🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ckno01-0108951219180001@ugls4.cs.auckland.ac.nz> ckno01@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Craig Knox) writes:

>  Win95 doesn't multitask very good.  Try this, play a wav or a mod then
>insert a cd-rom, or access you A: drive, it halts the system for a second
>or so. 
>  Question is, is Win95 very different than Win3.1x?

Not as different as Microsoft touted it would be, but it certainly is 
different. The multitasking improves substantially when you're running 32bit 
or Win95 native apps. Win95 can't do anything more with the multitasking of 
16-bit Win apps than standard coop multitasking.

>Win95                               | Win3.1x
>------------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>press Alt-Ctrl-Del can close app.   | Same.
 Note: With Win95, Ctrl-Alt-Del works more often. Under Win3, an app may 
 actually lock the system to a point where Ctrl-Alt-Del won't work. It can
 happen under Win95 too, but with less regularity.

>shell loaded up from Dos            | Same.
 Note: Depends what you call "Dos". Win95 only loads as much of DOS as it needs
 to stay compatible with DOS and Win3. If you don't have a CONFIG.SYS or
 AUTOEXEC.BAT, it'll only load WINBOOT.SYS before Windows loads.

>can close down the shell back to dos| Same.
 Note: Not true. If you "Restart computer in MS-DOS mode", and MEM/C, you'll 
 see that WIN.COM is still loaded in memory. True, it's doing nothing but it's
 still there to reboot when you type "EXIT".

>co-operatively multitask            | Same.
 Note: Only coop multitasks on programs that require it.

>can run 32bit programs              | Same, (with Win32s)
 Note: This is true, in fact, a LARGE portion of the 32bit code in Win95 is
 directly copied from Win32s

>can run multithreaded apps.         | Can't run multithreaded apps.
 Ok

>New GUI                             | Old GUI
 Ok, but a SMALL difference. Win3 could feasibly run the new GUI with the
 right DLLs.

>Multiple boot to old version of DOS | No multiboot to old DOS.
 Note: With Win3, you don't NEED a multiboot.

Sometimes I think that people are too critical of Microsoft over Win95. Sure, 
they've made some claims that aren't true, but given the restrictions that 
were placed on them, Win95 is actually GOOD.  They sacrificed a LOT of 
performance in making it very DOS compatible.