🚀 go-pugleaf

>>So, what I'm trying to say is that any OS that runs two of more apps
>>at the "same time" is basically multitasking.  However, underneath
>>the method may not be as efficient as, say... NT!
>
>True.  Pre-emptive is more efficient and smoother, which is why it was
>added into 95.
>

Pre-emptive in 95?  I think not!  Unless you are running 32-bit apps for 95, 
you DON'T get pre-emptive multitasking.  You get same-old plain-jane Windows 
3.11-style multitasking.  It sucks.

Why the hell didn't MS create a separate VM for every DOS and Windows 
session?  They claim it was for compatibility reasons and to reduce memory 
footprint.  HAH!  Then how can OS/2 run every DOS window as a separate VDM 
and every Windows program the same way?  IBM's code is half the size of 
Win95's!  And as for memory footprint, remember that MS has revised their 
"minimum" configuration for Win95 to increase the amount of memory required. 
Big surprise there.

Why didn't they make it better?  IBM did, they just can't market it.  There 
are millions of people and billions of dollars that could be grabbed if 
they'd just have made it better!  As it is, folks will *STILL* probably buy 
it in droves, and we'll be stuck with *ANOTHER* sub-par OS for 
years...again...

esmith@oacis.com