🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 Mar 1996 22:04:28 GMT, dke@adnc.com (David K. Every) wrote:

>True... but neither NT nor Win95 are quite what they say they are. Win95
>is still a 16 bit OS - with MINIMAL protection and PMT... and NT still
>doesn't have the Win95 interface, and has performance disadvantages when
>running WOW.

16 bit - 32 bit.  What's the difference? I care about speed and
performance, not labels.  With that in mind, Win95 works very well, is
easy to use, and has the services in it that I need and want.  Win95
has PMT just fine for me, and "protection" in 95 is fine too.

NT has the Win95 interface (shell preview has been available for what,
9 months now?) and NT4 is just around the corner.  NT does have
performance disadvantages with WOW...that's very true.

>MacOS 7.0+ has better memory protection that Win3... and 7.5 is a little
>better still (with protected code-segments).

Can you tell me how 7.0 under an 020 without MMU has better memory
protection than Win3 under a 386 or better?  That doesn't make sense
to me.

>While I agree that Win95 is above Mac Sys7 in protection (and in
>preemption), it is not by that much... and Sys7 is above Win3.

We'll agree to disagree on that one.  :)

>Also System7's features work as advertised.

What doesn't work in Win95?  

>So I agree apple does NOT have as secure an OS as WinNT. But what do users
>care about? Stability or the catch terms? Why the Mac wont have PURE
>seperate memory spaces - but will behave 99% like it does... and System 7
>on the mac is a HELL of a lot more stable than Win95... despite the
>technological advantage in one small area of Win95, that doesn't seem to
>work right in the real world!

Win95 is far, far more stable than any Mac I've used.  Not to say Macs
aren't stable, - they are - , but Win95 is more so.