🚀 go-pugleaf

Here in comp.os.os2.misc, nospam@no.spam         (John Thompson)
spake unto us, saying:

>In <RwiKzoHpvKzM092yn@skypoint.com>, rsteiner@skypoint.com (Richard
>Steiner) writes:
>
>>Win95 is decent enough (*certainly* better than Win 3.1), and may have
>>some application advantages, but it's FAR too limited as an environment
>>in a number of areas that I'm used to.  I think *it* really needs a 32-
>>bit command line, you know?
>
>Just curious (I've never used Win95); what advantage does a 
>command line get by being 32-bit?  Come to think of it, isn't 
>OS/2's CMD.EXE still a 16-bit app?  (I use 4OS2/32, which is 
>32-bit myself)

Okay, I was oversimplistic: I meant a command line capable of running
multithreaded text-mode programs (16-bit or 32-bit is generally not
that relevant performancewise).

Running just DOS stuff (whcih is about all Windows 95 seems able to do
in text mode) isn't a good solution for me at all -- I want to run real
native versions of slrn, Lynx, and other programs that don't use the
box as inefficiently as a single-threaded DOS util would, and I want
better process control from the command line than Win95 provides.

-- 
-Rich Steiner  >>>--->  rsteiner@skypoint.com  >>>---> Bloomington, MN
      Written offline using PC Yarn + Yep + FTE under OS/2 Warp 4
                 I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!!