🚀 go-pugleaf

esmith@oacis.com (Eric Smith) wrote:

>>>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? 

By chewing up memory, for one thing.  Try to run multiple VM's of
Windows applications in OS/2 on a 8 meg system.  Prepare to grow old.


>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.

You want all that protection and pre-emptive multitasking?  Then get
NT.

>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...

NT will run 95 apps.  With the new interface, NT is a _very_ good OS-
just as long as you have 16 megs.