Bio-Menace problems on OS/2?
Matthew Grice
Now, when I try to run it under OS/2, it crashes after'
the first person I kill. It'll run fine if I don't try to kill anyone.
OS/2 tells me that it was terminated because of an invalid opcode.
That's a new one, as far as I know. Think its OS/2's fault or
the line's? I don't really want totry it again because my modem
runs at 2400. I've had a problem running Oxyd, too. it won't
go past the title screen. Any suggestions? OS/2 has worked fine for me
up to now.
I noticed that the help documentation tries to discourage people from
running it under OS/2, not because of compatibility problems, but
because of overhead! Somebody better give the people at Apogee a clue.
They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
-Matt
Jeffrey R. Gilmour
It does the same thing (halt after first kill) under DR-DOS. First game
where that seemed to be a problem.
___________________________________
|__/~~~~~\__/~~~~\__/~~~~\__/~~~~\_|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|____/~\____/~\_____/~\_____/~\____|\ /
|____/~\____/~~~\___/~~~\___/~~~\__|/ T h i s S p a c e f o r R e n t \
|____/~\____/~\_____/~\_____/~\____|\ /
|__/~~~\____/~~~~\__/~\_____/~\____|/ GIL...@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU \
|__________________________________|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Pierre Girard 514-340-6047
Matthew> NNTP-Posting-Host: cacciatore.mit.edu
Matthew> I downloaded Bio-Menace this morning over a very
Matthew> noisy line. Now, when I try to run it under OS/2, it
Matthew> crashes after' the first person I kill. It'll run
Matthew> fine if I don't try to kill anyone. OS/2 tells me
Matthew> that it was terminated because of an invalid opcode.
Matthew> That's a new one, as far as I know. Think its OS/2's
Matthew> fault or the line's?
I have the same problem. I don't think its because of the line nor
OS/2. I think the games is bugged. I played most of the games i have
in the dos emulation and except for zone66 and oxyd, i've been able to
play them all in the emulation.
Anyway, when i startup the game it reports completely weird numbers
about memory availability i "added" some more memory by changing the
setup of my dos and i didn't get different numbers.
Matthew> I don't really want totry it again because my modem
Matthew> runs at 2400. I've had a problem running Oxyd, too.
Matthew> it won't go past the title screen. Any suggestions?
Matthew> OS/2 has worked fine for me up to now.
As far as oxyd is concerned, i believe it doesn't work because of their
memory manager. I think they want to control it all and OS/2
won't allow that. I kept an old dos disk just for stupid games like
that (but it's a real fun game).
Bye.
--
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
/ /__ /__/ /__/ /__ /__/ /__
/__ /__ / \ /__/ /___ / \ /___
To understand recursion you
Pierre Girard, Groupe d'Etude et de need to understand recursion.
Recherche en Analyse des Decisions --Andrew Koenig, 2nd Usenix C++ conf.
(G.E.R.A.D.), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
pie...@crt.umontreal.ca
(514-340-6047) (514-340-6038)
Stan Warman
I did it! With a little help from my friends, I got Bio Menace
to run under OS2 without crashing when the first monster blows up!
I can't guarantee that it will work under any other circumstances
than it did for me, but here's the dope:
My Configuration
----------------
MS-DOS 5.0 and OS2 2.0 under dual-boot (FAT)
486DX2/66 w/16M RAM (undoubtedly it will work with less than this)
Bio Menace window set-up
------------------------
Make a regular MS-DOS 5.0 boot disk for A: drive with the following
config.sys file:
shell=c:\dos\command.com /e:2000 /p
device=c:\os2\mdos\himem.sys
dos=high
devicehigh=c:\os2\mdos\fsfilter.sys
files=30
buffers=20
and this for an autoexec.bat file:
@echo off
c:
set comspec=c:\dos\command.com
path c:\;c:\dos
prompt $p$g
c:\os2\mdos\fsaccess a:
cls
I'm not sure if the file fsfilter.sys has to also be on the A:
disk or not, but it's on mine.
Now open an OS2 window, cd to the \os2\mdos directory and type:
vmdisk a: c:\dos5.img
Now create a new DOS window on your desktop, call it whatever
you like (I called mine "DOS 5 Full Screen"), click the right
mouse button once on the icon, click on the arrow next to "open",
click on "settings", click on "session", click on "DOS settings".
