate him), and I thought it reasonable to try to achieve some
balance here.
On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, James Lummel wrote:
> To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
> multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
> that was chosen at start-up. If it's any configuration but the Windows
> one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!). I
Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
tailor the settings for each program individually.
Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
currently do in DOS.
Chris Skuller
with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Sir Ace the Great
SIR...@IX.NETCOM.COM
root
jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
>Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
>tailor the settings for each program individually.
>
>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
>example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>currently do in DOS.
Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
absolutely nothing about.
Thanks,
- Rich
>
>JOHN
>
Fulcrum Brown
Windows 95 runs all your favorite Windows 3.1 stuff and
more better and faster. Trust me, I know from experience.
Those OS/2 Fanatics will say anything to desperatly save
their Doomed! Operating System. Windows 95 also runs all
your DOS applications better and faster too. And the
interface kicks rear.
Windows 95 is the future.
Fulcrum Brown
University of Washington
On 18 Apr 1995, Baphometae Organus wrote:
> . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always
> : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems
> : pointless to argue with them.
>
> : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are
> : sloughing in their so called os/2
> : systems.
>
> I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1
> programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
> would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
>
>
>
>
Craig Sparks
>: hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems
>: pointless to argue with them.
>: I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are
>: sloughing in their so called os/2
>: systems.
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1
>programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
No, this is not the case. I have been running under Windows 95 for quite a
while now, and have not had any compatibility issues. All of my Win31 programs
(with a few exceptions for specialty applications) work just fine.
Craig Sparks
Norton Utilities for Win95 Support
Symantec Corp
Derick J.R. Qua-Gonzalez
>
>I had a very bad experience with os/2 because of the increadibilily slow
>performance in running windows 16bit applications. I just couldn't stand
>it. To make matters worse, boot manager didn't work with my system
>because there was a problem between fdisk and my harddisk.
>
That's funny, it seems to be running fine for me, and I am one who
demands speed and reliability using the same standards I apply to
Sun SPARC/DEC Alpha workstation. Maybe all you need are some tweaks,
e.g. setting the cache, swap device, getting more RAM, using HPFS, etc..
I must confess, though, raw DOS/Windows is much faster...of course, then
there are boot disk, CONFIG.SYS issues, running out of memory (on a 48MB
machine!), an average 'necessary reboot count' of about 8 per day, etc.,
but for the purpose of gaming, I guess that really isn't an issue!
>I could go on for days about the problems I had with oS/2 but to make
>this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in
>stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first
>priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned.
Hmm...I'll sit on Win95. Speed is not of utmost priority! What good
is a sorting algorithm (for instance) that is fastest but works only 80%
of the time? Regarding B/W compatibility, some sacrifice is necessary to
advance the state of the art; this rabid insistence on backward compati-
bility (I have witnessed since IBM XT first came out) due mostly to those
business types resisting change is why we have a lot of trouble of late.
Most notably, the patchwork quilt and house of cards nature of Windows.
>I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are
>sloughing in their so called os/2
>systems.
>
If it does what you need it to, more power! Personally, I was unim-
pressed by Windows NT.
Best Regards,
+----------+
| ________ | Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
| \ / | Department of High Energy Physics
| \ / | California State University
| \ / |
| \/ | COMING TO YOU FROM WONDERFUL WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
| USA G | WHERE THE MEN ARE PRETTY AND THE WOMEN ARE STRONG
+----------+
Tarquelne
following this thread with interest.
Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice. Why? Well, I haven't
learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
informed.
Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2
users rather than the Win95 users. As far as "character" references go, OS/2
is way ahead.
"Good job!" OS/2 people!
And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post! I
want to hear both sides of the story. Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.
--
Tarquelne
jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't lift it.
Wilbur S. Peng
It's amazing how loudly people are willing to proclaim
their ignorance about a subject and pronounce OS/2
dead and Win95 the future.
If you want your various points about OS/2 DOS support shot down,
please post to the OS/2 advocacy groups, not here.
Actually, I'm sure that Microsoft by now knows that
Win95 is a complete DEAD END and their future lies in NT and
future variants thereof... but you won't seem them
acknowledging that just yet!
Dave Morris
>
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1
>programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
>
>
support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX
compatable. However, this is a preview version only and not the full
Beta or the final version.
The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and
furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements
to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code.
Anyway, the reviews say that it will run faster than OS2.X with less
memory, especially when running 16 bit software.
See ya
* *
-
-------
-
bye
/DM ;-)
Thomas Neil Franklin
one of the first Win95 upgrades will be to its graphics and
sound capability. It seems that Microsoft is really committed
to making Win95 into a high performance gaming platform. This
should be great for gamers since I believe that the game market
will take off once people can load up a good game that they can
click on and play. We should have more choices as the market
expands!!
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu
sch...@direct.ca
>Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>
>: : I tried it and didn't like it...
>
>: time.
[snip]
>OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
>Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program. Instead it offers nice
>little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device
statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
==========================================================================
Simon Chung Go Canucks Go!
sch...@Direct.CA Equipe d'OS/deux
Q: How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 563. Four to announce the news to the press 2 years in advance, 400 to
design a new plug'n'play 32-bit version of the light bulb, 150 to
supervise 2,000 beta testers for the 8 months, 8 to announce the install-
ation of the bulb will be four months late, and one to change it.
==========================================================================
Kenneth Mitton
--Ken Mitton
mit...@bvsd.k12.co.us
===============================================
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deeply, or taste not the Pierian spring."
-- Alexander Pope
Stephen Wilhelm
> Fuck OS/2. OS/2 is going to be dead.
OS/2 is going to be dead? Win95 isn't even out yet, and you already
know that OS/2 is going to be dead? Hmmm....I seem to remember the
same threat with WinNT....I also seem to remember a History teacher of
mine saying that history repeats itself.....
> I've had so many bad expeiriences with warp it's not even
> funny.
I must be doing something wrong, I have never had a problem. My guess
is that you either have weird hardware, a Diamond video card (until
recently they refused to write drivers, and they told IBM that they
would sue if they tried to write one), or you don't know what you are
doing. OS/2 isn't for everyone, it does require a certain knowledge
of how the computer runs. Once you get past all those settings,
though, OS/2 is the best thing out there.
> ANd yes, Win95 is alot faster for games then OS/2. OS/2 offers all
> the "amizing multitasking ability" for those who want to myltitask
> wordperfect and internet. Its not for games
Faster for games, eh? Descent runs faster and smoother under OS/2
than under DOS. Same for Doom (no sound, I hate that), and Dark
Forces. I haven't really compared them with Win95 yet, I am still
trying to figure out how to get two Windows apps to multitask (so far
they are slower than under Win3.1 whether I am multitasking or running
them all by themselves). Win95 should run DOS programs about as well
as OS/2 though.
Wordperfect and Internet? Oh, come on, surely you can see why that
would be nice. For instance, you are downloading a big file from
somewhere. Under Windows, you can multitask (get a cup of coffee,
watch some TV, maybe even take a nap), or you can multitask under OS/2
(type that research paper you have been putting off, play some Dark
Forces, or whatever you want to do).
OS/2 may not be for everyone, but it can run games fairly well.
Disclaimer: I have 20MB of RAM on my 486SX-33, so that may explain
why I can get it faster than under DOS, but it is still pretty quick
on a friends computer with 8MB.
If you want to stay with a 64K heap, 16bit device drivers, FAT
filesystem (multiple directory entries to emulate long filenames), and
the DOS kernel, and you really don't want to multitask anything, then
I wholehardedly recomend Win95.
--
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Stephen Wilhelm Majors: Computer Science | MC Computer
Mississippi College Engineering Physics | Support Team
swil...@mc.edu Minor: Mathematics | sup...@mc.edu
Paul Hethmon
ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
:>
:>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>,
So Rich, perhaps you could enlighten us with your advanced knowledge?
Paul Hethmon
phet...@utk.edu
Programmer/Analyst & OS/2 Certified Engineer
Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
Rich
Cahill) writes:
>Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
>et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
>
>
>I actually am curious.
Not true. :) Wing Commander III runs FASTER than with straight DOS
(which is a nice bonus), and runs flawlessly straight from the GUI
without rebooting with it's own configuration. Same with Dark Forces
(Dark Forces will actually run IN a window).
In fact, you can run Win95 without a CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT (unless
you'd like to keep some PATH statements in the latter). As long as
you're running Win95, some things like SMARTDRV & MSCDEX (and in my
opinion, memory managers) are obsolete, and only slow things down in
Win95--it has it's own built-in CD support and caching.
