🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41fkn2$8v0@voyager.internex.net>, muzok@msn.com (muzo) wrote:
                                    >esmith@oacis.com (Eric Smith) wrote:

>> 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!

> nope, wrong OS2 runs in 512K memory which is 1/8 of the win95's req-
> uirement. check your numbers again. If you leave out tcp/ip and wps,
>it even runs on my 1984 PC XT with 256K.

Hey Muz, you're wrong.  OS/2 requires about 1.2Mb ram, and it needs at
least a 386SX.

>>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.

>right win95 requires at least 32M to multitask 2 programs.


Lighten up Muz, we all know that Win 95 can multitask 2 progs in
16Mb ram.

Of course those will have to be 2 apps that WILL run properly with this
product.  You must remember that the ability to run "legacy" apps is
NOT Win 95's strong suit.  But, what the hell, there are soooooo many
Dos/Win apps out there, so what if some 800 or so are no longer runnable
with Win 95.


BTW, why all of the hostility for Win 95?


>muzo


Line 'em up.  The circus is in town!



>standard disclaimer

Which is?


Bill Oconnor