Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Well, IE 4 with Active Desktop is a piece of sh*t. I installed it on the machine of my girl friend,and she wanted me to remove it instantly. With all those circles and orange buttons, you can't find the folders and files any more... Whoa... hey, A little exploring yeilds options to turn that crap off... Then there is the Make all folders like this one button.. But hey, Winslow is no match for Linux... JavaOS etc... (Hell, I hate to say it, but _sometimes_ the MacOS is better.. even though it is incredibly patronizing) Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Michael Beattie wrote: Well, IE 4 with Active Desktop is a piece of sh*t. I installed it on the machine of my girl friend,and she wanted me to remove it instantly. With all those circles and orange buttons, you can't find the folders and files any more... Whoa... hey, A little exploring yeilds options to turn that crap off... Then there is the Make all folders like this one button.. Since This thread refuses to die This all reminds me of a recent article I read on why Today's PCs are the most crash-prone ever built. which happens to be the exact reason I think Windows 95 is not all that bad. The idea is simple...The average user is that guy who wants to turn the powe r on, see the lights flash, send some e-mail, do some things and play some games. If it crashes now and again it is not abig deal, its just a minor annoyance. (Unless you are Bill Gates and it BSODs while you are demonstrating it at a press conference :) ) I am not saying that I personally like Win95. I love computers and use them because I enjoy understanding them and being able to command them to work my wayI am not the average user But hey, Winslow is no match for Linux... JavaOS etc... (Hell, I hate to say it, but _sometimes_ the MacOS is better.. even though it is incredibly patronizing) heh I can't stand MacOS (and I am offically the Mac Guy at work.. whenever a Mac users computer needs work they say...Mac Tech Support um yea HE is over there) I mean it works but...its too cute of course... I just plain use too mny systems... linux at home (and at work on my PC)..Win95, MacOS, Win3.1, VMS, terminal Servers (LATs are cool) at least with mac OS I don't see a command prompt and have to think UM ok...which command set this time? and D'ho ls doesn't work in DOS Why is the backspace actin g even stranger than in a poorly setup XTerm? (if you think seeing ^H on a screen is badimaging backspace sends your cursor back to the begining of the line without having the god damned common courtesy to erase what you typed) oh well...what was this thread about? and um..why is it here? - -Steve -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNT05snxvn0zebBV9AQHgmAP/emiD5nnup9Yi44KUwPwnb2wnBNac8zWt GwfMCr20IelUzBoa565GseAvNSoYYQerbieU7hr2zfXRXTLnO6m0xzp0ylJGzyRU QFJnP6c4o9q4nAB7EXRwj2et0GAiZaBdHYJCKfTBCv1TqQzoHXE3aE75sH9ogk98 tGyP+oCv0ZU= =KQHH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
I didn't know it, and I don't care. To me, this is worthless information. This is not valuable information about debian or is it? I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? The internet is full of win9[58] babbling. When it doesn't have any relation to debian, it does _not_ belong on this list. Wait until you have to make convincing arguments to folks that are making OS decisions. You are probably just a guy behind a box at home. whoes only concern is to get debian to work for himself. Some of us spend time looking for convincing arguments why Linux should be the OS of choice. .. As for the bit about your classical guitar ... .. it closes this discussion --Jon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? Ever try Windows '98? Well, if you haven't, don't count on M$ ever learning how to design a real operating system. Yesterday I heard a commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses... Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete waste of time and money. Maybe Gates should fire all the so-called programmers and hire a few monkeys to get the job done! I guess that comment was a little harsh, but necessay to get the point across -Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? Ever try Windows '98? Well, if you haven't, don't count on M$ ever learning how to design a real operating system. Yesterday I heard a commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses... Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete waste of time and money. OK there we are, a genuine M$-Windoze == shit thread. Cut it off please, if you want this type of discussion there are plenty news groups filled with it. Let's keep this a _useful_ list. Eric Meijer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Windows 98 and NT require more ram to be faster than 95. Otherwise, it's overbloated kernel and other system sucking resources will force you to hit your harddrive (memory paging via swap file / disk) and that wil cause such a slow down. Personally, I find windows 95 and nt have faster response times on some windows vs my X all oses have their purposes, I personally favor Linux with X11 rather than MS for my general internetting pleasure. I only tried a few betas of Windows 98, like I said.. needs more ram. :) Carroll Kong On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Paul Miller wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? Ever try Windows '98? Well, if you haven't, don't count on M$ ever learning how to design a real operating system. Yesterday I heard a commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses... Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete waste of time and money. Maybe Gates should fire all the so-called programmers and hire a few monkeys to get the job done! I guess that comment was a little harsh, but necessay to get the point across -Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses... Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete waste of time and money. Well if decide to pay for a doddgy OS when an excellent free one is available ...On your head be it Jonathan -- In any war, the first casualty is the truth. --anon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. Cut it off please, if you want this type of discussion there are plenty news groups filled with it. Let's keep this a _useful_ list. Sorry, but this is valuable information ... so you knew it, some of us didn't I didn't know it, and I don't care. To me, this is worthless information. This is not valuable information about debian or is it? I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? The internet is full of win9[58] babbling. When it doesn't have any relation to debian, it does _not_ belong on this list. Eric Meijer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Windows 98 and NT require more ram to be faster than 95. Otherwise, This is an issue that is dear to my heart ... I want my memory to be used /principally/ for my applications not gobbled up by my OS! I have 64 megs of ram in my Dell 200... and Windows 98 doesn't even compare to the speed on 95... even when openning the start menu, Win98 takes 5 to 10 seconds longer.. and browsing through my computer (in Classic style) is also extremely slow... KDE is much faster, but it needs a lot of work.. -Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:43:41PM +0200, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. Cut it off please, if you want this type of discussion there are plenty news groups filled with it. Let's keep this a _useful_ list. Sorry, but this is valuable information ... so you knew it, some of us didn't I didn't know it, and I don't care. To me, this is worthless information. Then please try to ignore it. It is interesting for some of us and blaming others helps to work together for the Good Thing. We all need a rest, looking at the other things out there and compare. Human nature. This is not valuable information about debian or is it? It is, because it shows where we are better ;) I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? YES! Seriously, I play guitar and double bass. Another point is that the debian-user list is a list for debian user, and therefore the topics vary from technical discussion to rants about windows. I learned a lot on the list that is not necessarily bound to Debian. The internet is full of win9[58] babbling. When it doesn't have any relation to debian, it does _not_ belong on this list. Well, IE 4 with Active Desktop is a piece of sh*t. I installed it on the machine of my girl friend,and she wanted me to remove it instantly. With all those circles and orange buttons, you can't find the folders and files any more... But I should stop, as you don't want to hear this... Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:43:41PM +0200, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? YES! Seriously, I play guitar and double bass. Another point is that the debian-user list is a list for debian user, and therefore the topics vary from technical discussion to rants about windows. I learned a lot on the list that is not necessarily bound to Debian. But I should stop, as you don't want to hear this... HEAR HEAR! This is not inappropriate discussion for the Deb User list. I too play double bass myself (or bass violin as Professor Murray Grodner called it, and the folk who succeeded Professor Grodner and his wife at Lemur Music call it as well.) Marcus, I share your classic guitar interest, as well, though I certainly wouldn't say I _play_ classical guitar. I have attempted to play it, and would not find a word or two about either topic inappropriate. If you want to talk double bass, instruments, music, etc, I'll be delighted to talk to you about it. Is this is maybe more border line than Windows 95 crud software? David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux the choice of a GNU generation. FREE UN*X NOW for the i[3456...]86, alpha, sparc, mips -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? -J. === In any war, the first casualty is the truth. --anon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Check out