Real nice. :)
Rich
--
>==============================================<
> Rich D. < / <
>----------< O===[=Excalibur Dragon====- <
> \ <
> R E D J r @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m <
> Excalibur Systems <*> -==(UDIC)==- <
>----------------------------------------------<
> "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and <
> pass, leaving memories that become legend.." <
>==============================================<
Rich
Organus) writes:
>I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1
>programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types?
>I would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
A truly scaly lie that would be. :) As a matter of fact, it's the
backward compatibility (with 16-bit Windows apps) that's generating
some of the stick points that people love to harp on with Win95.
The way I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you want
backward-compatibility, then don't complain about the results of such
compatibility, ya know? :)
Fear not.. with VERY few exceptions, your Win3.1 apps will work fine
with Win95 (some work better, and with far fewer faults).
Rich
Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then
>drops back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why
>should I penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one
>program by increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95
>handle this example? From what I understand, it would require that I
>use FILES=50 system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is
>that correct? If so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over
>what many people currently do in DOS.
It's a hard call, because I haven't found any exceptions to what I'm
about to say.
As I've mentioned previously, I run Win95 with NO CONFIG.SYS and a
streamlined AUTOEXEC.BAT (just a few SET statements, and a path or
two), and not one thing (that's going to run under Win95 directly) has
a problem with this, and in general, runs better. And this includes
such things as programs that require X amount of FILES, etc. (like
WordPerfect--it runs fine). As far as games go, no complaints from
them either. They don't need the sound driver TSRs, mouse TSRs, etc.
like they do in straight DOS (which is nice). The few games that burp
under Win95 (and require a reboot setup) are usually the ones with
proprietary memory managers (like Ultima 7 & Strike Commander, I
believe).
So, yes, if you have startup files with settings like that, then yes,
it will affect everything globally (loading SMARTDRV appears to
supersede the Win95 caching, which is faster; loading any CD-ROM device
drivers disables 32-bit file access (I think) in Win95).. so you're
better off just letting Win95 handle everything.
EVERYTHING. ;)
Tim Callahan
WHAT???
Steffen Krause
:Windows 95 latest Premier Demo Beta version for general release does not
:support 16 bit API's, so in that respect it is not Windows 3.XX
:compatable. However, this is a preview version only and not the full
:Beta or the final version.
Are you really SURE ? I had about 10 different Win 95 betas up to now and NONE
of them (and none I ever heard of) doesn't support 16bit Windows apps. 99.8%
of all old Windows apps should run on Win 95.
Maybe you are talking about the SDK that comes with the Win95 CD, which
is the Win 32 API SDK only. But of course you can use any 16bit Windows
compiler to develop 16bit applications that run on Windows 95.
:The final version will be backward compatable with 16 bit API and
:furthermore WIN95 is often critizied for having too many 16 bit elements
:to it - I believe the GDI is 16 bit code.
No, GDi is partially 16bit and partially 32bit. User is mainly 16bit, while
Kernel is mainly 32bit. (Of course you can call all of them using only 32bit
or only 16bit calls. The system just thunks to the other side).
Regards,
Steffen
Derek Suzuki
> Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice. Why? Well, I haven't
>learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
>impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
> The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
> Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
>informed.
> Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2
>users rather than the Win95 users. As far as "character" references go, OS/2
>is way ahead.
> "Good job!" OS/2 people!
> And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post! I
>want to hear both sides of the story. Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.
You should check out comp.os.os2.advocacy (and its Win counterpart),
where most of the really rabid OS/2 users hang out. While the games groups
seem to have been hit with mostly clueless Win95 people, on Usenet as a
whole the percentages are pretty even. Of course, both sides see the other
as a bunch of raving lunatics.
All you have to do is ignore any post with the words "roolz", "sucks",
"losers" or "sloooooooooow" and you may actually find some useful info. And,
of course, nothing beats six months of hands on experience.
I myself much prefer debating with NT users. We still disagree on a
lot of things, but its mostly because we have different needs. Not so much
insult-flinging and pettiness.
I see this thread has yet to be posted to alt.fan.q and alt.2600.
root
>
>So Rich, perhaps you could enlighten us with your advanced knowledge?
>
>
>Paul Hethmon
>phet...@utk.edu
>Programmer/Analyst & OS/2 Certified Engineer
>Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
>
Are you ready for enlightenment? I thought not. ;)
- Rich
Jon
funny. ANd yes, Win95 is alot faster for games then OS/2. OS/2 offers all the "amizing
James Lummel
...
: PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: I tried it and didn't like it...
Windows would have done this a long time ago too, if Microsoft hadn't
have split with IBM over the OS/2 issue. BTW- kudos to IBM for OS/2 Warp
and a great operating system, but I find that I'll be going with Win '95
(at least this time around the OS game), they are finally getting it
right and the vendor support issues far outweigh 'technical reasons' to
go with OS/2.
To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
that was chosen at start-up. If it's any configuration but the Windows
one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!). I
then have full access to all the DOS I could ever want (makes you want to
puke!!). I have not found any compatibility problems with this DOS and
any of the games I've run under it (PAW, FD, AW, Privateer, SC, AF, etc),
so far.
I still use QEMM 6.02 (last version not riddled with bugs!!) and Smartdrv
caching (works great for me), they seem to work great too.
--
James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com
********************************************************
* Caprica Internet Services *
* "LA Basin's Responsible Internet Provider" *
* Voice: (213) 266-0822 Data: (213) 526-1195 *
********************************************************
Clayton Cahill
I have not found any compatibility problems with this DOS and
>any of the games I've run under it (PAW, FD, AW, Privateer, SC, AF,
etc),
>so far.
>
>I still use QEMM 6.02 (last version not riddled with bugs!!) and
Smartdrv
>caching (works great for me), they seem to work great too.
Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
I actually am curious.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
-Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistibuting this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Clayton A. Cahill, 1995
-License to distribute this post is available for $1,000. Posting
without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
-Please send notices of violation to postm...@microsoft.com
Thomas Cox,R4147,6295,,3081
> I just run DOS right now, but I'm interested in getting a new OS, so I've been
> following this thread with interest.
>
> learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
> impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
>
> The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
>
> Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
> informed.
> Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2
> users rather than the Win95 users. As far as "character" references go, OS/2
> is way ahead.
> "Good job!" OS/2 people!
> And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post! I
> want to hear both sides of the story. Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.
OK, you asked for it. ;-)
I use Warp, OS/2 2.11, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Win NT 3.5, and Win
95 (M8) on at least a weekly basis. I have used Windows since 2.1, OS/2 since
beta 0.8, and Win 95 since M5; usually as a GUI developer. 'nough said?
They ALL have some problems - and they all have some strong points. Here a
just a few (I could go on forever...)
Warp:
+ You can buy it now. Fairly cheap.
+ 32 bit.
= Runs most DOS games, except for sound on some.
= Mostly just 2.11 with a face-lift and some cheapo apps.
- In my experience, buggier than even Win95.
- Not true pre-emptive multi-tasking (system queue blocking is allowed)
- Hardware compatibility problems.
- Still a resource hog.
- Does a sorry job running Windows apps, and doesn't have enough native ones.
OS/2 2.11
+ Less buggy than Warp (for now)
- Uglier and clumsier than the others (especially in 1024x768 - ugh!)
- Expensive resource hog.
- Not true pre-emptive multi-tasking (system queue blocking is allowed)
- Hard to install and configure.
WFW 3.11
+ Runs more software than the others.
+ Its EVERYWHERE.
- It's only as stable as the apps it runs (I have no problems with MS-Office;
but Lotus Notes will take it down a couple of times a day. For a fun trick,
load the debugging kernels, start Notes, and fax the list of API violations
to Lotus. B-) )
- Pitiful multitasking.
- Crippled resource mangement.
- Old, patchwork system that needs to be retired.
Win NT 3.5
+ Only true multitasker in the bunch.
+ Pure 32-bit environment.
+ Most stable platform.
+ Multiple platform support! (Which is wwhy it will win in the long run.)
- Too expensive.
- Some hardware compatibility problems.
- Not very backward compatible.
- Worst resource hog in the bunch.
- Still no software! But it does run Win 95 apps...
Win 95 M8
+ Best user-interface by a very wide margin. (It swiped the best features from
OS/2 and the Mac, saved the good ones from Win 3.1, and added some new stuff)
+ Best DOS compatibility.
