🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4244ro$bje@barnacle.iol.ie>, V. Sliouniaev <vals@iol.ie> wrote:
>fat@cnit.nsk.su (Dmitry V. Irtegov) wrote:
>
>> Remember, Win95 (aka Chikago) was planned as quick and dirty hack
>> implemented in one year and having short lifespan. In '92 it was 
>> planned to release in '93 and die in '96, releasing marketplace 
>> for NT and/or Cairo. The main idea was to implement new API with
>> minimal architecture change, kinda of Win32s.DLL on steroids.
>
>Along with putting a simple semaphore for non-reentrant system calls,
>they've delevoped and built in also:

Looks like Vals is reading from an MS press release here :

>   - 32-bit parts of GUI, 32-bit font engine with anti-aliasing,

And much of that GUI code is thunked to 16-bit code.

>   - Multiple input queues: a simple (almost) 16 -> 32-bit port of a
>single-threaded applicaion doesn't lock the whole system when the
>application calculates something. Impossible with OS/2.

a) A properly written multi-threaded OS/2 app has the main thread pull
messages off of the queue and send them to the threads which do the
calculation.  This has been true since v1.1

b)  A multithreaded OS/2 app, unlike a W95 multithreaded app, does not
have to worry if putting message queues on each thread is going to
exhaust a resource heap.
c)  Warp checks the input queue and moves non-responding apps out of
the queue.  Your info is almost a year out of date.

>   - 32-bit installable file system with built-in disk compression,

OS/2 has had IFSs since version 1.something.

>   - 32-bit multiple network support including DHCP and WINS clients,

take a look at the Warp Connect package.

>   - PnP which I saw working with loadable network drivers,

Better go over to the 95.setup group.  There are quite a few people
there who DON'T agree with your assessment.

>   - Remote setup and administration support,
>   - National language support, with multiple keyboard layouts, code
>pages, locale dependent sorting, etc.

OS/2 has had THOSE since version 1.1 !  
You can read all the details in the IBM user docs or the *MS* 
Programmers Ref for OS/2 v1.1-1.2.

>   - Help engine with full text search (works for old files like
>win31wh.hlp, too),

Works fine in OS/2 v1.3.

>   - OLE2, new shell, new look and feel (is it new though?)

SOM2 shipped with Warp almost a year ago.  
Worplace Shell shipped in Spring '92
Lots of OS/2 users find the "new look and feel" of W95 REAL familiar.
"Cheap ripoff of Workplace Shell" is an oft-used phrase.

>   - WinG, 

OS/2 has had DIVE for over a year.

>   - ...
>
>> Later it appeared that it cannot be _quick_ hack, but it is still dirty :).
>
>... but much more pleasant to look at than Win31 or OS/2.    :^)

The Workplace Shell DEFAULTS may not be all that thrilling, but it is
REAL configurable.

>
>> It is crippled for "compatability" reasons, but it isn't 100% compatible.
>
>99.9%. I think it's "crippled" mostly because of development cost
>reasons. It is compatible enough to meet their goals (not hackers').
>MS concentrated on more important issues. Even though the system runs
>viruses and Cyrillic font TSRs as well as Mac DOS emulator does. :)
>

Better read some trade rags.  When MS tested 2,500 of the largest selling
Windows 3.xx apps over 800 had problems of some sort.  Among those
having the worst problems were the biggest competitors to MSs' apps.
( amazing, huh ?? )

>> It uses old DOS configuration in order to simplify installation,
>
>I.e. setup is clever enough to look at your old good working DOS
>configuration to determine that 0x200 is used by CD-ROM, not network
>card. A CD-ROM drive (with a system setup disk inside it) may lose
>consciousness when a sequence of commands for a network card detection
>is sent to it. After that, switching power off may be the only help.
>So I agree with the original statement.
>
>> but it's installation still isn't flawless, according to c.o.m.w.setup.
>
>It's an ideal. Take into account variety of HW configurations. Some
>cards (or their installers) are so brainless that even a good wisard
>can't help. In this case, some real knowledge is required from the
>user. How to apply this knowledge is a different issue: would you read
>through *all* the available manuals (because layout of information is
>bad,bad) and add some cryptic lines into config.sys, or would you
>change a value in a dialog box field, which will be checked after for
>possible invalid values? (If this doesn't help, one can use full text
>search into on-line docs).
>
>> From technical standpoint, Win95 is absolute failure: none of proclaimed 
>> goals were reached. It remains to be seen will hype compensate this or will 
>> Win95 fail on marketplace too.
>
>	It supports important parts of Win32 API, including multitasking and
>network support, well enough to be able to run almost all applications
>designed for WindowsNT (I mean, clients, not server apps).
>	It fully supports Win16/DOS also (including Borland 3.1 Windows full
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MSs own list of "problem apps" is large enough to refute this assertion.

>screen debugger), which means that the users can use the system for
>their real work w/o either complicated/expensive changes in HW or SW
>upgrades.

Better check what kind of RAM requirements people like PC Labs are
reccomending for those who want to run MS Office on '95.

Hardware and software upgrades is *EXACTLY* what MS is reccomending.
It also told third parties that they are going to sell LOTS of :
a) RAM
b) software upgrades
c) hard drives

so that users can run the new OS.

>	API is fully documented and very well supported (MSDN Level 1,2), and
>runs on many platforms (as WinNT). Many compilers are available too.
>

Check out a recent InfoWorld article about MS Word **32** using 
undocumented APIs.  Same old MS.

>	IMHO, Win95 is not a failure -- this is, in fact, a very well designed
>and "thought out" transition system. It has its own limitations by
>design, both  for compatibility reasons and, well, cost of development
>too (why design processor-dependent-DOS emulator for the low-end
>system which will last only two years?).
>

Well thought out ?

the memory architecture is so flimsy the whole system is STILL vulnerable.

>So, unlike Windows NT, Windows 95 can be used in place of Windows to
>run weird 16-bit applications (with their VxD, bad DOS calls, etc.).
>Also, unlike OS/2, it can run fully blown 32-bit applications too. 

OS/2 has been running fully blown 32-bit native apps for almost
3.5 years.

>And yet it introduces some advanced features ahead of Windows NT.
>
>--Vals.

Bob