> >Win3.1->win95 was really a ui change. Under Linux I can make this sort of
> >change in 10 minutes (including compile), by changing wm's. Sure, more was
> >32bit code, but it wasn't as huge as most people think (lots of fanfare
> >instead).
> >
>
> Where did you get the idea that Win3.1 to Win95 was merely a UI change? If
> you wrote Windows programs you'd know better and you probably wouldn't make
> such a completely wrong statement. True, Win95 still uses too much 16-bit
> code, but Win95 was much more than just a UI change from Windows 3.1.
>
> With Win95, Windows developers got a pre-emptive multitasking OS with
> threads, memory-mapped files, kernel level synchronization objects, pipes,
> per-application message queues, a 4GB address space, structured exception
> handling, long filenames, etc. Of course, WinNT does all this and more
> and better, but Win95 was a major step up from Win3.1.
>
Yeah, in theory it would have been a major step up from Win3.1 but in
practicality it was a major step down reliability-wise (at least it was in
my environment) and reliability is my most valued attribute. That's why I
use Linux exclusively at home now (used NT for awhile) and as much as
possible at work (no longer use 95 at work, use NT when I have to)!
Greg
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
