IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Linux Forum / Yes, it's true
Post #114,396
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
8/19/03 5:49:48 PM
Reply
New Yes, it's true
By the time 32 bit apps for Windows were showing up, the bloat was on the upward leg of the exponential curve - but of course, by then memory was getting really cheap and having less than 64 was no excuse.

OS/2 had far better DOS performance in all releases - after they took the clue from MS and exploited the VM86 mode.

-drl
Post #114,407
by Another Scott
8/19/03 6:16:19 PM
Reply
New Um, OS/2 2.0 had a far better DOS box than Win95
You could run (almost) any DOS app on OS/2's DOS box. People even booted CPM/86 in it.

Mostly 32-bit Win95 came out in the fall of 1995. Mostly 32-bit OS/2 2.0 came out in the spring of 1992. Who's following who?

Cheers,
Scott.
Post #114,430
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
8/19/03 10:26:35 PM
Reply
New That's the one..
..with VM86 capability.

OS/2 1.x was made for the 286 and was miserable at DOS apps. Windows 3.x showed the way by using the 386 properly.

-drl
Post #114,447
by Another Scott
8/19/03 11:37:18 PM
Reply
New It's still not making much sense. (new thread)
Created as new thread #114446 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114446|It's still not making much sense.]
     Back to the info trough for another feeding. - (jbrabeck) - (22) - Aug. 18, 2003, 01:54:04 PM EDT
         Use Grub MAN... Only way to fly. - (folkert) - (19) - Aug. 18, 2003, 02:41:32 PM EDT
             What he said. -NT - (pwhysall) - Aug. 18, 2003, 02:52:03 PM EDT
             Wrong - (deSitter) - (17) - Aug. 18, 2003, 03:57:58 PM EDT
                 It Works For Me[tm] -NT - (admin) - (2) - Aug. 18, 2003, 04:43:20 PM EDT
                     One look at all the msblast emails... - (bepatient) - (1) - Aug. 18, 2003, 04:59:00 PM EDT
                         You rang? - (Ashton) - Aug. 18, 2003, 08:46:59 PM EDT
                 Don't give me that. - (pwhysall) - (13) - Aug. 18, 2003, 06:59:20 PM EDT
                     Re: Don't give me that. - (deSitter) - (12) - Aug. 19, 2003, 01:11:46 AM EDT
                         Ha! - (pwhysall) - (1) - Aug. 19, 2003, 02:41:46 AM EDT
                             ICLRPD (new thread) - (kmself) - Aug. 19, 2003, 03:09:50 AM EDT
                         Care to estimate how much of that magic - (Ashton) - (8) - Aug. 19, 2003, 03:08:05 AM EDT
                             Re: Care to estimate how much of that magic - (deSitter) - (6) - Aug. 19, 2003, 10:19:13 AM EDT
                                 The paging sucked. - (admin) - (5) - Aug. 19, 2003, 10:47:51 AM EDT
                                     Access 2.0 was a resource hog - (orion) - Aug. 19, 2003, 01:54:50 PM EDT
                                     Yes, it's true - (deSitter) - (3) - Aug. 19, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT
                                         Um, OS/2 2.0 had a far better DOS box than Win95 - (Another Scott) - (2) - Aug. 19, 2003, 06:16:19 PM EDT
                                             That's the one.. - (deSitter) - (1) - Aug. 19, 2003, 10:26:35 PM EDT
                                                 It's still not making much sense. (new thread) - (Another Scott) - Aug. 19, 2003, 11:37:18 PM EDT
                             QEMM - (orion) - Aug. 19, 2003, 01:48:08 PM EDT
                         Sounds like you're talking about Warp, not Windows - (jake123) - Aug. 19, 2003, 09:57:19 PM EDT
         Re: Back to the info trough for another feeding. - (kmself) - (1) - Aug. 18, 2003, 06:05:10 PM EDT
             Used to happen to me... - (bepatient) - Aug. 18, 2003, 08:45:13 PM EDT

Shiny buttons are human catnip.
111 ms