OpenDos, by Cadera, it is a full multitasking OS. -Original Message- From: C.J.LAWSON [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user mailing list debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? -J. === In any war, the first casualty is the truth. --anon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 03:41:45PM +0100, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? DesQview, DoubleDos, NovelDOS, VM to name a few. -- Mike Schmitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.bend-or.com/~mschmitz Don't blame me - I voted libertarian!http://www.lp.org/ Use Debian Linux - the free Gnu/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ --- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos No. A program becomes an operating system when it installs it's own interrupt servicing routies. Win95 does this, and though it kicks back to DOS's interrupt handlers for some things, it does this via calls from it's own handlers. DOS is merely used as a boot loader, and windows seems to forget to unload it. and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. There is nothing to talk about. DOS is not a multitasking OS, and it cannot become on without a major rewrite, (such as win95, which is a poorly implemented, but nevertheless true multitasking OS) at which point, we can't really call it DOS. The question is, has it been implemented? Yes, they rewrote DOS and called it windows. it multitasks, but it isn't DOS. (It does use DOS as a boot loader) 7~he 7~hought /|ssassin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, The Thought Assassin wrote: own interrupt servicing routies. Win95 does this, and though it kicks back to DOS's interrupt handlers for some things, it does this via calls from That is just the point! it's own handlers. DOS is merely used as a boot loader, and windows seems to forget to unload it. I don't think it forgets to unload it ... It just can't ... it relies on it for some things. To paraphrase you. Jonathan --- In any war, the first casualty is the truth. --anon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Mike Schmitz wrote: DesQview, DoubleDos, NovelDOS, VM to name a few. I thought the context was W-95? Jonathan -- In any war, the first casualty is the truth. --anon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? What about Win98 ? I thought that it was true multi-tasking in the sense that it multi-tasked between the mouse everything else. Which is why if one program crashed, the system became useless, but the mouse still worked. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
I think what they mean by *true* multitasking is: 1. Win95 is designed to make the program that you have 'active' (the top program you are using at the time) work fastest and gives it max power while the background tasks (the ones you've got open but aren't using at the moment) have a very small amount of CPU usage and are minimised in memory. This can be a complete pain if you're using lots of programs on a server or many important, power-demanding programs at once, and is really crummy for CAD/CAM and other such programs. 2. Linux seems to think it's running on several terminals, because you can run lots of different consoles at the same time, as if you were only using one (eg when you press Control-Alt-F2, F3, etc). Win95 doesn't do this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 12:02:22AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? What about Win98 ? I thought that it was true multi-tasking in the sense that it multi-tasked between the mouse everything else. Which is why if one program crashed, the system became useless, but the mouse still worked. Actually, on any modern video the mouse cursor is done in hardware as I understand it -- Windows couldn't stop that just because it crashed unless it went trashing registers too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 12:40:49PM +0100, Tristan Day wrote: I think what they mean by *true* multitasking is: 1. Win95 is designed to make the program that you have 'active' (the top program you are using at the time) work fastest and gives it max power while the background tasks (the ones you've got open but aren't using at the moment) have a very small amount of CPU usage and are minimised in memory. This can be a complete pain if you're using lots of programs on a server or many important, power-demanding programs at once, and is really crummy for CAD/CAM and other such programs. 2. Linux seems to think it's running on several terminals, because you can run lots of different consoles at the same time, as if you were only using one (eg when you press Control-Alt-F2, F3, etc). Win95 doesn't do this. The true multitasking discussion is a dangerous one. Years ago Amiga users managed to convince everyone who didn't know better that the Amiga was the only machine which had true multitasking. As I see it, to be absolutely purist about it, you can only multitask with multiple CPUs. Anything else is done with very rapid context/task switching. Which is just what the Amiga did then and just what Linux does now. And just what Windows does too. Regarding point #1, so Windows prioritizes your foreground app for whatever reason -- so what? Linux has priority scheduling too if you want to make one app run faster than another, or chew less CPU etc. This isn't an inherently bad feature, although it'd be nice to be able to customize priorities. Another problem with Windows is that Win16 has non-pre-emptive multitasking. This means that although it still does rapid task switching, it only task switches when each program says it has finished for that particular time slice. Win32 is pre-emptive (as are Linux etc), which means that the kernel just up and does it. Win95 still has to non-pre-emptively multitask 16 bit apps, but they are all run together as one 32 bit process I believe. Re: #2 -- Windows is not multiuser in the Unix sense. Citrix make a nice WinNT 3.51 variant called WinCenter which is multiuser. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Hamish Moffatt wrote: The true multitasking discussion is a dangerous one. Why? Dont know... Do you mean 'fanatics'..? Years ago Amiga users Yes, i was an Amiga user... :) And yes, most of them (me too) tried to tell others the big differences in this system... this was years ago - and at this time there was a *big* difference between Amiga and *all* the other systems. Ok, except big Un*x Systems. At least, the Amiga had a Un*x-like core and structure. managed to convince everyone who didn't know better that the Amiga was the only machine which had true multitasking. If they told you that was true multitasking - they weren't precise. As I see it, to be absolutely purist about it, you can only multitask with multiple CPUs. The Amiga had *more* than one CPU. Only one CPU was the *real* processor, but there was one *CPU* for the graphics, one for the sound, another one for graphics/timing and another one for data-transfer and manipulation. And between them there was real multitasking. If one owns a pc with a bunch of cards in the slots, then he has those more CPU's, too. But the question is: are those other CPU's integrated in a low layer or not. If not, the multitasking is a big joke. It's not very atomic. If yes, best ;) Anything else is done with very rapid context/task switching. Which is just what the Amiga did then and just what Linux does now. Yes, but... And just what Windows does too. Regarding point #1, so Windows prioritizes your foreground app for whatever reason -- so what? Linux has priority scheduling too if you want to make one app run faster than another, or chew less CPU etc. This isn't an inherently bad feature, although it'd be nice to be able to customize priorities. ... it's the granulatity that counts. Linux seems to be very *atomic*. Amiga was more atomic. BTW it's not only nice but important to be able to change priorities of running processes. Another problem with Windows is that Win16 has non-pre-emptive multitasking. This means that although it still does rapid task switching, it only task switches when each program says it has finished for that particular time slice. Same as all the old Apple-OS's... Win32 is pre-emptive (as are Linux etc), which means that the kernel just up and does it. Win95 still has to non-pre-emptively multitask 16 bit apps, but they are all run together as one 32 bit process I believe. You said it... as one 32 bit process. And the granularity is bad, too. There are differences between pre-emptive multitasking and pre-emptive multitasking. I would not say that win95 has *real* real multitasking :) Re: #2 -- Windows is not multiuser in the Unix sense. Citrix make a nice WinNT 3.51 variant called WinCenter which is multiuser. Yep. Actually, on any modern video the mouse cursor is done in hardware as I understand it -- Windows couldn't stop that just because it crashed unless it went trashing registers too. Yep :) Mac -- Markus Lechner (Company - LightWolf) | The Prometheus-Project [EMAIL PROTECTED]| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.munich.netsurf.de/Markus.Lechner| (only for Project-Team) PGP-Public-Key(s) are available | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, shaul wrote: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? What about Win98 ? Any damned operating system that has to STOP me from entering data to reunumber or print a file may be multitasking, but most certainly that application does NOT take advantage of the OS. Beyond that, I can't prove anything. --David --- LINUX: the FREE 32 bit OS for [3456]86 PC's available NOW! David B Teague | Ask me how user interface copyrights software [EMAIL PROTECTED] | patents make programing a dangerous business. spy counter-intelligence wild porno sex gold bullion Soviet Bosnia clipper National Security Council explosion Treasury terrorist Delta Force bomb Iran Mossad data encryption munitions Serbian hydrazine ammonium nitrate fuel oil cocaine assassinate counterfeit destabilize -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? What about Win98 ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
