🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3155aa77.4535670@news.onramp.net>, dcorn@paradise.pplnet.com wrote:

> 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? 

The amount of memory it can address, the speed at which it runs, the data
it can address, etc., etc.

> I care about speed and performance, not labels. 

Sure. And 16 bit generally has more limited utility and performance than
32 bit. Which was the point.

> 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.

Win95 does NOT have PMT. Your labels are wrong as well. You say you want
speed... but I bet you run 16 bit (slower) apps on Win95. Your protection
(a label) gives your system no better stability than my system that does
not have it. In fact your system is still LESS stable than 7.5... so if
you don't care about labels, why do you keep spewing them?!?!

> 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.

And I've been looking at copland for a year now. Its been in SOME
developers hads for over 6 months... and parts of copland have already
made our system. (Native Resource manager, translucency manager, native
PCI drivers, OT, etc. are all moved into 7.5 from copland).

> >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.

7.0 has some stack/heap checking that Win3 did not. The mac is still a
flat 32bit memory model, while win3 is not. The Mac does not use shared
low-mem resources that can fill up and crash your system. The Mac has some
limited memory-range checking. Under System 7.0.2 or 7.5 the modern memory
manager has code protection (your code segments are read only, and may not
be written to, by you are anyone else).

> >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.  :)

Why?!?! Can you give a reason?! I did.

> >Also System7's features work as advertised.
> 
> What doesn't work in Win95?  

Long filenames are longer, but still can't handle many special characters.
Long filenames dont work right in a mixed environment or with any legacy apps.
Shortcuts work, unless you move the file (then you have to find them). 
Shortcuts work, unless you rename the file (then you have to find them). 
Shortcuts dont work across a network.
Menus work in windoze, unless they are too long to fit on screen, then it
doesn't know how to scroll the menu.
Heirarchial menus work unless there are too many, then you sometimes have
discontiguous selection issues.
Plug & play works only if you have a new bios, new cards, and Win95
decides to recognize the system and the humidity is right. I'm sure
they'll get the gotcha's worked out in a few years - but the point is you
do NOT have plug & play reliably by getting Win95, you may have it if your
hardware supports it.
Win95 is 32bit, sometimes... but still has a lot of 16bit DOS based crap.
Calling it a 32bit OS is a lie. (I.E. a feature that doesn't work as
advertised).
It is not as good as a Mac, and not even close (as some advertise). Even
PC mags concede that point.
Color matching does not work on PC's as advertised.
Fonts have their issues under Windows in general that are better on a mac...

need I go on, or are you getting the point.

> >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.

I've used both... and Win95 OUT OF THE BOX can be touchy as all hell... if
it does get installed just right, on just the right hardware it CAN be
somewhat stable. 

The Macs (MacOS) ARE stable out of the box... and only if you add
screenfulls of inits can you DESTABALIZE THEM. Most hardware additions do
NOT destabalize them (while it does on Win95). Most Application installs
can not delete a needed DLL or destabalize the system as on Windoze (31,
95, NT). 

You can configure a Mac to be unstable - but it is usually stable to begin
with. 
It is almost impossible without being a techie guru to keep a Win machine
stable with any sort of additions... and it does not even install stable
in many cases.
-- 
David K. Every           | MaciDo Warrior - The Macintosh Way
Sr. Software Engineer    | 
Jostens Learning Corp.   |