The following list contains my settings:
COM_HOLD Off
DOS_BACKGROUND_EXECUTION On
DOS_BREAK On
DOS_DEVICE N/A (Not Applicable)
DOS_FCBS 16
DOS_FCBS_KEEP 8
DOS_FILES 20
DOS_HIGH On
DOS_LASTDRIVE Z
DOS_RMSIZE 640
DOS_SHELL C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM /P
DOS_STARTUP_DRIVE C:\DOS5.IMG
DOS_UMB On
DOS_VERSION N/A
DPMI_DOS_API AUTO
DPMI_MEMORY_LIMIT 2
DPMI_NETWORK_BUFF_SIZE 8
EMS_FRAME_LOCATION AUTO
EMS_HIGH_OS_MAP_REGION 32
EMS_LOW_OS_MAP_REGION 384
EMS_MEMORY_LIMIT 2048
HW_NOSOUND Off
HW_ROM_TO_RAM Off
HW_TIMER Off
IDLE_SECONDS 20
IDLE_SENSITIVITY 75
KBD_ALTHOME_BYPASS Off
KBD_BUFFER_EXTEND Off
KBD_CTRL_BYPASS NONE
KBD_RATE_LOCK On
MEM_EXCLUDE_REGIONS BLANK
MEM_INCLUDE_REGIONS BLANK
MOUSE_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS Off
PRINT_TIMEOUT 15
VIDEO_FASTPASTE Off
VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION NONE
VIDEO_ONDEMAND_MEMORY On
VIDEO_RETRACE_EMULATION Off
VIDEO_ROM_EMULATION On
VIDEO_SWITCH_NOTIFICATION Off
VIDEO_WINDOW_REFRESH 1
XMS_HANDLES 32
XMS_MEMORY_LIMIT 2048
XMS_MINIMUM_HMA 0
I have played under this setup for only about an hour, so I don't
know if there are any problems waiting for me later on in the game.
BTW, this window can be tried for other misbehaved programs that
won't run properly in regular DOS windows.
Also, for you Desqviewers out there, Bio Menace runs OK under
version 2.42 in a 550K window (with EMS memory available).
-------------------------------------------------
| "An argument isn't just saying 'no it isn't'" |
| "Yes it is" "No it ISN'T!" - Monty Python |
| |
| Stan Warman: Microcomputer Specialist |
| Sangamon State University |
| war...@eagle.sangamon.edu |
| (Get a new plan, Stan) |
-------------------------------------------------
HENRY JASON NORRIS
> > running it under OS/2, not because of compatibility problems, but
> because of overhead! Somebody better give the people at Apogee a
> clue.
> They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
Win-OS/2 runs Windows-3.1 faster than Windows-3.1 does.
And better.
OS/2 is alot better than Microsoft wants you to know. Thats why so many
people are using it. When Apogee wants to earn money from the growing
OS/2 market, they will change their tune.
Henry J
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
--
James Ojaste
|>
|> In article <2499t6$7...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, mgr...@athena.mit.edu
|> (Matthew Grice) writes:
|> > I noticed that the help documentation tries to discourage people from
|> > > running it under OS/2, not because of compatibility problems, but
|> > because of overhead! Somebody better give the people at Apogee a
|> > clue.
|> > They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
Not! OS/2 requires resources. If it uses those resources, then DOS can't.
|> Win-OS/2 runs Windows-3.1 faster than Windows-3.1 does.
|> And better.
Only if you have more memory. OS/2 *takes up RAM and CPU*! It takes up
at least 4M RAM, so that means that you can only run 4M less worth of Windows
programs - even if it is faster (which I doubt - I'd need to see independant
numbers), it's *not* better. Just Bigger (ie. my OS is bigger than your OS).
|> OS/2 is alot better than Microsoft wants you to know. Thats why so many
|> people are using it. When Apogee wants to earn money from the growing
|> OS/2 market, they will change their tune.
OS/2 requires CPU and RAM. Anyone who says otherwise probably read the
back of the box instead of the manual. *Everything* requires CPU time.