+ Easiest to install and use.
- Crippled multi-tasking when running 16-bit apps.
- Still in beta.
- Is likely to be too expensive. MS needs to sell it at $40, IMHO.
And to be fair, remember that all of these OSs are crippled by sitting on a 12 year
old architecture - ISA busses (even hybrid ones), IRQ handling, and even the Intel
instruction set make it a real pain to write a stable OS.
So what do I recommend?
Choose the => APPLICATIONS <= you want, and then go with the OS that runs them.
For most people, that will be WFW/DOS. After Win 95 ships, and the first patches are
released, upgrade. Save the money and skip Warp - it won't run your Windows apps
worth squat.
Of course, if you use OS/2 at work and you don't own any Windows software, get Warp.
Or if you need a server, asymmetric multi-processing, or a bulletproof OS, get NT.
Any of them will get the job done until Cairo ships... 8-O
____ ____ ____
(____)-------------------(____)----------------------------------------(____)
| | Thomas W. Cox | | **** ***** **** | |
| | | | *** *** ** *** | |
| | System Developer | | *** *** ** *** | |
| | SAS Institute | | **** **** ** **** | |
| | Office R4147 | | **** **** ** **** | |
| | Cary NC 27513 | | *** ********* *** | |
| | 919.677.8000x6295 | | *** *** ** *** | |
| | | | *** *** ** *** | |
|__| sas...@unx.sas.com |__| **** **** ** **** |__|
(____)-------------------(____)----------------------------------------(____)
Jeff Williams
>: To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
>: multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
>: that was chosen at start-up. If it's any configuration but the Windows
>: one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!). I
>
>DOS is just around more with Win95, but Win95 is the operating system you
>are using, not DOS.
>
You are brainwashed. It's a bit more complicated than Windows 95 running
straight on top of DOS, but yes, they are inextricably linked. You couldn't
be running Windows 95 without DOS there somewhere (it's actually built
into the Windows 95 code). Contrast this with OS/2, which is completely
standalone. You can run DOS programs without even having DOS on your
system (of course, you won't be able to use any DOS commands, but you
can run the programs), and of course you can run every OS/2 program as
well.
In fact, when running a single session for a game under Windows 95,
all the OS is doing is unloading every Windows 95 feature from memory
and leaving you with straight DOS. Basically nothing more than an OS/2
dual boot, the difference being that OS/2 has to reboot the whole
machine in order to get vanilla DOS; Windows 95 just takes itself out of
memory. That should tell you something about the OS you're really running
when using Windows 95.
// Jeff Williams
// NYU UGFTV/Cinema Studies
// jmw...@is2.nyu.edu
Jeff Williams
>Games run exceptionally well under Windows 95... but I never really had any
>trouble running games under OS/2 either. I do find they run faster under
>Windows 95 (Doom and Dark Forces feel just as smooth as under DOS in my
>opinion... though their loading times are increased by quite a bit). On the
>other hand, background file transfers are easily affected by games under
>Windows 95 whereas OS/2 mananged to keep the transfers going strong... though
>games did run a little "choppier". Nonetheless, I don't know of any decent
>32-bit Win95 terminal programs so it's probably not fair to compare
>multitasking a 16-bit Windows term program to a native 32-bit OS/2 term
>program (Procomm and Livewire in this case).
The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM. OS/2 does. It's
possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
it's not your term program man, it's the OS. Windows 95 does simple
rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
did. It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
no control over it.
Yann Nicolas
>programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
>would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
Yeah, you're right, Microsoft decided to start from scratch and to
wipe out all the softwares ever written for Windows 3.11... <%-)
Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
Windows95... :)
(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~)
|\| Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
|\| ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)
Neal Dutta
>
>
>
>
> WHAT???
>
Oh well this is a useful statement, did you just learn this word at school
today?
D...@shore.net
> I have not found any compatibility problems with this DOS and
> >any of the games I've run under it (PAW, FD, AW, Privateer, SC, AF,
> etc),
> >so far.
> >
> >I still use QEMM 6.02 (last version not riddled with bugs!!) and
> Smartdrv
> >caching (works great for me), they seem to work great too.
>
> Yeah, but how do they work in protected mode 32 bit games like WC3, DF
> et all. I have heard that there will be problems. True?
>
>
> I actually am curious.
> --
I was able to play Dark Forces in a DOS VM without a hitch, and ALT-TAB worked
perfect if I wanted to pop out temporarily...hardly any speed hit either...
D...@shore.net
> Try multitasking Dark Forces and Flight Simulator 5.0 while downloading a
file
> via ftp with Windows 95. Can we say "CRASH"? Can we say "not multitasking
> to begin with, even before the crash"? I thought we could.
>
> And yes, OS/2 runs both DF and FS, with sound, with no tweaking whatsoever.
I am able to run Dark Forces in one window with 2 nodes of a BBS in 2 other DOS
boxes doing 28.8 transfers, and no crash...Dark forces got a little jump every
once in a while, but it was still playable...so I believe that, YES, that was
multitasking...Whether Warp can do it or not isn't the issue, it is preference.
And Warp didn't work well for me, and Win-95 does...not to mention Win-95 is
going to get all of the native apps...Warp has very few...
Julian Barker
sir...@ix.netcom.com "Chris Skuller" writes:
> Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail? Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
>
> Sir Ace the Great
> SIR...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>
I am also after an E-Mail address for Origin.
--
Julian Barker
jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk
Brian D Hughes
I agree, it's the same old story, 'If everyone were just more like me,
the world would be a much better place.'. <G>
Brian
glu...@wordperfect.com (Gary Lucero) wrote:
>
> I don't think this post (the original) was really a major flame, but is there
> anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
> adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
> but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
> as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
> can?
>
> --------------------------------------------
> - Gary A. Lucero -
> - Novell Linguistic Integration Group -
> - Orem, Utah -
> - -
> - GLU...@Novell.com -
> --------------------------------------------
Gary Lucero
anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
can?
All I know is I want my flight-sim newsgroup back....
Gary.
In article <3mtquj$h...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) says:
>OK... So I was a little afraid of installing Windows 95 over my old
>DOS 6.2/Windows 3.11 because I am a big gamer and thought that most
>games (read Wing Commander III and other "heavy" games) would not
>work...
>PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>I tried it and didn't like it...
--------------------------------------------
sch...@direct.ca
>sch...@Direct.CA wrote:
>: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
>: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>: This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
>
>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95. I can
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM. I have
>done it, and it works well. Please stop spreading untruths about Win95
>when you have not used it yet. Better yet, get a clue. You are making
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.
Perhaps you would like to *reread* my post. I wasn't flaming Windows 95;
I was merely correcting a statement you had posted earlier saying that OS/2
did not allow users to "sit down and write separate config.sys and
autoexec.bats for each DOS program". Does it say anywhere in my post that
Windows 95 could not do this?
>
>Jeff
======================================================================
Simon Chung Go Canucks Go!
sch...@Direct.CA Equipe D'OS/deux
Q: How many MS tech supports does it take to change a light bulb?
A: "The light bulb doesn't work? You must be using a non-standard light
socket."
Q: How many IBM tech writers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 100. Ten to do it, and 90 to write document number GC7500439-0001
"Multitasking Incandescent Source System Facility".
=====================================================================
NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS
: . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always
: : hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems
: : pointless to argue with them.
: : I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are
: : sloughing in their so called os/2
: : systems.
: I have heard that Windows 95 is not backward compatible with w3.1
: programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
: would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
Windows 95 is fully backward compatibile with win 3.1 programs. It does
this by retaining some of the 16-bit code.
Speed wise so far from what I see it's 16-bit applications are quite fast.
Martin Hay
> In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
>
> >games do not want to run. So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere
> >near as well as Windows 95. Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has
> >also been doing the same thing.
>
> Windows 3.1 can run about 0.1% of the DOS games OS/2 can. The only reason
[snip]
Agreed. I was quite pleased how easy it was to set up games to run under
OS/2.
>
> By the way, here are the games I play under Warp, with no problems
> whatsoever caused by Warp itself (other than the overhead, which is inherent
> in any 32 bit OS): Aces Over Europe, Dark Forces, Flight Simulator 5.0,
[snipped list]
...System Shock, Battle Isle 2, Descent, Frontier, Tie Fighter and many more.
(Just to add some of my own.)
> >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
> >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.
