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 `=*=*=*=* (___)
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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... :)
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...
Julian Barker
sir...@ix.netcom.com "Chris Skuller" writes:
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...
--------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS
: . Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always
: : 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.
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..."
=============================================================================
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
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..)
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
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)?
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
>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
: 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
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
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 *
cps...@instruct.langara.bc.ca
> > 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 am also after an E-Mail address for Origin.
Wulfgar
>
> Derick J.R. Qua-Gonzalez (dq...@Prometheus.EarthLink.Net) wrote:
> : In article <ptnal4TV...@crl.com>, sca...@crl.com (Scott Alter) says:
> : >
> : >Did you notice any speed loss?
> : >
> 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 used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2. Not to
mention that my hard drive wouldn't stop accessing. I am now running
under the pre-release version of Windows 95 (1-800-95PREVIEW for $27).
It is the best operating system I have ever seen. My windows apps
actually run faster (I have 8 megs ram BTW) then they did under Win 3.1
The cool thing is WIN95 actually changes the look of your win3.1 apps
to conform with the overall scheme of things.. makes it much easier to
use. Windows 95 is going to be the most successfull operating system
because so many people already use windows... Try out the pre-release,
it's a beautiful thing.
Just my humble opinion.......... :)
Michael Hermann
|> Mark R. Johnson (m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu) wrote:
|> : In article <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>,
|> : root <ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu> wrote:
|>
|> : >Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away. Yup, you can run
|> : >DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory
|> : >amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
|>
|>
|> Automaticly adjusting memory per app as required? Dont think so.
Whether you think so or not, it does it. What you set up is the maximum
RAM the session can get. It gets memory as needed up to that limit
|>
|> : >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.
|>
|> : Gee, OS/2 does all this now, has been doing it for years, and will
|> : continue to do it. Get a clue.
|>
|> But not as well. YOU get a clue.
It does it as well, what you get is a Win95 shutdown which ends in a DOS
session (as via dualboot) and when you exit the game Win95 starts up again.
In OS/2 everything is running all the time, I would call OS/2 the better
solution.
-Mike
S. Brown
>From: m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu (Mark R. Johnson)
>Subject: Win95: Been there, done that.
>Date: 20 Apr 1995 02:04:23 GMT
>In article <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>,
>root <ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu> wrote:
>>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.
>OS/2 has been doing all this since 2.0
>>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.
>Sounds a lot like warp to me.
>>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
>Gee, OS/2 does all this now, has been doing it for years, and will
>continue to do it. Get a clue.
Look here...I don't mind OS/2 zealots...to each his own, but after spending
hours on the phone with their tech support department, they finally decided
that OS/2 simply would not run on some machines. I have a pristine copy of
OS/2 for Windows and OS/2 WARP (version with original bugs fixed) sitting
right here if anyone wants them...well let me keep the boxes...they're holding
up my printer so the paper can get over the back of my computer desk. So far
that's all OS/2 has been worth to me.
The point is...who gives a plague infested rats ass if OS/2 has been doing
this for years? Now Win95 says they'll do it too, and I, for one, look
forward to seeing how well it works....IF it works ;-).
Steve
sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com
Steve Brown
For gaming or musical needs, Check out "The Basement," which is under construction :-)
ftp://www.neosoft.com/pub/users/s/sbrown/home.htm
Robert Virding
argument about OS/2 and Windows 95. OS/2 exists *NOW* while Windows 95
is still a (relatively buggy) beta.
Both have against them the past track records of the companies making
them. I mean, how can you trust a product coming from the company
which gave us DOS and Windows? Let's face it they suck! Why anyone
should want an operating system that resembles them is beyond me!
Personally, updating to either at the moment is completely
uninteresting. I use DOS to play games on, my wife uses Windows for
word processing and my kids Windows for some games. For *real work* I
use a *real operating system*, Linux.