If OS/2 is using it, then Apogee can't. Same with RAM - if OS/2 is using
it, Apogee can't (assuming that Apogee wants to use memory above 1M...).
RESOURCES ARE FINITE!
--
/* 0F 90 3E 44 F9 13 E7 CC (joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca)
** 10 20 44 C8 42 21 08 98
** 38 40 F9 50 87 C2 1F 30 "Woof bloody woof" - Gaspode the Wonder Dog
** 40 81 12 61 08 84 22 00 (Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures)
*/ F9 FA 24 42 11 3F 44 C0
Matthew Grice
>In article <1993Aug17.1...@ncsu.edu>, hjno...@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS) writes:
>|>
>|> In article <2499t6$7...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, mgr...@athena.mit.edu
>|> (Matthew Grice) writes:
>|> > I noticed that the help documentation tries to discourage people from
>|> > > running it under OS/2, not because of compatibility problems, but
>|> > because of overhead! Somebody better give the people at Apogee a
>|> > clue.
>|> > They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
>
>Not! OS/2 requires resources. If it uses those resources, then DOS can't.
>
_I_ have more than 1M of memory! :)
(and a processor with more than 16 bits or whatever DOS piddles
around with).
Ever tried it?
>|> Win-OS/2 runs Windows-3.1 faster than Windows-3.1 does.
>|> And better.
>
>Only if you have more memory. OS/2 *takes up RAM and CPU*! It takes up
>at least 4M RAM, so that means that you can only run 4M less worth of Windows
OK, so you shouldn't be running OS/2 if you don';t have the machine to handle
it.
But if you do...
>programs - even if it is faster (which I doubt - I'd need to see independant
>numbers), it's *not* better. Just Bigger (ie. my OS is bigger than your OS).
>
Not better? You don't expect much of your computer do you?
How about suspending and multitasking and reactivating DOS programs when you
wish, and at least making some semblance of use of the power even your machine has?
Yes, OS/2 requires CPU and RAM, but DOS can't use most of the RAM gainfully
anyway, so there's no big loss by running OS/2 unless you have a
toystore machine (4M RAM).
Where do the speed gains come from? I'll tell you. They are real.
Don't belive me? Call up Intergraph and ask them why Microstation
PC (CAD) is so much faster when run under OS/2 rather than DOS.
The first reason is that IBM uses better compiler technology
for its DOS emulation. MS uses its own compilers, which are
not nearly as fast. This alone makes up for the overhead of pre-empting.
By the way, OS/2 occupies only 1% of the CPU when running.
The second reason is that the High Performance File system
(HPFS) completely toasts FAT when it comes to speed.
By a factor of 3x. That's right. Any DOS program benefits
from this. Need other reasons? How about multithreaded lazy write
caching, virtual memory if needed, and multithreaded IO, all
available for DOS sessions.
>|> OS/2 is alot better than Microsoft wants you to know. Thats why so many
>|> people are using it. When Apogee wants to earn money from the growing
>|> OS/2 market, they will change their tune.
>
>OS/2 requires CPU and RAM. Anyone who says otherwise probably read the
>back of the box instead of the manual. *Everything* requires CPU time.
>If OS/2 is using it, then Apogee can't. Same with RAM - if OS/2 is using
>it, Apogee can't (assuming that Apogee wants to use memory above 1M...).
>
If you have any kind of machine above the bargain-basement
model, OS/2 more than compensates for this when running
DOS programs. If your machine can't handle it (and try running
above the minimum config -- you wouldn't run Windows in 1M)
then, maybe, just maybe, DOS is a better DOS than OS/2.
>RESOURCES ARE FINITE!
All the more reason to take advantage of te ones you have!
James Ojaste
|> In article <CByr6...@cid.aes.doe.ca> joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca writes:
|> >In article <1993Aug17.1...@ncsu.edu>, hjno...@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS) writes:
|> >|> > They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
|> >
|> >Not! OS/2 requires resources. If it uses those resources, then DOS can't.
|> >
|> DOS can't use the resources that my machine has anyway!
|> _I_ have more than 1M of memory! :)
So do I. I have 4M, and I use most of it most of the time (whether for
playing .mods in the background, or raytracing, or DTP - it gets used).
|> (and a processor with more than 16 bits or whatever DOS piddles
|> around with).
|>
|> Ever tried it?
