SPONSORED LINKS
jokim @ tuna.mit.edu ("John H. Kim")
04-01-96 03:55 PM wrote:
>>Win95 has a slick interface, I'll give it that. The UI also seems
>>faster than OS/2's at certain critical points (disk management,
>>sounds, etc.). I still manage to crash it or put it in an unusable
>>state once every couple days, much more frequently than OS/2 or Linux,
>>but I consider it a vast improvement over Win3.1. Its "multitasking"
>>still stinks compared to OS/2 and Linux, but I got it so I could use
>>long-filenamed HTML documents with a 64k color web browser, and it
>>does that well. Given the vast amount of real estate it takes on my
>>hard disk and the improvments over Win3.1, I'm not sure I'll put
>>Win3.1 on my E: drive.
You said you got it (Wind95) so that you could use "long-filenamed HTML
documents with a 64k color web browser". OS/2's WebExplorer certainly
supports long filenamed HTML documents and you can get drivers for
the 701C that support 64k colors. Since you obviously prefer OS/2 over
Wind95 why not go back to it and get back the crash protection and
smooth multitasking. The next version (code-named Merlin) will have an
interface that is much slicker than Wind95 and has the underlying infra-
structure to support the interface properly.
-Bill