>
> Ooooooh yes it does. In fact, it lets you specify whatever files you want
Yep. You can give different memory settings, or if your program's REALLY
picky, you can give it a boot disc or a "virtual" boot disc file.
> >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future. It is Win95 (yes, I am using it
> >right now). Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
>
> I don't disagree, actually, that Windows 95 is the future, and that OS/2 may
> be dead due to nothing but industry standards. But as a wise man once said,
> "being in the majority only means most others agree with you; it does not
> mean you are right." OS/2 is technically a better OS than any Windows
> product; always has been and still is (Windows 95 does NOT multitask 16
> bit programs, for instance, nor does it run them in their own separate VDM's).
> If Windows 95 takes over the world, as I, just like you, expect it to, it
> has nothing to do with the stability, power, or features of the OS. It has
> to do with simple brainwashing, nothing more.
[snip]
I've got my Archimedes at home. In 1987 when it can out it had a 32-bit
multitasking OS. It could outrun any PC at the time, and had built-in
support for high-resolution monitors (1152x878 I think), and an 8-bit stereo
sound system. Nobody bought them. Why? "Cos it's not industry standard."
Industry standard's a bullshit term for people in procurement who don't want
to think for a living. If people were to take systems and OSs on their
relative merits then we'd see good, innovative systems emerging (like
the Archimedes) and actually being used by people. As it is, Microcack have
the world brainwashed into thinking you can't use a computer unless you have
Winbollocks, which sudddenly makes things so easy, the computer does
everything itself; and Inblob have people thinking that if you don't have
one of their CPU's inside it's not going to work with any software, but if
you do, your 'puter's going to take on a life of it's own and be really
interesting and lifelike. Crap. They just have a bigger marketing budget
than everyone else.
If you made it this far, well done. Now can you tell me how to get
the Strike Commander/Privateer CD to work under OS/2. It's the only game
I've tried that's failed.
Bye,
Martin.
Thomas Russell Hong
> Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail? Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
I think it's supp...@origin.ea.com.
TRH Sends
=============================================================================
o o CDR Thomas Russell Hong, TCN
\ / CAG, Confed Carrier Air Wing 17
\ _ / TCS Fenris (CVS-73)
\__ /_\ __/ 385 Kilrathi kills to date
X------------< __/ . \__ >------------X email: th...@columbia.edu
\__\___/__/
/ \ "It's hard to be humble..."
=============================================================================
David Green
jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) wrote:
>sch...@Direct.CA wrote:
>: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee
Woodall) writes:
>: >Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>: >: : I tried it and didn't like it...
>: >: Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
>: >: time.
>
>: [snip]
>
>
>: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
>: >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program. Instead it offers nice
>: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>: This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
(Oh! If only!)
>
>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>
>ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!! You people have NO CLUE!!! I can't belive how many
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95. I can
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM. I have
>done it, and it works well. Please stop spreading untruths about Win95
>when you have not used it yet. Better yet, get a clue. You are making
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.
I've actually used both OS's and they both seem great - both allowing
separate configurations for DOS programs, both multi-tasking very well, both
support Win3.1x applications... but I think the real question we should be
asking here is:
"WHY THE F**K IS THIS STUPID SLAGGING MATCH TAKING PLACE ON THIS FORUM?"
Just thought I'd ask. Now PISS off :).
David Green ......................... David...@Abacus.org.uk
Gr...@Criterion.canon.co.uk
"Games: Networked or nothing!"
"If you don't have the green, you can't make the scene"
Lord Soth
>Your good for a laugh!! OS/2 is much faster than Win95 will ever be.
>Just compare Doom for Windows and Doom/2. Yes win95 has DOS
>compatability, but so does OS/2. PC Gamer even said that OS/2 might be a
>better choice for running DOS games. Galactic Civlilizations anyone??
GalCiv is good. I'll even say that it is great. However, one game does
not make an operating system great. Any other good games for OS/2?
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Lord Soth <c...@aimnet.com> ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/lordsoth |
| Check out my ftp directories for X-Wing and TIE Fighter stuff! |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Lord Soth
>>OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future. It is Win95 (yes, I am using it
>>right now). Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
> Sigh, at least you didn't use the term "ROOLZ". Anyway, even the
>MS crowd says that NT is the future.
While I won't restate my opinion about the operating system wars (God knows
how many times I've repeated myself), I will say that NT will never be the
future until everybody has P6's. It has a serious speed deficiency, and
probably won't be able to compete with MS' own Win95.
kem...@ucs.orst.edu
>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
>>example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>currently do in DOS.
>
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
> - Rich
Likewise, quit wasting bandwidth on a stupid retort to a legitimate question.
Do try and answer the question before spewing childish putdowns.
Does or does not Win95 allow the user to change the number of files
for each session? Incidentally, OS/2 does not require a certain # of "files". The "files"
parameter is only used by the DOS session. (ie, when you close the session, the
memory dedicated to "files" is released) (or so the Command Reference says...)
----------
Alson Kemp kem...@ece.orst.edu
"Gambled once and won,
Never made a dollar."
-Uncle Tupelo
ph...@cim.mcgill.ca
a>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>,
a>jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
a>
a>>Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
a>>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
a>>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
a>>tailor the settings for each program individually.
a>>
a>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
a>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
a>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
a>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
a>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
a>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
a>>example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
a>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
a>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
a>>currently do in DOS.
a>
a>Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to a>knowing absolutely nothing about.
a>
a>Thanks,
a>
a> - Rich
a>>
a>>JOHN
a>>
He (John) was being polite and asking a constructive question. How do you expect him to learn more about the product that you feel he knows "nothing about" without asking questions? Instead of your inane/childish "nope sorry wrong" response, why don't you try being more polite and informative? You seem to be more interested in being abrasive than wasting bandwidth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Habib
Mcgill Research Center for
Intelligent Machines
Montreal, Quebec
email: ph...@cim.mcgill.ca
gy...@ibm.net
>>I have hear>
>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>
>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>Windows95... :)
>
WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.
The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here). They knew about this
problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.
So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
Application errors and lockups.
Thank you
- Melissa
===================================================================================
===================================================================================
Melissa N. Mortellaro
gy...@ibm.net
<<TEAM OS/2>>
--------------------------------------
"Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
I have '95, it's called OS/2" - anonymous
Craig Titterton,,,
> .. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always
> programs. Is this true? Or is this a scaly lie from the warp types? I
> would hate to lose the use of some of my great old windows games...
>
>
Win 95 was backward compatable. You just cant trust those 'warped' ones!
Craig
---------------------------------------------------
This EMail was proudly brought to you by
SPATULA CITY......We sell Spatulas
and that's all!!!
(ctit...@metz.une.edu.au)
---------------------------------------------------
Rich
*SNIP*
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1
>with more Application errors and lockups.
> Melissa N. Mortellaro
> gy...@ibm.net
> <<TEAM OS/2>>
And such comments *should* be expected from 'Team OS/2' people. From
reading your post, it's obviously me that either a) you've never even
looked at Win95 or b) you did, but for only about 2 minutes.
Not that I seriously believe anything I say will change *your* mind
about anything exactly, but that last comment of yours is absolutely
unfounded. That's a lot like me saying to you that OS/2 has worse
crash-recovery than a Commodore 64. We both know it's not true.
I've been running Win95 for over 6 months now, and I've tested and run
(very successfully) upwards of 300 seperate apps (spanning a variety of
things, from DOS games to Windows spreadsheets to DOS cad apps to
Windows application development tools), and I'd say *in all honesty*
that ~ 97% of everything I tested ran the same--if not better-under
Win95 as it did under the MS-DOS/Win3.1 combo. Surprisingly enough (or
perhaps not so much so), the majority of those 3% of problems apps are
DOS games.
The GUI itself has locked up on me twice in all this time, and the
amount of GPFs and application errors has decreased sizeably (about a
40:1 ratio, 40 being faults in Win3.1).
You are certainly entitled to speak up and say anything as
unintelligently as you have, but you could at least have the courtesy
of calling the OS by it's real name. ;)
Rich (know your enemy before shooting him..)
--
>==============================================<
> Rich D. < / <
>----------< O===[=Excalibur Dragon====- <
> \ <
> R E D J r @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m <
> Excalibur Systems <*> -==(UDIC)==- <
>----------------------------------------------<
> "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and <
> pass, leaving memories that become legend.." <
>==============================================<
mbdi...@waikato.ac.nz
> Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail? Please Email me
> with your answer or post on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Origin can be contacted on customer support at:
or Origin Marketing at:
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Maarten Dinger
(University of Waikato, New Zealand).