--
Robert Virding Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
Computer Science Laboratory Tel: +46 8 727 34 52
Ellemtel Telecommunications Systems Laboratories
Box 1505, S-125 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
Eric the Kidder
No,
Win95 is going to be the most successful OS out because MS will 'arrange'
to have it shipped with every computer that gets made. Thus, developers
are forced to create programs for Win95, since it will have a dominate
market.
*sigh*
Well, better enjoy my C:\> prompt while I have it...
Eric the Kidder
>Personally, updating to either at the moment is completely
>uninteresting. I use DOS to play games on, my wife uses Windows for
>word processing and my kids Windows for some games. For *real work* I
>use a *real operating system*, Linux.
Joshua Cyr
> : 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 > > NO IT DOESN'T. Its more like Win95 and DOS run
parallel. > DOS is just around more with Win95, but Win95 is the operating
system you > are using, not DOS. > > Jeff
>
I was told (by a good source) that even when you reboot to DOS, there is
still the windows Kernel in the background. Essentially, Windows 95 is an
operating system with something that looks like our old Dos... but it
isn't our old DOS. By the way, I have been using Win 95 for a few months
now, and have been able to run everything just fine. I am using (now get
this)
486SX25, with 8MB Ram, sigh... it runs just as fast as windows runs, but
the graphic routines are much much faster. I play Herritic in a Win 95
Dos window, with no slowdown, or problems at all. Everything is so easy
to configure, I can't help but to love it. A big improvement for game
fans. I haven't used OS/2, so I cant make a comparison though.
D...@shore.net
>
> 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.
> --
Not to mention, according to the latest PC-Week, IBM has announced that they
have started supporting Win95. They've sent people to Redmond for training.
Even IBM knows that Win95 will be a force in the industry, and aren't blindly
ignoring it.
Greg Weaver
>
>In article <3n0rdn$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, sir...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Skull
>er) 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
>
>
>ORIG...@AOL.COM
>
>or Origin Marketing at:
>
>O...@AOL.COM
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Maarten Dinger
>(University of Waikato, New Zealand).
>
You can also try sup...@origin.ea.com or mark...@origin.ea.com
__________________________________________________________________
greg...@magna.com.au Greg Weaver Sydney,Australia. Voice +61 18 414-960
Check out my favourite band 'The Falling Joys'
http://www.slnsw.gov.au/ausmusic/f/falling-joys/fj-index.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Reed Kennedy
TheDruid
p...@bgsu.edu
Will the people who continue this thread/tantrum/discussion please
edit the newsgroups that gets these posts? It no longer belongs in
many of the groups that get these messages.
i.e. Take it to *.advocacy, please!
Thank you.
/-------/\(__) ........ Alan Garrison aga...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu <-PGP key
/ | OS/2 | (@@) ................... My kingdom for a pseudocode compiler.
* ||----|| \/ .. The one thing that unites all the civilizations in the
===^^====^^===== world is that brown means regular and orange means decaf.
Dale McPherson
>and so far have had problems only when I had a small amount of memory;
after
>I found a couple of 16MB SIMMs from my old SPARCstation, didn't have any
speed
>problems at all (and this only on a 486DX2/66 machine).
[Cut out some stuff]
>
> +----------+
> | ________ | 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
> +----------+
[Sarcasm mode on]
Gee, didn't have any speed problems after adding 32 MB of RAM to your
system????Who would have thought that??? Somebody call IBM and let them
know!!! This is ground breaking stuff here.
[Sarcasm mode off]
Bill Arnette
[ snip ]
>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
I though I could stay out of this debate but...
From the Windows 95 Resource Kit on the build 445 CD-ROM:
Application Support/
Technical notes on application support/
Support for MS-DOS Based applications:
"As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS - base application runs in its own
DOS virtual machine (VM), which allows multiple 8086-compatible sessions
to run on the CPU, which in turn allows existing MS-DOS - based
applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system."
