Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!olive.mil.adfa.oz.au!navmat.navy.gov.au!posgate.acis.com.au!warrane.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!mel.dit.csiro.au!news.bhp.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!rhf.bradley.edu!cegt201.bradley.edu!not-for-mail From: ironmike@cegt201.bradley.edu (Michael Leiter) Newsgroups: misc.misc,misc.forsale.computers.discussion,comp.os.os2.marketplace,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.mach,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.os.magic-cap,comp.os.lynx,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs Subject: Win 95 stability Followup-To: misc.misc,misc.forsale.computers.discussion,comp.os.os2.marketplace,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.mach,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.os.magic-cap,comp.os.lynx,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs Date: 10 Feb 1996 04:07:01 -0600 Organization: Bradley University Lines: 88 Message-ID: <4fhqo5$t6d@cegt201.bradley.edu> References: <Pine.D-G.3.91.960124225044.20914C-100000-100000@erc.cat.syr.edu> <4eu2n6$bvu@rubens.telebyte.nl> <4fflmt$jh3@c4.hrz.uni-giessen.de> <4fhldb$2he@rubens.telebyte.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: cegt201.bradley.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au misc.misc:29601 misc.forsale.computers.discussion:3030 comp.os.os2.marketplace:2024 comp.os.msdos.misc:48388 comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc:103261 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc:90985 comp.os.mach:5039 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:110809 comp.os.misc:4700 comp.os.magic-cap:1482 comp.os.lynx:1695 comp.os.linux.misc:86480 comp.os.386bsd.development:3351 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:3091 ) I sort of agree with what you're saying. W95 effectively still isn't ) much more as a graphical shell. And has almost zero protection. Also ) great parts of W95 are still not using real multitasking (try resizing ) an image in paint for example, it just takes all the system resources ) available. Win 95 is more or less Win 3.11 with a different interface, confusing PnP that is fine -- if it works, otherwise, yuck -- and with a little more 32-bit code, doing things like making a piece of paper fly across your screen while a file loads, the kind of overhead that costs Win 95 12-13% performance cost over Win 3.11 (see Computer Shopper, Hard Edge section, Feb 96). ) The only time a crashed W95 completely, it was my fault though ) (keeping the W95 limitations in mind - but that's what it's all ) about). ) I know it's really easy to let W95 crash, and even easier to stop it ) from booting (try creating a com port conflict with an I/O card com ) port and internal modem for example, or select the wrong video driver ) - that will make W95 lock up during boot! Some hardware detection! It ) doesn't even detect the conflict. It just locks up. ) W95 also has the nasty habit of playing around in the cmos. Eg. if you ) have an old bios/ide controller that supports only 512Mb partitions, ) and you have a 540Mb HDD configured as a 512Mb one, it'll set it back ) to 540Mb during installation. Result: here's you're disk I/O error, ) and no boot. (just set the settings back to 512Mb to continue). ) The main problems with w95 IMO are: ) 1. PnP sounds ok, but most of the existing system don't have a full ) hardware PnP support. And even if they have I'm wondering if it really ) works. Well, PnP works sometimes -- more as developers write the proper drivers, etc. -- but if it doesn't, have even more fun than you're used to with DOS/Win3.X getting it working. ) 2. It still relies on DOS, fat partitions etc., effectively mixing two ) operating systems. DOS is cool! But fat partitions have to do with the filesystem, not the OS in particular... Though I *HAVE* to believe that somewhere in the back rooms and hallways of MS headquarters, there has *GOT* to be a group of hackers developing a better filesystem for the next MS wonder/gift to mankind... (as sarcasm drips from my mouth...) ) 3. Lots of hardware pieces still rely on W3.11 drivers ) 4. it's just too easy for a novice user to screw up settings and ) prevent it from booting. (and it's often hard to find what settings ) should be corrected). ) If you read the above it may seem I despise W95. That's not the case. Hmmm... Well, I do. Clouds and all. btw, can someone tell me how to dump a file to the printer in MS's latest blunder (Win 95). The only way I can figure is to open up a DOS windows and use 'copy filename.ext lpt1:'... ) I see W95 as just a bit more steady W3.11, with a nicer interface. ) It's not because of the OS, more because of the applications I'm ) running W95. (along side with DOS6.2+W3.11 and Linux). I agree the interface might be a bit nicer, but that's what all those nifty shareware and freeware programs take care of in Win 3.11. Btw, if you extract the DOS from inside of Win 95, and run Win 3.11 over it (I like to think of it as MS-DOS 7.0), Win 3.11 will run be more stable... ) The problem is that MS succeeded more or less in creating a myth that ) W95 will put an end to all your trouble. That is definitely not case, ) on the contrary... Did you hear about the people who called technical support asking how to get to the start button? After a bit of questioning, the tech support dudes found out that the persons in question didn't even have a computer... There is such a thing as OVER-marketing... :) ) You're right about what you said about true OSes. I hope the above ) somewhat clarifies my answer to the question in the earlier post. Just something to chew on... Mike