🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vmfps$2ek@oddball.sjc.mentorg.com>,
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 <ewill@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com> wrote:

>Win95 memory protection should be at least as good as Linux's
>for Win32 applications, from what I've heard.
>However, I cannot say for sure.  (Win16 should be problematical.
>DOS applications probably are enclosed in their own little
>world.)

Not true.  Windows95 decides to run certain routines with level 0 pri, and you
can hang the system easily (not able to do _anything_) with a simple 
assembly program.  Bodes well for compatibility, but I'll take pre-emptive
over performance any day.

>But certainly it's better than the Amiga's (which had none
>to speak of).

True.

>- hierarchical windowing (Win95 and X both have this;
>  Mac and Amiga do not)

depends on what you mean by heirarchical.

>- option to display graphics over the network (X)

yeah!  That's one of the best features of X.

>- user interrupt (^C) always works (Unix)

You can always disable it by shutting off the signal, or re-route it to mean
something else in Unix.  But I admit; it would be cool to have a processor-
level switch that would jump out of wherever and hand control back to the OS.

>- the ability to replace the default window manager
>  (Win3.1, X)

You can do that with Win3.1?!?

>- automatic resource deallocation upon program exit
>  (Unix; Amiga did *NOT* have this as of 2.0)

A _must_ have.

>- option for networking

Should be standard, not optional (if that's what you meant, I'm sorry)



Basically Linux with X11, IMO.   :)


-- 
    -INK <kellcrai@isuux.isu.edu>
         Idaho State University