Re: AHHHH!!

> Re: Which is...
>
> > Which is better, Win95 or OS\2?

> Well, well, well.. Lets see, it acording what your looking for, if you want a
> software that has all the programs you want, then Win95, but OS/2 dosent..  I

What planet do you live on?  OS/2 Runs os/2 apps, win 3.x apps, a few win32
apps  more in-fact win3.x applications than win95 does...and can preemetivly
multitask them also...don't know that there is any win95 stuff worth the
upgrade 4...it seems like all of the ports microsoft has been spewing aren't
any faster as 32-bit apps...but seem to eat a whole lot more memory...anyways
I have a copy of winNT workstation 4.0..and it's smurfeeey!

> know it has some kinda windows clone.. But still, Windows 95 has the 200
> something character long filenames.. and OS/2 is limited to the 8 character..

Papa parks his space-ship next to the drive-up window...hehe win95 keeps a
file someplace on your computer that assosiates file-names with
long-filenames..it still uses the FAT file system .....and sets up persudo
file-links...all win 3.x apps, and dos apps can't see these 'long file names'
anyhow...they'd have to be rewritten in order to see em.  As for OS/2
being limited to 8 character file names...sorry Microsft has NTFS and IBM has
HPFS wich comes with os/2 ..they both allow long file names, handle file
fragmentation much better than FAT, and don't have the 2k overhead?  I think
it was for each file entry.....

> Also, i dont like the DOS in os\2, not as many features, as dos in Win95..
> Lord D

I bet you havn't even tried os/2....can you load config.sys drivers for each
dos session that you load up in win95?  Or do you have to load them all at
bootup (FROM DOS..wich by the way win95 STILL runs from)  What features does
os/2's dos support not have that win95 does?  Can you be more specific?

                                                -Papa Smurf