Re: Win95 or OS/2?

[sturat@ozemail.com.au (Stuart Allen)]

Hi...

Thought I might add....

>
>OS/2 runs extremely well in 8BM.  Don't know about Win 95; I do know
>that my local computer weenies recommend 16MB with Win 95.

Yeah, the general recommendation is 16 MB... I run Win95 on a TP360 with 12
MB and it's fine... At home I run it on a DX2-66 with 8 MB and it's _OK_...
it churns a bit at times but is quite acceptable...

Be careful if you decide to use the DriveSpace compression in Win95. I'd
suggest you partition the system separately and *don't* compress the system
partition... I did this on my TP to get some extra space (and boy did I get
some extra space) but the speed suffered... I'm waiting to get the release
version of WIn95, at which time I'll do a full rebuild... it's probably best
to completely start from scratch when installing Win95 if possible... rather
than installing over 3.11 or whatever...

>Win 95 is based on cooperative multitasking, whereas OS/2 Warp uses
>discrete (true) multitasking.
>

Not wanting to be too picky, but Win95 uses both preemptive and cooperative
multitasking. Win 3.x used cooperative only. Cooperative mt relies on the
application programmers to help keep the system running smoothly... a bad
app will hog the system. Preemptive mt puts the operating system in complete
control of which apps run when and for how long... so smoother multitasking
results... I still think that OS/2 multitasking is the best I've seen on the
desktop. On a scale with 3.11 mt at number 1 and OS/2 at number 10 I'd place
Win95 at 7. It's pretty good, but an app that is really pounding the disk
will be tend to hog the system...

Anyway, hope this helped in some small way...

Stu