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: On 18 Apr 1995, Jeffrey Lee Woodall wrote:
: > Not to mention decend support and on-line help files. Nothing is more
: > frustrating with Warp than dealing with IBM's turd support staff. Very
: > rude people, and very unhelpful. IBM's marketing people never bothered
: > to inform support they were trying to win over Windows users, it seems.
: > With OS/2, and error is an error, and there will be no explanation.
: What? OS/2's on-line help system is fine, and in my two calls to IBM tech
: support, I've had not problems. Perhaps you came off as a rude asshole as
: you do in the above post? Notice how it draws a rude response?
Now lets back up a sec... Who REALLY looks like an asshole here?
I called OS/2 tech support. Keep in mind I was VERY new to OS/2 and
couldn't get around in the OS very well. But I was getting all sorts of
errors due to the install, and I had no choice but to call tech. The guy
was telling me to do things, and I really couldn't get aorund very fast.
I explained that I was new to this, and he says "Well when you figure out
how to use the OS, call me back!" , and hung up. I was NEVER rude to the
guy, so don't be such a jerk, OK? I admit I was moving along slowly, but
the errors I was getting would not allow me to do some of the things he
was asking me to do. It turns out OS/2 didn't like my S3 864TRIO. The
tech guy didn't realize there was a difference between that and the
regular 864. I called back, but it was after 5:00pm in my timezone, so
they refused to help me. After 5? And after 90 (or was it 30) I have to
send them money if I want any more support? Catch up with the rest of
the industry, please! I felt like I was dealing with the IBM of the 80's.
So anyway, don't go calling me an asshole just because I don't like your
operating system. Its not like a religion! (or is it?)
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: beginning to get bad-mouthed in this thread (not by James, below, so
: don't berate him), and I thought it reasonable to try to achieve some
: balance here.
Are you sure you want to do that? They may flame you for making them
look like idiots. (see uneducated remarks about Win95 below). Then
again. what should be expect from a UNC psych major? (not much)
: On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, James Lummel wrote:
: > To handle the problem of DOS games with Windows '95, I have my regular
: > multi-boot config.sys and a C:\WIN.BAT file that checks the configuration
: > that was chosen at start-up. If it's any configuration but the Windows
: > one, to drops me to DOS (Yes, Win '95 runs on TOP of DOS - still!!). I
: Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
: settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
: me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
: tailor the settings for each program individually.
: Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
: OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
: session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
: back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
: penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
: increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
: example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
: system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
: so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
: currently do in DOS.
: JOHN
: * John M. Martz: Psychology Dept, UNC-CH * *
: | CB# 3270, Davie Hall | B = f(P,E) |
: | Chapel Hill, NC 27599 | --Kurt Lewin |
: * JOHN_...@UNC.EDU * *
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: >Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
: >settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
: >me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
: >tailor the settings for each program individually.
: >
: >Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
: >OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
: >session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
: >back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
: >penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
: >increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
: >example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
: >system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
: >so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
: >currently do in DOS.
: Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
: absolutely nothing about.
No shit, this idiot needs to get lost. At least most OS/2 users are
computer literate. This guy has NO clue.
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: The problems you have multitasking games under Windows 95 are due to
: the fact that Windows 95 DOESN'T MULTITASK THEM. OS/2 does. It's
: possible, I suppose, that sometime in the future we'll have 32 bit Windows
: 95 games that the OS CAN multitask, and in that case you'll have better
: luck downloading at the same time as playing a game, but until then,
: it's not your term program man, it's the OS. Windows 95 does simple
: rudimentary task switching on 16 bit DOS programs, just like Windows 3.1
: did. It's up to the game itself to yield to another program, the OS has
: no control over it.
So are you saying I wasn't just multitasking Dark Forces with Telix
earlier tonight? I could have SWORN I was. Amazing. This guy sounds
like he hasn't even used Win95.
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
: >Kevin Hurley (khu...@dgsys.com) wrote:
: >
: >: : PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
: >: : I tried it and didn't like it...
: >
: >: Whether you liked it or not OS/2 has been doing that for a long
: >: time.
: [snip]
: >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate
: >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program. Instead it offers nice
: >little features like XGA_TRAP and the like. Thanks, but no thanks.
: This thread should be moved to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device
: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!! You people have NO CLUE!!! I can't belive how many
people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95. I can
write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM. I have
done it, and it works well. Please stop spreading untruths about Win95
when you have not used it yet. Better yet, get a clue. You are making
the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
I just wish more people know what they were talking about before the bash
Win95. Some of you are making plain flat-out INCORRECT statements. I am
running Dark Forces RIGHT NOW. (and I only have 8mb RAM)
Jeff
Randy Charland
Now first lets get straight, this isn't meant to be a flame instigator so
save your breath. Second, I personally feel OS/2 is an excellent operating
and anyone that tries argues otherwise is pretty foolish. However, I just
tried out the third beta of Win95 and it's game support is pretty incredible.
This is why...
1) Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2
there really isn't any need to for most games. I loaded these games on my
machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:
EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and
Links386. I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!
worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but
compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was
night and day. There were no speed sacrifices at all.
2) The only game where I had do drop into "DOS" mode was for USNF. When you
do have to drop into DOS mode it basically reboots your machine. Pretty much
sucks but it does let you specify a seperate config and autoexec statements in
the PIF file. Keep in mind though that was only ONE game. I couldn't even
run USNF, or knew how to, in OS/2 Warp.
From a person that was intially very doubtful Win95 game support surprised me
quite a bit. This is message is only meant as info, not insult. :^)
Randy
Brad Grossman
...welp, here are my experiences with Win 95. The good point and bad point
with Win 95 and DOS games is that you pretty much run whatever you are going
to run from a DOS full-screen prompt. If things don't work right, there
really isn't much you can change...unless you are willing to run it in MS-DOS
mode which basically shelves Win 95 and basically puts you in DOS. Nothing
can run in the background of this. Here are my limited experiences with a few
games:
Descent: Ran for a bit, OK. Left the window, came back, few seconds later,
full system crash.
Doom II: Perfectly (on a P5-90)
WC 3: Perfectly....until you switch away....once you switch away, you can't
come back.
X-com 2, Master of Orion: Perfectly...though sound my drop out after a few
re-loads in X-com 2.
Mortal Kombat II: Runs but the screen goes black with the exception of the
strength bars.
As for Win 3.1 progs...it'll run 'em all...with the exception of those that
access the HD directly, and those you can often use if you use the LOCK
command.
Jeff Williams
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>
> - Rich
Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
like to impart with that message? For instance, what is the real story regarding
Windows 95 and configuration changes? For instance, can you run 2 separate
DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. with
one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
instance)?
Jeff Williams
> Win95 should run DOS programs about as well
>as OS/2 though.
It doesn't. Windows 95, according to the information I have (a comparison
chart of features of OS/2 and Windows 95), runs all 16 bit programs in the
same address space. So, programs may run as fast or faster than OS/2,
but Win95 shares the same inherent structural flaws as Win 3.1 - the crash
of a single program will bring down every single 16 bit program you're
running at the time, and possibly the whole system.
So, is this running DOS programs as well as OS/2? Given the notorious
instability of many DOS and Windows apps., it's not better in my opinion.
John Michael Martz
> Are you sure you want to do that? They may flame you for making them
> look like idiots.
Sure.
>(see uneducated remarks about Win95 below).
My remarks? I fully agree -- Win95 has been such a moving target, that I
find it hard to keep up on what the heck is going on with it. I was
asking a simply question.
>Then
> again. what should be expect from a UNC psych major? (not much)
Correction -- UNC psychology PhD candidate. But I wouldn't expect a
Wolfpack member to understand the difference. :-)
John Michael Martz
> root (ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu) wrote:
> : Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
> : absolutely nothing about.
>
> No shit, this idiot needs to get lost. At least most OS/2 users are
> computer literate. This guy has NO clue.
Here we have two people with reading comprehension deficits of one kind or
another. They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
question, as I was doing. Instead of trying to directly answer my
question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
have clarified my knowledge and earned my respect (I guess I was under the
mistaken assumption that these newsgroups were places were we could
exchange information in a more or less civil manner -- yes, I _can_ engage
in civil debate with people whom I disagree with) they have chosen to post
obnoxious, non-informative responses (aka. flames). Now, what has
changed:
1) my (and others') knowledge about Win95 capabilities? Nope.