--
Bill Arnette sas...@unx.sas.com
Portable Debugger Development ...!mcnc!sas!saswta
SAS Institute Inc. (919)677-8000 x6193
SAS Campus Drive - R2275 (919)677-4444 (fax)
Cary, NC 27513
John Michael Martz
> 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. I always
Speed over stability is not always the best choice if you are concerned
about loosing data.
> hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems
> pointless to argue with them.
Listen to who sounds biased here and especially in your following sentence.
> I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are
> sloughing in their so called os/2
> systems.
OS/2 is hardly slow if you are running native apps (or even DOS apps for
that matter); only having to load the Windows kernel slows it down.
Besides, once you get a Windows program loaded, most run just as fast as
under Windows 3.x.
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
> I used to run Warp on my Pentium 90 as well.. What a piece of ****.
> I couldn't run any games, spent over $30 in toll charges to tech
> support but nothing was ever fixed, I couldn't even use my General
> Midi adapter and joysticks don't work in games under OS2. Not to
Finally -- back to games :-). Obviously, you mustn't have been doing
something correctly. The only game I've not been able to get running
under OS/2 is The Farm, since it uses Win32s version 1.2, and OS/2
currently supports an earlier version. I can run Descent, DOOM, Reader
Rabbit1, Math Rabbit, all Borderbund's Living Books, among others (okay,
so my kids have more games than I do :-). OS/2 also supports joysticks;
however, I don't own one, so I can't really say more on the topic, except
I wonder if the stick(s) in question above were supported by OS/2.
Richard Ham
everybody here is probably missing the point. It doesn't matter if W'95 will
support true multitasking, or whether it runs DOS programs with less hassles
than OS/2, or any of that crap.
What matters is that in a short time after it's release, W'95 will come
preloaded on the majority of new computers sold in the US. I read somewhere
that Compaq is already commited to this, in fact. Plus it will sell like
hotcakes regardless of whatever whining and bitching there is online. You see,
we here on the 'net represent an incredibly small percentage of the computer
gamers and regular users in the real world. The latest issue of CGW
(or maybe is was PC Gamer - sorry, the magazines are at work) mentioned the
results of some feedback study they did. Only an incredibly small percentage
of it's readers ever logged onto major commercial online services (Cserve, AOL,
Genie, etc) and an even smaller number of people used the internet. When all
is said and done, we here are very small group of people arguing amongst
ourselves, and computer makers know that. The overwhelming majority of users
out there get any info they have from Magazines (which for the most are lining
up in favor of W'95), friends (who read those positive articles), and store
clerks (who want to sell the dominant OS so they can sell more apps for that
OS).
Once W'95 moves into it's position of dominance (where DOS/Win 3.1 are now),
what makes you think Origin, LucasArts, Sierra, Microprose, or any other
company is going to continue making titles for an OS system that only a small
portion of zealots will be using? Where's the money in that, versus the money
required to develop for that minority platform? Maybe if OS/2 continues to
develop more followers, you might see OS/2 versions of really popular titles
(as you see Mac versions occasionally of big PC games), but they'll be few and
far between. What IBM will have to do is bend over backwards, crippling its OS
to insure compatibility with W'95 products - much as Microsoft is having to do
now to insure compatibility with all previous DOS/Win 3.1 products.
Sierra has all but commited to Windows. Origin is doing Ultima 9 as a Windows
only product. Wake up and smell the coffee, people! It's only a matter of
time!
-rich
John Michael Martz
> Out of curiosity, what is the point of the Win95-OS/2 debate?
Probably goes down to self-interest. Users of each want their product to
be widely accepted, so that more developers will write for that platform.
The more developers, the more software, and the better the choice of
applications.
> 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...
How much do you have? I wouldn't run it on anything less than 8mg (what I
have on my home machine), but 12 or even 16 is much nicer (I have 16mg
here at work). If you want, I suggest checking out the various
comp.os.os2 groups (try setup, misc, and apps -- as well as game :-).