Yup. I've got a 433.
|> >|> Win-OS/2 runs Windows-3.1 faster than Windows-3.1 does.
|> >|> And better.
|> >
|> >Only if you have more memory. OS/2 *takes up RAM and CPU*! It takes up
|> >at least 4M RAM, so that means that you can only run 4M less worth of Windows
|> OK, so you shouldn't be running OS/2 if you don';t have the machine to handle
|> it.
|> But if you do...
I still don't think that OS/2 justifies itself. Windows isn't much better,
but it's smaller and faster.
|> >programs - even if it is faster (which I doubt - I'd need to see independant
|> >numbers), it's *not* better. Just Bigger (ie. my OS is bigger than your OS).
|> >
|> Not better? You don't expect much of your computer do you?
|> How about suspending and multitasking and reactivating DOS programs when you
|> wish, and at least making some semblance of use of the power even your machine has?
|> Yes, OS/2 requires CPU and RAM, but DOS can't use most of the RAM gainfully
|> anyway, so there's no big loss by running OS/2 unless you have a
|> toystore machine (4M RAM).
Maybe DOS can't use it - but who says that DOS apps don't? A lot of programs
out there use XMS/EMS/protected mode.
|> Where do the speed gains come from? I'll tell you. They are real.
|> Don't belive me? Call up Intergraph and ask them why Microstation
|> PC (CAD) is so much faster when run under OS/2 rather than DOS.
For one, it's probably running in 32 bits under OS/2, and they didn't bother
to put the CPU in protected mode for the DOS version.
|> The first reason is that IBM uses better compiler technology
|> for its DOS emulation. MS uses its own compilers, which are
|> not nearly as fast. This alone makes up for the overhead of pre-empting.
|> By the way, OS/2 occupies only 1% of the CPU when running.
|> The second reason is that the High Performance File system
|> (HPFS) completely toasts FAT when it comes to speed.
And gets completely toasted when it comes to data recovery. When I installed
OS/2 on my machine, the install prog. worked, and then said it was going to
reboot - it locked up, so *I* rebooted. Several minutes later, OS/2 crashed
during the boot! I had to make a bootable OS/2 *floppy*, copy the config.sys
to that, boot DOS, edit the config.sys, boot the floppy, copy the c.s back,
reboot, and watch how far it got this time before crashing. If it had been
HPFS I wouldn't even have been able to do this!
|> By a factor of 3x. That's right. Any DOS program benefits
|> from this. Need other reasons? How about multithreaded lazy write
|> caching, virtual memory if needed, and multithreaded IO, all
|> available for DOS sessions.
Lazy write caching? You're nuts! Nobody in their right mind would want to
use that unless they had a UPS kicking around! That's bloody dangerous!
|> >|> OS/2 is alot better than Microsoft wants you to know. Thats why so many
|> >|> people are using it. When Apogee wants to earn money from the growing
|> >|> OS/2 market, they will change their tune.
|>
|> >OS/2 requires CPU and RAM. Anyone who says otherwise probably read the
|> >back of the box instead of the manual. *Everything* requires CPU time.
|> >If OS/2 is using it, then Apogee can't. Same with RAM - if OS/2 is using
|> >it, Apogee can't (assuming that Apogee wants to use memory above 1M...).
|>
|> If you have any kind of machine above the bargain-basement
|> model, OS/2 more than compensates for this when running
|> DOS programs. If your machine can't handle it (and try running
|> above the minimum config -- you wouldn't run Windows in 1M)
|> then, maybe, just maybe, DOS is a better DOS than OS/2.
I've got a 486/33 with 4M RAM, I had plenty of HD space, and a Trident 8900/1M.
I thought that it would make more efficient use of my resources. I was wrong.
|> >RESOURCES ARE FINITE!
|> All the more reason to take advantage of te ones you have!
Exactly! So why are you wasting them on OS/2?
