On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:49:59 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SH> Unlike Windows 3.x, Windows 95 does not let you set up your
> SH> CONFIG.SYS and your AUTOEXEC.BAT in such a manner so as to optimize
> SH> for your DOS apps.
> ??? My config files ARE optimized for DOS :)
Hello Ricsi,
I try to optimize my CONFIG.SYS and my AUTOEXEC.BAT for use with DOS
and WIN 95 ignores these files as if they weren't even there. It boots
to Window$ 95 before even waiting for AUTOEXEC.BAT to complete. With
WIN 3.x I can set it up the way I want. WIN 95 doesn't even care how
you want your DOS to be configured. WIN 95 doesn't even care whether
you even have an AUTOEXEC.BAT and a CONFIG.SYS because it is just going
to do its own stupid thing anyway. It seems that no matter how I set up
my CONFIG.SYS and my AUTOEXEC.BAT, my WIN 95 machine will leave me with
very little DOS memory left after it boots. OK, so there might be some
kind of techno-geek method of dealing with the problem. But why bother
when you have the option of simply "up-grading" to Win 3.x ? With WIN 3.x
I always boot to DOS. In order to do this I simply omit "WIN" from my
AUTOEXEC.BAT. If I want to run Window$, I simply type the word "win" at
the command line. Easy. If I want my PC to run Window$, I just simply
tell it to do so.
Many people advocate WIN 95 over Win 3.x because it is a 32 bit operating
system and therefore supposedly much more efficient. OK, I can appreciate
this theory. On the other hand, it is much more bloated and takes longer
to load. No readily observable increase in performance. So it really sux.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