2) my sense of civility toward these two individuals? Yep; I now feel
they are inconsiderate assholes.
Greg Cisko
of pecker waving?
dsh...@nova.wright.edu
Please take OS advocacy to the news groups for OS advocacy.
I know some of you think Os/2 is evil and others think windows is a commie
plot and others wouldn't be caught dead running anything but vintage DOS.
This group is about games, and I would like to hear your reviews and
tips on the games you play. Thanks :)
John Michael Martz
> Now lets back up a sec... Who REALLY looks like an asshole here?
Go back and reread your post and my response -- I said you were "coming
off as a rude asshole" not that you are one. It's a subtle distinction,
but an important one. If you take a rude tone, you draw a rude reply. My
post was an attempt to illustrate that fact, given you had made an
OS/2-hostile post. I regret not making myself clearer.
> I called OS/2 tech support. Keep in mind I was VERY new to OS/2 and
> couldn't get around in the OS very well. But I was getting all sorts of
> errors due to the install, and I had no choice but to call tech. The guy
> was telling me to do things, and I really couldn't get aorund very fast.
> I explained that I was new to this, and he says "Well when you figure out
> how to use the OS, call me back!" , and hung up. I was NEVER rude to the
> guy, so don't be such a jerk, OK?
Wow. Your story differs markedly from what I've experienced. You should
have made a formal complaint, and I encourage you to do so.
>I called back, but it was after 5:00pm in my timezone, so
> they refused to help me. After 5? And after 90 (or was it 30) I have to
> send them money if I want any more support? Catch up with the rest of
> the industry, please! I felt like I was dealing with the IBM of the 80's.
Agreed, I don't know of any OS/2 user who likes the way IBM has set up
their tech support.
> So anyway, don't go calling me an asshole just because I don't like your
> operating system. Its not like a religion! (or is it?)
See above. You (or anybody else, for that matter) don't _have_ to like
OS/2. Sure, I'd like to see more OS/2 users because that translates into
bigger market share, and software developers respond to market share.
However, when it comes down to it, you need to use what works for you.
Joaquin
heck does it have to do with Flight Sims? I can see how the thread got
started... some guy saying, "Hey! I just got the April Beta release of
Win95, and it works great!" And then off we go, my os is better than your
os! My os can do this. Oh yeah? Well, my os is a stronger multitasker!
Well, my os has a bigger dick than your os!
This debate is something akin to debating the logical possibility of the
existence of God. It may be great fun, but it doesn't go anywhere... it
just keeps going.
Joaquin
Jeff Williams
>
>> Try multitasking Dark Forces and Flight Simulator 5.0 while downloading a
>
>file
>
>> via ftp with Windows 95. Can we say "CRASH"? Can we say "not multitasking
>
>> to begin with, even before the crash"? I thought we could.
>
>>
>
>> And yes, OS/2 runs both DF and FS, with sound, with no tweaking whatsoever.
>
>I am able to run Dark Forces in one window with 2 nodes of a BBS in 2 other DOS
>
>boxes doing 28.8 transfers, and no crash...Dark forces got a little jump every
>
>once in a while, but it was still playable...so I believe that, YES, that was
>
>multitasking..
Alright, I have to clear up a mistake I will admit to, that I noticed when I
looked at my little OS/2 vs. Win95 comparison chart. I originally said Windows
95 doesn't multitask 16 bit DOS programs, which is what I based the above
statement on. What I was confusing this with was 16 bit Windows programs.
Win95 does multitask 16 bit DOS programs, but not 16 bit Windows programs
(for these it uses the same rudimentary task switching as Windows 3.1)
or combined 16/32 bit Windows programs. Sorry, my mistake.
Jeff Williams
>John Michael Martz (jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
>
>I called OS/2 tech support. Keep in mind I was VERY new to OS/2 and
>couldn't get around in the OS very well. But I was getting all sorts of
>errors due to the install, and I had no choice but to call tech. The guy
>was telling me to do things, and I really couldn't get aorund very fast.
>I explained that I was new to this, and he says "Well when you figure out
>how to use the OS, call me back!" , and hung up.
It sounds like you just had a bad employee. Every company has them,
you should have just called back and tried to talk to someone else. When
I called (for a problem that turned out not to be OS/2's fault), I kept the
guy sitting there for minutes at a time while I booted and rebooted trying
to get my sound card drivers to load. He didn't seem to mind, and I kept
apologizing for the wait (at the time I was using a very slow hard drive
as well, and with 4 mb of RAM, so my boot time was about 4 minutes), but
he just said a lot of people have the same deal, and stuck with me until
we figured it out.
In the early days of release, IBM had a huge load of calls. It sounds like you
just happened to get an overworked employee with a large backlog of calls
waiting to get through, and he just lost his patience. You can't blame the
whole company for this. Certainly you can complain about it, but I don't
believe it's right to say the entire tech support structure for OS/2 is at fault.
Yann Nicolas
>anyway we can get past this advocacy 'stuff' and deal with eachother like
>adults? Some like OS/2, some like Windows 95, others like Linux, whatever,
>but does it matter at all? Should one OS win over another, or should we
>as users (and consumers) win by getting the very best technology we possbily
>can?
I know... And I'm sorry for it...
My original post was purely informative... I just wanted to share some
experience I had with playing games with Windows 95... Not bash
anything or anybody... People chose whatever OS they want, I don't
give a damn...
It's really sad that (almost) every single post is being transformed
into an OS advocacy battle... Sure doesn't incite to post... :(
(~~~) *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ( Yann Nicolas ) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= (~~~)
|\| Columbia U. Libraries -- ALLEZ RENNES!! -- nic...@columbia.edu |/|
|\| ________________/ SiXXX in '96!! \____________ Go 49ers! |/|
(___) *=*=*=' http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~yn25/soccer.html `=*=*=*=* (___)
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
: >Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
: >absolutely nothing about.
: >Thanks,
: >
: > - Rich
: Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
: like to impart with that message? For instance, what is the real story regarding
: Windows 95 and configuration changes? For instance, can you run 2 separate
: DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie. with
: one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
: instance)?
: // Jeff Williams
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: Perhaps you would like to *reread* my post. I wasn't flaming Windows 95;
: I was merely correcting a statement you had posted earlier saying that OS/2
: did not allow users to "sit down and write separate config.sys and
: autoexec.bats for each DOS program". Does it say anywhere in my post that
: Windows 95 could not do this?
Hey, maybe you should re-read my posts. I never said OS/2 couldn't do that.
I've used Warp, and I am fully aware of its capabilities.
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: Correction -- UNC psychology PhD candidate. But I wouldn't expect a
: Wolfpack member to understand the difference. :-)
Well, you didn't specify. Sorry for the uncalled for UNC bash.
Jeff
Jeffrey Lee Woodall
: another. They obviously cannot tell when somebody is asking a genuine
: question, as I was doing. Instead of trying to directly answer my
: question about Win95 capabilities with a detailed explanation that would
I sent you E-mail fully describing how DOS sessions work in Win95. I was
hardly rude about it, either. Your initial posts seemed to be presenting
untruths as fact. When you realized you were wrong, you changed your
min-informative posts to "questions". Just clearing up things a bit.
Jeff
Jeff Williams
Well I've already pointed out the specific mistake I've made, but I'd like
to publicly make one other point: usage of a product has nothing to do
with product design and mechanics. I don't need to drive a car to know
it has a 6 cylinder engine, do I? I don't need to use Win95 to know it
doesn't multitask 16 bit Windows programs, either.
I'd also like to point out publicly, just so everyone else realizes it, that
switching back and forth between programs is NOT true multitasking
(preemptive multitasking). Saying you were running DF and Telix at
the same time says nothing. Of course, you WERE multitasking them, but
this conclusion isn't drawn from the statement you just made; it's drawn
from the publicly disclosed design of the OS. In other words, in this area
at least, my knowledge of Win95 without even having used it is greater
than yours using it every day. I don't think you should be calling anyone
else computer illiterate (in a previous post)...
Jeff Williams
>: BTW, OS/2 Warp allows you to have *CUSTOMIZED* autoexec.bats and device
>: statements for *E A C H* DOS session.