There you will find lots of tips on improving performance.
> 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
Try the fastload option under Warp (or, if you're using an earlier
version, simply place a small Windows app, such as clock, in your startup
folder) -- that will load the Windows kernel at startup (making your
bootup longer, by the way). Since Windows will already be loaded,
starting up these applictions will be a fraction of the time required to
start them from "scratch." Remember, if you don't have any Windows code
"active" and click on Word, OS/2 has to start Windows _first_ then load
Word -- a better speed comparison would be to compare the time it would
take to load Word from DOS (such as typing "win word" -- if you can do
that with Word; you can with various other Windows apps, so I suspect you
can do it with Word).
Worth Sparks
>Not to mention, according to the latest PC-Week, IBM has announced that they
>have started supporting Win95. They've sent people to Redmond for training.
>Even IBM knows that Win95 will be a force in the industry, and aren't blindly
>ignoring it.
I just wish Microsoft would act as professionally as IBM and take
measures to support OS/2 which is already, as Bill Gates himself
has said recently (if I remember correctly), "a force to be
reckoned with."
Reed Kennedy
Betrayal At Krondor
Ultrabots
Simcity 2000
Zork Anthology
King Quest VI
Doom Companion
Myst
Magic Carpet
Ultima I-VI
Spaceship Warlock
Spear of Destiny
Spectre VR
Jetfighter II
Quantim Gate
Sherlock Holmes
PC Computing:How Multimedia Computers Work (CD-ROM+BOOK)
Home Medical Advisor
Microsoft Multimedia Jumpstart
Battle Chess
Arts&Letters WarBirds
Iron Helix
7th Guest
Earth Siege
Return to Zork
Mega Race
Spectre VR CD Enhanced
The Shareware Colection For Windows
The Shareware Coloction Platnium
The Shareware Colection Games
Armorware Over 600 Games
All are on CDROM I would like to trade them but will sell them.
TheDruid
Tim Callahan
I agree, give us a break with this,
"discussion???" It's getting old
real fast...
Rich
>Challange and W95 insists on closing everything to run just this game?
>On top of that, when I exit the game, W95 insists on rebooting the
>computer, not even an opportunity to run another DOS app. I run
>this game all the time in OS/2 from a command line (W95 will only run
>this game if I double click on it from the drive folder) and never
>have to reboot afterwords.
Well.. the fact of the matter is, most games *will* run straight from
the GUI without the reboot. A lot of people have problems with games
that will (and have to wind up doing it the 'reboot' way), and that's
usually because something in their system isn't setup correctly. Since
I don't have, nor do I have access to, Nascar Challenge, I can't speak
to that game, only games in general.
>About the argument you were trying to dispell, a lot of DOS apps DO
>REQUIRE odd tweaks of DOS parameters. W95 does seem to account for
>this, but only for apps within its data base, and then it wants to run
>only that app and reboot afterwords. Not to mention, it will only
>allow you to run it from an icon and not the command line. I am
>currently running build 347? (the preview program) of W95--maybe
>things have improved in newer builds. From this experience, I can
>truthfully say OS/2, which I run on the same machine, truely has
>better support through its DOS settings than does W95. W95 may be
>able to run more legacy DOS apps, but it does by compromising all the
>benifits of running W95--ie only allowing that app to run.
I have to be completely honest with you.. you're experience with Win95
sounds vastly different than mine, as far as results go. (and just so
you know, I was never once advocating Win95 OVER OS/2--I'm just trying
to 'dispell' some half-truths about Win95, so there is no need
whatsoever to throw OS/2 at my face--I've used OS/2.. it's powerful yes
(I never put that to questioning), but it wasn't for me.) :)
Every DOS program I've run under Win95 (since right after build 224)
has run *from the GUI* without a reboot, and without the goofy DOS
parameter tweaks. The *only* DOS programs I've had problems with are
one with proprietary memory managers (usually only games do this, such
as Ultima 7, etc.). And frankly, I'm really sorry that your experience
is different, because the fact of the matter is, Win95 can behave
exactly how I have stated. Why it is that it works on my end and not
yours is unknown to me.