Nai-Chi Lee
>In article <24umbu$a...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, mgr...@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice) writes:
>|> In article <CByr6...@cid.aes.doe.ca> joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>|> >In article <1993Aug17.1...@ncsu.edu>, hjno...@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS) writes:
>|> >|> > They're dead wrong. My OS/2 emulation will outrun your DOS anyday!
>|> >
>|> >Not! OS/2 requires resources. If it uses those resources, then DOS can't.
>|> >
>|> DOS can't use the resources that my machine has anyway!
>|> _I_ have more than 1M of memory! :)
[Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah]
[Well, don't we all *LOVE* to read this kind of exchanges?]
Hey guys! This topic is getting old. How about moving on to something
more constructive, such as
"My Apple is better than your IBM PC" ("is not", "is too", "is not", ...)
Or
"Piracy is as bad as stealing a car" ("is not", "is too", "is not", ...)
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
P.S. Hopefully nobody will be dumb enough to fall for it.
==============================================================================
"An argument isn't just saying 'no it isn't'"
"Yes it is"
"No it ISN'T!"
-- Monty Python's The Argument Bureau
==============================================================================
HENRY JASON NORRIS
In article <CC0H5...@cid.aes.doe.ca>, oja...@wfh7546.ice.ncr.ca
(James Ojaste) writes:
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
> Path:
>
taco!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!mcr
rcim.mcgill.edu!sifon!cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.ca!wfh7546!ojastej
> From: oja...@wfh7546.ice.ncr.ca (James Ojaste)
> Subject: Re: Bio-Menace problems on OS/2?
> Message-ID: <CC0H5...@cid.aes.doe.ca>
> Sender: ne...@cid.aes.doe.ca (Network News)
> Reply-To: joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
> Organization: CS students from before the dawn of time...
> References: <2499t6$7...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
> <1993Aug17.1...@ncsu.edu> <CByr6...@cid.aes.doe.ca>
> <24umbu$a...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 10:49:08 GMT+5:00
> Lines: 105
>
> In article <24umbu$a...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
> mgr...@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice) writes:
> |> In article <CByr6...@cid.aes.doe.ca>
> joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca writes:
> |> >In article <1993Aug17.1...@ncsu.edu>,
> hjno...@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS) writes:
> |> >Only if you have more memory. OS/2 *takes up RAM and CPU*! It takes up
> |> >at least 4M RAM, so that means that you can only run 4M less worth
> of Windows
> |> OK, so you shouldn't be running OS/2 if you don';t have the machine
> to handle
> |> it.
> |> But if you do...
>
> I still don't think that OS/2 justifies itself. Windows isn't much
> better,
> but it's smaller and faster.
No, Windows is not faster. If you have low end memory (4MB), OS/2 will
be slow. If you have more, OS/2 will dust windows. I have 8MB and OS/2
flies like the wind, even with a 386DX33. Windows is slow and sluggish.
Try this with windows:
Run Xwing in a dos window.
Bring up another Dos window.
Print the online help file.
Run wordperfect.
I have done all this with OS/2 and the only delays are minor. You cant
even do this with WinDOZE.
If you can't play with the big dogs (dont have memory or machine), stay
on the porch (Stay with Dos or Win). That's life.
Sure OS/2 will run on a 4MB 386SX, but who would buy a 386SX to run OS/2?
Lets face it, it is the premier OS that is available, untill NT gets
released next year.
If you haven't sprung for the machine/memory to run OS/2 correctly, then
why did you buy OS/2? Oh, you didn't know it wanted resources? Right...
>
> |> If you have any kind of machine above the bargain-basement
> |> model, OS/2 more than compensates for this when running
> |> DOS programs. If your machine can't handle it (and try running
> |> above the minimum config -- you wouldn't run Windows in 1M)
> |> then, maybe, just maybe, DOS is a better DOS than OS/2.
>
> I've got a 486/33 with 4M RAM, I had plenty of HD space, and a Trident
> 8900/1M.
> I thought that it would make more efficient use of my resources. I
> was wrong.
>
> |> >RESOURCES ARE FINITE!
> |> All the more reason to take advantage of te ones you have!
>
> Exactly! So why are you wasting them on OS/2?
Oh, spare us. You had problems installing OS/2 and now you hate it.
You are stuck running Dos and Windows and have very little control over
how your machine works. Whine, Whine!