>
>
>ARRRRGGGGEEE!!!! You people have NO CLUE!!! I can't belive how many
>people get on here and post when they have not even used Win95. I can
>write my own Config.sys and autoexec.bat for EACH DOS PROGRAM. I have
>done it, and it works well. Please stop spreading untruths about Win95
>when you have not used it yet. Better yet, get a clue. You are making
>the real OS/2 users look like idiots, which they are not.
>
>Jeff
No. Read what you're replying to. He said, "for each DOS SESSION." The
question posed was whether or not Win95 let you customize startup files
for each dos SESSION, not for each dos PROGRAM. Let me put it to you
again (and *I* am asking now, seriously, I am not saying Win95 does
this or doesn't do it because I don't know and I want to): Does Windows
95 allow you to run separate DOS SESSIONS concurrently with different
startup options? In other words, can you run Dark Forces with 8 megs
of DPMI AT THE SAME TIME as running Aces Over Europe with 16 megs
of EMS on a system with 8 megs of total RAM? This is the question that
nobody has answered yet.
Rich Blinne
>Not true. :) Wing Commander III runs FASTER than with straight DOS
>(which is a nice bonus), and runs flawlessly straight from the GUI
>without rebooting with it's own configuration. Same with Dark Forces
>(Dark Forces will actually run IN a window).
>
How did you get Dark Forces to do that? After Dark Forces finished
loading, it went full-screen on me. If I alt-entered the process,
Windows 95 said it could not continue in windowed mode.
I have detected the following bug in the Beta: If you touch the
DriveSpace parameters and do not compress your drive, you load the
memory-piggy DoubleSpace drivers into low memory when going into MS-DOS
compatibility mode. There is no control in the MS-DOS mode setup to not
load those drivers. The only way around it I found was to remove the
hidden DoubleSpace drivers from the top-level directory.
All in all, I think I will stick with Win95 vis-a-vis Warp because:
1. It gives me the network connectivity via the phone line I need for
work. (Less of an issue now that Warp Connect is out).
2. It runs the 32-bit version of Microsoft Office.
3. It does a passable job on games and allows me to load any incompatible
real-mode drivers that I have. I think both Warp and Win95 do a good job
here. So, if _all_ you do is games, Warp will probably be good enough
because I think all the sound problems that Warp has curently will
eventually be solved.
4. I get true client-server remote e-mail.
I don't think I am alone in that I use my home computer _both_ for games
and telecommuting. Win95 does a superior job of dealing with
requirements for both of these uses of my home computer.
--
================================================================
Rich Blinne
Symbios Logic Inc. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3351 Eastbrook Dr. | Work: Rich....@symbios.com
Ft. Collins, CO 80525 | Home: JKT...@prodigy.com
(970) 223-5100 x9334 | RichB...@aol.com
Greg Cisko
[STUFF DELETED so that I don't barf.]
>There ya go, my $0.02 gaming opinion of Windows 95...
>
>Opinions/comments/questions welcome... :)
Opinions? Comments? Q's?
Oh ya I have one or 2. You sir, are the person who started this. While I
appreciate the "heads up" with WIN95. You posted to every gaming group?
AND NOT TO AN OPERATING SYSTEM GROUP?
While I am quite happy to wade thru this "stuff". I really am curious
how you rationalize that?
We are too busy arguing about whether Wing Commander III, XWING (and alot
of other Space based games/sims) should be posted in the flight-sim group,
to give a rats-ass about WINBLOWS.
I will admit though. From what I've read WIN95 might not be that bad :-)
If our newly self-appointed NETCOP was doing his job, this would have been
stopped long ago. As it is now, I'm affraid he is fired...
>
>PS: OS/2 users will tell me that "OS/2 did that a long time ago", but
>I tried it and didn't like it...
>
Dale Pontius
In article <rcharlan....@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rcha...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Randy Charland) writes:
>
> 1) Even though it doesn't let you configure sessions as well as OS/2
> there really isn't any need to for most games. I loaded these games on my
> machine and they ran straight after installation with no tweaking at all:
> EarthSiege, Harpoon2, Seawolf, Civilisation, DoomII, Fleet Defender and
> Links386. I mean I installed them, clicked on the icon and BAM!
> worked without a hitch!! Granted this is a small scope of games but
> compared to what I experienced with the same games in Warp, the difference was
> night and day. There were no speed sacrifices at all.
>
them from you unlike OS/2. Win95 may just have a VERY good database
of current games with well tuned settings for each.
On the other hand, since Win95 is less concerned with protection than
OS/2, it may not need control as strict as OS/2 has over DOS sessions.
It may even be a combination of both factors, fewer settings and a
good database for tuning them. One way to tell would be a game that
came out after the beta and has had no chance to be included in their
database. I would go so far as to say, even check for a new DOS
extender, since that is one of the primary drivers in this.
Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)
Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner
flame war!?
My take on Windows 95 is that it's worthless.
Windows 3.x: You have to reboot to play Wing Commander.
Windows 95: You have to reboot to play Wing Commander.
What's the big deal? Maybe someone will write a 32 bit protected mode
cache disabler that torpedoes a 486 enough to play Wing Commander.
Until then, there's not much point in upgrading. The DOS real mode
cache disabler doesn't work under Windows 95, and there's no way
to damage system performance enough to play it.
OS/2 isn't any better: it destroyed my entire hard drive TWICE
when I installed Warp.
Until something better comes along, I'll stick with Windows 3.x
Scott
Louie B.
>From: Thomas Russell Hong <th...@columbia.edu>
>Subject: Re: Origins EMail Address
>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 03:34:42 -0400
>On 18 Apr 1995, Chris Skuller wrote:
>> Does anyone know how I can reach Origin via EMail?
Try this -
sup...@origin.ea.com
or their web page -
http://www.ea.com/origin.html
Hope this helps...
Louie
root
>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>like to impart with that message? For instance, what is the real story
regarding
Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away. Yup, you can run
separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or
DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory
amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw
around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.
There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache,
doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session.
Just click on the choices. For any other devices, it's simple to add the
lines into your custom config.
It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although
I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter. The really cool
stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using
the WING libraries. I really couldn't live without the backward
compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read:
games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.
- Rich
>Windows 95 and configuration changes? For instance, can you run 2 separate
>DOS sessions AT THE SAME TIME with different configuration settings (ie.
with
>one session using 12 megs of XMS and the other using 8 megs of DPMI, for
>instance)?
>
James Lummel
: Please take OS advocacy to the news groups for OS advocacy.
What OS you choose to play the game under is a valid gaming issue!! Keep
on topic, what are the merits of Win '95 against the merits of OS/2 for
gaming software?
I personally spent many, many hours tuning my software and DOS environment
to play these games at their max! Win'95 allows me not to loose that
effort. It really is no better or no worse than OS/2 at doing 100% for
100% of the time, they both run games, they share a lot of commonality,
but they are not 100% yet!! Win'95 also supports my current hardware and
software, I would have to spend thousands to replace the software and
hardware that I use (and make my living at).
The software is more than adequate for my needs, and has a tremendous
amount of vendor support - which allows me to work better and make more
money! If MS and IBM hadn't split on the OS issue, we would have the
vendor support of Windows and the tech of OS/2 in one package!! Write
Bill Gates and tell him what a weenie he is for allowing this to happen...
PS- there are better OS's for the IBM PC platform than either OS/2 or
Windows/DOS!!
--
James Lummel - jlu...@caprica.com
********************************************************
* Caprica Internet Services *
* "LA Basin's Responsible Internet Provider" *
* Voice: (213) 266-0822 Data: (213) 526-1195 *
********************************************************
Eric the Kidder
Out of curiosity, what is the point of the Win95-OS/2 debate?
Currently, I am in the process of getting both. I have OS/2, but it
doesn't seem to work too well, something about not having enough memory...
I also use Windows 3.1, because of 4 products that Microsoft made I use a lot:
MS Word
MS Excel
MS Powerpoint
MS Access
For this reason alone I have Win3.1 and will be getting Win95. I really
dislike GUIs in general (esp. Mac *ack*) and prefer a prompt vs. a pointer.
Thus, I would rather dual-boot DOS/Linux than most other combinations...
Just my thoughts...
Oh yeah, anyone got 'Crusaders of the Dark Savant' for sale?
:)
Eric Kidder | ARMY RANGERS: We kill more, by 9 o'clock each
| morning, than most people kill all day.
finger |
kid...@lab8.cs.purdue.edu | Kidder on the web:
for more email addresses | http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/kidder
Gary A. Lucero
opinions, you will find there are jerks and intelligent people
in both camps (OS/2 Warp and Windows 95). Do not make a
decision based on who you like. Make a decision based on what
OS is best for you.
