home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- You wrote:
- >
- >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.
-
-
- >2) OS/2 protects its kernel structures from its programs. Win95
- > does not. This makes Win95 somewhat faster, but also makes it
- > less stable. If a Win95 program corrupts a kernel data structure
- > it can bring the whole machine down (just as in Win 3.x). OS/2,
- > Unix and NT do not allow programs to modify kernel structures,
- > so it's almost impossible to crash the OS as a whole.
- >
-
- Don't forget it is still in beta. Not to mention, they are using
- *fast* and *mature* 16 bit code from over 10 years of improvement to
- speed up the kernel. If they do switch in the future (probibly in
- Win97 or Win98), it would be much slower.
-
-
- >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!
-
-
- >Tim.
- >
- -Dan Guisinger
-
-
-