Sorry, buddy, but OS/2 works! Many people are using it and loving it.
Os/2 is here, right now. It has been refined and streamlined. It isn't
going to go away just because you want it to.
If you want 32 bit,OS/2, Dos and Windows 3.1 programs to run in a
multitasking environment more powerful than a Vax 6000, you do it with
OS/2 and a machine that will run it.
arf friggin' arf or whatever
Henry J.
>
> --
> /* 0F 90 3E 44 F9 13 E7 CC (joj...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca)
> ** 10 20 44 C8 42 21 08 98
> ** 38 40 F9 50 87 C2 1F 30 "Woof bloody woof" - Gaspode the Wonder
> Dog
> ** 40 81 12 61 08 84 22 00 (Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures)
> */ F9 FA 24 42 11 3F 44 C0
>
>
--
Thomas W. Davie
If you want 32 bit,OS/2, Dos and Windows 3.1 programs to run in a
multitasking environment more powerful than a Vax 6000, you do it with
OS/2 and a machine that will run it.
arf friggin' arf or whatever
Henry J.
Apologies go out in advance for getting off topic, but....I can run OS/2, Windows, *and* DOS *all* at the same time through the use of multiple orange co processors in nubus slots :)
But about OS/2, you're right...the first time I ran it, I didn't have enough RAM, and it dragged. With enough RAM, its decent.
Michael Solinas
: Sure OS/2 will run on a 4MB 386SX, but who would buy a 386SX to run OS/2?
: Lets face it, it is the premier OS that is available, untill NT gets
: released next year.
I saw NT in my local Software Etc. store yesterday. It's out. Got a spare
75 MEG hard disk space and 12 MEG ram? That's the minimum recommended
configuration for NT.
: If you haven't sprung for the machine/memory to run OS/2 correctly, then
: why did you buy OS/2? Oh, you didn't know it wanted resources? Right...
He'd better FORGET NT as well.
I use OS2 (486-33, 8 meg, larg hd) and it's GREAT.
--
James Ojaste
|> If you can't play with the big dogs (dont have memory or machine), stay
|> on the porch (Stay with Dos or Win). That's life.
|>
|> Sure OS/2 will run on a 4MB 386SX, but who would buy a 386SX to run OS/2?
|> Lets face it, it is the premier OS that is available, untill NT gets
|> released next year.
If I had enough resources to run OS/2, I'd get Linux and Xfree386.
Unix *kicks* OS/2 out the window...
|> > |> >RESOURCES ARE FINITE!
|> > |> All the more reason to take advantage of te ones you have!
|> >
|> > Exactly! So why are you wasting them on OS/2?
|>
|> Oh, spare us. You had problems installing OS/2 and now you hate it.
|> You are stuck running Dos and Windows and have very little control over
|> how your machine works. Whine, Whine!
Oh, no! I've got plenty of control over my machine. It's IBM that sucks.
OS/2 isn't the only product that I've had install problems with, but it's
been the worst. And I'm *not* stuck running DOS/Windows. I use Windows
for a very limited set of apps, and I prefer DOS to most other OSes because
it's small, fast, and fills my needs.
I prefer the DOS philosophy to the Windows/OS/2 philosophy - with DOS, you're
given the bare bones, and you can add what you like - you're not forced
to live with stuff that you don't want. With Win/OS/2, you're given all
sorts of baggage, and told to live with it - even though you don't need
most of it.
|> Sorry, buddy, but OS/2 works! Many people are using it and loving it.
^^^^^^^^^^
Same with DOS.
|> Os/2 is here, right now. It has been refined and streamlined. It isn't
|> going to go away just because you want it to.
Refined? *Streamlined*? Don't make me laugh... I don't care if other
people use it - I hate it. I can't wait till I get X.
|> If you want 32 bit,OS/2, Dos and Windows 3.1 programs to run in a
|> multitasking environment more powerful than a Vax 6000, you do it with
|> OS/2 and a machine that will run it.
I don't *want* OS/2 apps, and the only reason that I run Windows, is that
some things just *require* a GUI interface. Once I get enough power, I'm
going over to Xwindows.
And don't bother flaming me, I'm going to be off the net for 3 weeks...