Gary.
--------------------------------------------
- Gary A. Lucero -
- Novell Linguistic Integration Group -
- Orem, Utah -
- -
- GLU...@Novell.com -
--------------------------------------------
cawo...@roentgen.bcc.louisville.edu
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>>like to impart with that message? For instance, what is the real story
>regarding
>
>Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away. Yup, you can run
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.
>
>There is an idiot proof dialogue to set up support for: mouse, disk cache,
I guess this must mean that only idiots will use Win95?
The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.
Since it won't be able to run several Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least. and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications, consider this. NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW. And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.
>doskey, expanded memory manager, and direct disk access for each dos session.
> Just click on the choices. For any other devices, it's simple to add the
>lines into your custom config.
>
>It's really cool to be able to run DOS games in a window and stuff, although
>I prefer to switch to full-screen with a quick alt-enter. The really cool
>stuff, though, is gonna be the crop of new games optimized for Win95 using
>the WING libraries. I really couldn't live without the backward
>compatibility offered by Win95 for both Windows apps and dos apps (read:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>games ;) and I'd guess that most gamers would feel the same way.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So it looks like people that want to play will use Win95 and those that want to work will use WARP. And since Win95 will be MSFT keyboard enabled you'll be able to press the GPF key to increase your GPF's without the hassles of actually running a program. How convenient.<G>.
Chris
Warping... NOT Waiting...
or should that be
Working... NOT Playing...
Rich
McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>My take on Windows 95 is that it's worthless.
>
> Windows 95: You have to reboot to play Wing Commander.
You do? I don't ... hmm... you must be doing something 'wrong.' ;)
Rich
--
>==============================================<
> Rich D. < / <
>----------< O===[=Excalibur Dragon====- <
> \ <
> R E D J r @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m <
> Excalibur Systems <*> -==(UDIC)==- <
>----------------------------------------------<
> "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and <
> pass, leaving memories that become legend.." <
>==============================================<
t...@tiac.net
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.
> [Win95 RULZ...bla bla bla] [snip]
It amazes me. I hear Win95 advocates going on about stuff that their
new operating "system" (MS DOS7 & Win kludge 95) might be able to do -
and it's stuff that other platforms have been doing for years. This situation
is like showing off a musket to a stone-age tribe. Even though it's obsolete
and unreliable technology, the ignorant think it's incredible, mostly because
they've never been exposed to it. This technology (multi-tasking OS's which
Win95 will NEVER be,) is not rocket science and has been around
for years. M$ is now just moving into the mid-1980's. Wow.
I'm real impressed.
When are they going to start offering object-oriented technology?
2010?
Clayton Cahill
writes:
>In <3n3gtf$k...@balsam.unca.edu> mcm...@oteen.cs.unca.edu (Scott
>McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>
>>My take on Windows 95 is that it's worthless.
>>
>> Windows 95: You have to reboot to play Wing Commander.
>
>You do? I don't ... hmm... you must be doing something 'wrong.' ;)
>
the point of all of MS' market research) why bother?
--
_________________________________________________________________________
-Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistibuting this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Clayton A. Cahill, 1995
-License to distribute this post is available for $1,000. Posting
without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
-Please send notices of violation to postm...@microsoft.com
Ian M. Patterson
>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>,
>jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
>
>>Perhaps you can answer a question for me. As I understand it, the
>>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
>>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
>>tailor the settings for each program individually.
>>
>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50. In
>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game. Why should I
>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement? How does Win95 handle this
>>example? From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct? If
>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
>>currently do in DOS.
>Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
>absolutely nothing about.
>
>Thanks,
>
> - Rich
Rich,
I don't think you provided any insite as to why John is wrong. If you
are concerned about wasting bandwidth, please, by all means, explain to
him and the rest of us why and where he is incorrect. As far as I am
concerned John has proven his grasp of what he does know (concerning the
way OS/2 works in this situation) and questions the way Win9X will work
under the same situation. You, in turn, have demonstated nothing more
than your ability to type and post a reply, and maybe your skill at
being rude and in instigating an arguement. Be proud.
>>
>>JOHN
>>
No worries!
Imp.
__________________________________________________________________________
Ian M. Patterson "The hurting stops NOW!!!"
Computer Engineer - Bill, The Terrible
AT&T Global Information Solutions Thunderlizards
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Nicholas Sylvain
>
>The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
>way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here). They knew about this
>problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.
I normally don't weigh in on threads like this, but I've really had enough.
If OS/2 zealots ever expect some OS "independent" like myself to come on
board, they would be well advised to factually advertise the pros & cons and
skip the petty little sniping of "LOSE95" and the like. If you like OS/2,
fine. If you like Windows, fine. If you hate either or both, fine. But skip
the personal attacks and petty little sniping with cute put downs.
I'm a bottom-line user who lives in the real world. Talk to me on that basis.
If you can't, GET A GRIP!
> gy...@ibm.net
> <<TEAM OS/2>>
>--------------------------------------
> "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
> I have '95, it's called OS/2" - anonymous
Well, this explains a lot. If you ever want to get MY business, maybe you
should TRYING to act like a business professional.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Sylvain (syl...@netcom.com) | My employer does not care what my
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney | opinions are, as long as I do my
Montgomery County, Ohio | job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Williams
This coming from someone who admitted yesterday that he flew off the
handle.
If you like, I'll repost his original message. He did ask a simple question.
The one statement he made was "As I understand it, Windows 95 cannot
run multiple configurations in concurrently running DOS sessions" or something
to that effect. There STILL has not been anyone that's given any new
information regarding this (it's possible this has been updated in the
latest version of Win95, but the information I have also says that Win95
runs every concurrently running DOS program in a single VM). You started
to quote my last message on this matter a couple of posts ago, but then
you didn't actually write anything after the quote. So us OS/2 users are
still in the dark about this; please enlighten us.
Jeff Williams
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>>Talk about wasting bandwidth... did you have some new information you would
>>like to impart with that message? For instance, what is the real story
>regarding
>
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
Again, this is not an answer to the question that was asked. I would like to
see a statement, with documented support, saying "In Windows 95 you can
run separate DOS sessions with differing configuration settings CONCURRENTLY."
So far, all anybody has said is that you can have separate configurations for
different programs. This was not, and is not, the question, and is, in fact,
not very relevant (you could do this with straight DOS).
Perhaps Win95 users don't even understand the question, because they aren't
even familiar with this feature.
Here is the quote from the documentation I have on Win95:
"All 16-bit applications share a single address space - the System Virtual
Machine (VM)."
What the question is, essentially, is if this is true.
JORDAN SPENSER AARON
Very funny; NOT!
>The only thing that Win95 will apparently have going for it is it supposed game support.
>
>Since it won't be able to run several Multi-threaded apps simultaneously, which is a big bumble on Lord Bill's part to say the least. and as to future promised(etc. etc.) applications, consider this. NT has been out for HOW LONG and MSFT doesn't have
have multi-threaded APPS for it, even NOW. And NT is the "flagship" robust OS from MSFT.
Sure it can run several, multithreaded applications at the same time.
>Warping... NOT Waiting...
>Working... NOT Playing...
And what kind of work are you doing? So, just how many business,
scientific, etc applications are written specifically for OS2. Odds are
you are working on OS2 with windows applications; which in the future,
wil be written to take advantage of Windows '95
Oh, and sure I will be playing... Windows '95 will be a great gaming
platform <insert flame here> as all of the major game developers are
writing for it.
Sure OS2 will have great games too; GC being my case in point. I
believe, however, that the majority of the really cool games will be
unavailable for the poor souls in the, "I love OS2 and I don't care even
if Microsoft is cruching us," camp.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/-----------\ No matter where yo go
| |------| | There you are
| | __ |__| __
Mark Rogers
> settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case? To
> me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation. With OS/2, I can
> tailor the settings for each program individually.
From what I have seen you can give each program it's own DOS settings
and/or config.sys and autoexec.bat if you use real mode dos. If you run
in a window etc then you specify what you need as system-wide by editing
the main autexec.bat etc. There may be other ways of doing this too?
I think the final version will add a little more to this we'll have to
wait and see.
--
Mark Rogers. ** Bug Free = Super FPU f*** to Tony ** *VFF*
* Veggie Freedom Fighter *