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.." <
>==============================================<
Bill Arnette
jmw...@is2.nyu.edu (Jeff Williams) writes:
>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).
Windows 95 has two levels of DOS application support. The first level of
support is to run the application in a DOS VM. From the Windows 95 resource
kit documentation:
"As with Windows 3.1, each MS-DOS -- based application runs in its own
DOS virtual machine (VM)...which in turn allows existing MS-DOS
applications to run preemptively with the rest of the system"
(Windows resource kit, Support for MS-DOS -- based applications)
For each DOS application (which by the quote above runs in its own VM or
session) you can set things such as conventional, XMS, EMS and DPMI memory
as well as some other settings. You cannot specify things that would be in
a config.sys file such as FILES and BUFFERS, however. But, you can specify
a batch file to be run before the application is run.
The second level of MS-DOS support is 'MS-DOS mode', which is very much like
OS/2 dual boot. If you specify that an application run in MS-DOS mode, you can
specify an entire AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS configuration. When the application
is run, essentially the AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS are copied to the hard
disk and the system is rebooted. When the application exits, the system is
rebooted back into windows. Obviously, in this mode you cannot run multiple
sessions concurrently.
Additionally, there is a file called APPS.INF that provides the settings
for many DOS programs so you don't have to define them yourself. Of course,
for new programs you will have to provide the settings.
>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)."
Actually I beleive this statement refers to 16-bit Windows applications, not
DOS applications.
I hope this provides a little more insight into Win95 DOS support.
Flames will be ignored.
Bill
jack harmon
Subject: Re: Win95: Been there, done that.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc,comp.os.os2.games
: It does it as well, what you get is a Win95 shutdown which ends in a DOS
: session (as via dualboot) and when you exit the game Win95 starts up again.
: In OS/2 everything is running all the time, I would call OS/2 the better
: solution.
: -Mike
The DOS session isn't needed - you can configure the program with properties
- what the DOS reboot primarily does is allows you to build your config.sys
and autoexec.bat according to each program. This isn't normally necessary.
For example: To run WCIII, I just chose my CDROM drive - which I loaded NO
drivers for (it's automatic on my Mitsumi) - found wc3.exe and double
clicked - runs fine - a bit longer in the load times, but close to same
frame rate. I finally set up an icon and changed the properties. You can
choose how much CONVENTIONAL, EMS, XMS, DPMI to allocate for each program in
the properties settings. After setting this up - I am quite content with
WCIII running through Win95. So, it _CAN_ be done - and effectively as well
- haven't tried this yet - but I have 8mb ram and can allocate 16 if I wish
in the properties area - will prolly just swap to HD - but will allow me
those extra features....
My observations,
Jack Harmon
--
jha...@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why
must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
-- Michel de Saint-Pierre
Gary Farmaner
>Nope sorry wrong. Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to knowing
>absolutely nothing about.
Look who's talking. Quit wasting bandwidth quoting an entire message
unless you have something constructive to say in response.
Joshua Cyr
> 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.
>
Win 95 has the same capability. All you need to do is click on the icon
of the program with the right mouse button and select "properties" from
that option a slew of possibilities for the individual configuration of
that program come into play. Setting the exact amount of Conventional
memory, extended, expanded, etc. Or just leave it on Auto, and let the
OS figure the stuff out for you (works most of the time). You can also
set the configuration of the mouse driver, soundboard, etc if you are
going to have the dos program load in a Dos only environment. In that
case the system reboots only to that program in a Dos session (with the
exact configuration you specified). Uppon exiting the program, the
computer reboots again (this may take some time depending on your system)
and reloads Win 95 exactly the way you left it. It warns you that it
will close other applications though.