Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/07/22/18:45:55
The real reason Win95 is better than DOS is because DOS is very slow. For
example, try opening a large file is pure DOS and then in Win95. You'll
find that Win95 will open it much faster, unless you have lot of DOS
add-ons. Win95 also speeds up memory, allows plug-and-play ( game
programmers love that ), and more. For example, under DOS, every program
must be configured to the computer. If you change something on your
computer, all your programs have to be re-setup. In WIn95, just change the
Win95 configuration, and all programs that weren't made by idiots will run
fine. Win95 also offers hosts of other improvements, including the file
system, support of multiple drivers, more software ( what was the last
useful commercial program made for DOS? ), etc.
Sit down and compare the specs od Win95 and DOS. If you really know
anything about computers, you will see that Win95 has maybe one or two
things that aren'y better than DOS ( like the way it takes control away ).
But if you're good, you can often program around these flaws, and end up
with programs that ae much more powerful than anything DOS could have done.
The other thing you have to realize is that if you plan to make a libing by
programming, you'll have to wake and do it on Win95. The common populace
doesn't know how to use DOS anymore, and that nmakes all the difference when
you're trying to sell a product.
Trust me, I know. I still am a bit of a DOS freak. I'm still using DJGPP,
even though I have a top-of-the-line Win95 Borland compiler. But I still
realize that Win95 has it's advantages, and that If I don't want to live in
a one-room apartment, eat Chinese every night, and use a car that runs only
when the stars are aligned properly, I'll have to learn to program Win95.
Sean Middleditch ( the Realistic Programmer )
of
AwesomePlay Productions
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/aweplay
aweplay AT hotmail DOT com
Boon van der RJ wrote in message <6p4btq$bre$1 AT star DOT cs DOT vu DOT nl>...
>JP Morris (jmorris AT calderauk DOT com) wrote:
>> It's difficult to recompile the thing in pure DOS, you'll need a very
>> good DPMI server. If you work in a win95 DOS box, that should be ok.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Isn't this a contradiction;-? Or do you mean a DPMI server that doesn't
>care to much about de-referencing NULL-pointers? (which IMHO isn't a
>_good_ DPMI server)
>
>If you have reasons why win95-dos-box is better than CWSDPMI, I would
>be highly interested. (or what are the problems compiling midas?)
>
>Greetings,
> Robert.
>
>PS. this is not intended as a flame, or a personal attack, but I would
> really like to know why win95 is better. Hmmm, while thinking
> about it, I use win95, even while I think it's worse than DOS in
> most respects. (can't we just switch back to the C64 again ;-).
>--
>rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak (ex?) Staatsecre-
>www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | taris Netelenbos (onderwijs) fel.
- Raw text -