[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why a Windows 95 version?
> >OS/2 2.0 was a crock of shit. However, OS/2 2.1 and later are pretty
> >good. And they are *not* less powerful than Win95. As far as 32bit
> >progs go, about the same. However, OS/2 will do 16-bit Windows
> >much better than Win95, for the following reasons:
> >
> >1) OS/2 allows multiple Windows 16 apps in virtual machines, allowing
> > pre-emptive multitasking of Win16 apps, and protecting them from
> > each other. Win95 does not have this, although NT does.
>
> Actualy, NT does *not* do that either. It is actualy nessecary to work
> 100% correctly that the Win16 applications run in the same VM.
Actually, Dan, NT *does* do this, and has for more than a year. Hit
alt-enter and observe: "Run in seperate memory space." They're pre-empted,
they're seperate, and unlike OS/2 and Windows 3.1, they have virtually
no limit on resources.
> >3) Win95 does not pre-emptively multitask as soon as you run any
> > Win16 apps in it. OS/2 does. For most people this makes
> > precious little difference, of course.
> >
>
> Don't forget that OS/2 is not Win16 native. That means it can run a
> windows subsystem for each application, and get pre-emp. multitasking!
> Win95 uses one windowing system that must act like the Win16 system to
> the Window 16 applications!
So what? The topic under discussion was a Win95 version of Executor,
not Win32. Since even IBM has joined the Win32 bandwagon, it would
be silly to even consider a Win16 version.
References: