-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 f
> 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 th
>
> 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
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 dou
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 th
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... a
>
> > > 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
> 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 was
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 re
>
> 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 beco
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 q
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.
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 s
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 interru
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
Check out OpenDos, by Cadera, it is a full multitasking OS.
-Original Message-
From: C.J.LAWSON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user mailing list
Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is
multitasking.
>Well for w
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.
==
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 reunu
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
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 o
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 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 a
>> > 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 &a
> 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]
24 matches
Mail list logo
