Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-22 Thread Stephen Carpenter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Michael Beattie wrote: > > Well, IE 4 with Active Desktop is a piece of sh*t. I installed it on the > > machine of my girl friend,and she wanted me to remove it instantly. With all > > those circles and orange buttons, you can't find the f

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-21 Thread Michael Beattie
> Well, IE 4 with Active Desktop is a piece of sh*t. I installed it on the > machine of my girl friend,and she wanted me to remove it instantly. With all > those circles and orange buttons, you can't find the folders and files any > more... Whoa... hey, A little exploring yeilds options to turn th

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-21 Thread C.J.LAWSON
> > I didn't know it, and I don't care. To me, this is worthless > information. > > This is not valuable information about debian or is it? > I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the > classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? > > The internet

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is

1998-04-21 Thread tko
DAVID B. TEAGUE writes: [snip] > > HEAR HEAR! This is not inappropriate discussion for the Deb User list. > > I too play double bass myself (or bass violin as Professor Murray > Grodner called it, and the folk who succeeded Professor Grodner and his > wife at Lemur Music call it as well.) > >

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread DAVID B. TEAGUE
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:43:41PM +0200, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: > > I happen to have some very valuable information on how to play the > > classical guitar. Would you like me to post that to debian-user? > YES! Seriously, I play guitar and dou

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:43:41PM +0200, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: > > > > > > Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even > > > > worse.. > > > > > > Cut it off please, if you want this type of discussion there are plenty > > > news groups filled with it. Let's keep th

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread Paul Miller
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: > > Windows 98 and NT require more ram to be faster than 95. Otherwise, > This is an issue that is dear to my heart ... I want my memory to be used > /principally/ for my applications not gobbled up by my OS! > I have 64 megs of ram in my Dell 200... a

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)
> > > > Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even > > > worse.. > > > > Cut it off please, if you want this type of discussion there are plenty > > news groups filled with it. Let's keep this a _useful_ list. > > > > Sorry, but this is valuable information ... so you

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread C.J.LAWSON
> commercial on the radio about Win98 being the OS of future businesses... > Win98 runs one hell of a lot slower than Win95 and multitasks even worse.. > I don't know where M$ came up with Win98 running programs faster than > Win95.. Win98 is a disaster; _never_ install it, it is a complete was

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread Carroll Kong
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: > > > Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears > > is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking > > about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly i

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: > > > Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears > > is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking > > about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-20 Thread Paul Miller
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, C.J.LAWSON wrote: > Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears > is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking > about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is > capable of becom

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread C.J.LAWSON
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Mike Schmitz wrote: > > DesQview, DoubleDos, NovelDOS, VM to name a few. > I thought the context was W-95? Jonathan -- In any war, the first casualty is the truth.

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread C.J.LAWSON
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, The Thought Assassin wrote: > own interrupt servicing routies. Win95 does this, and though it kicks back > to DOS's interrupt handlers for some things, it does this via calls from That is just the point! > it's own handlers. DOS is merely used as a boot loader, and windows s

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread The Thought Assassin
ck to DOS's interrupt handlers for some things, it does this via calls from it's own handlers. DOS is merely used as a boot loader, and windows seems to forget to unload it. > and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is > a true multi-tasking OS ...

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread Mike Schmitz
On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 03:41:45PM +0100, C.J.LAWSON wrote: > Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears > is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking > about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread Mike Holliday
Check out OpenDos, by Cadera, it is a full multitasking OS. -Original Message- From: C.J.LAWSON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user mailing list Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. >Well for w

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-17 Thread C.J.LAWSON
Well for what it is worth my own opinion is that 95 just like its forbears is an app. loaded on dos and for this reason I think we should be talking about whether or not dos is a true multi-tasking OS ... It certainly is capable of becoming one. The question is, has it be implemented? -J

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread DAVID B. TEAGUE
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, shaul wrote: > > Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. > > Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? > What about Win98 ? Any damned operating system that has to STOP me from entering data to reunu

Re: Multi-tasking

1998-04-11 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Apr 10, 1998 at 02:06:24PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote: > G'day, > > >Is there a way I can multi-task in debian? Like with Win95, you can > >open two programs and switch between them. I compare files, and it would > >make my life easier if I could switch between two files, rather then

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is mul

1998-04-11 Thread Orn E. Hansen
Þann 11-Apr-98 skrifar Tristan Day: > > 1. Win95 is designed to make the program that you have 'active' (the top > program you are using at the time) work fastest and gives it max power while > the background tasks (the ones you've got open but aren't using at the > moment) have a very small amou

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread Markus Lechner
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > The "true multitasking" discussion is a dangerous one. Why? Dont know... Do you mean 'fanatics'..? > Years ago Amiga users Yes, i was an Amiga user... :) And yes, most of them (me too) tried to tell others the big differences in this system... this was years ago - and at

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 12:40:49PM +0100, Tristan Day wrote: > I think what they mean by *true* multitasking is: > > 1. Win95 is designed to make the program that you have 'active' (the top > program you are using at the time) work fastest and gives it max power while > the background tasks (the o

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 12:02:22AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. > >> > >> Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? > >> What about Win98 ? > >

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread Tristan Day
I think what they mean by *true* multitasking is: 1. Win95 is designed to make the program that you have 'active' (the top program you are using at the time) work fastest and gives it max power while the background tasks (the ones you've got open but aren't using at the moment) have a very small a

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-11 Thread vandeveb
>> > Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. >> >> Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? >> What about Win98 ? I thought that it was true multi-tasking in the sense that it multi-tasked between the mouse &a

Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.

1998-04-10 Thread shaul
> Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. Can you prove that Win95 is just pretending to be multitasking ? What about Win98 ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Multi-tasking

1998-04-10 Thread Damon Muller
G'day, >Is there a way I can multi-task in debian? Like with Win95, you can >open two programs and switch between them. I compare files, and it would >make my life easier if I could switch between two files, rather then >editing it, looking at a section, quiting, then editing and comparing i

Re: Multi-tasking

1998-04-09 Thread Feng Qian
Dear Pete, Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking. (except NT4.0). However, the Linux is the Natural born multi-tasking OS. You are wasting the debian if you don't know this. Feng Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:55:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Pete Poff <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Multi-tasking

1998-04-09 Thread Colin Telmer
> editing it, looking at a section, quiting, then editing and comparing it > > with the other. I use pico when I edit the files. > > Yes! Debian has true multi-tasking. You didn't mention if you are > running X-Windows or not. In any case, with X you may act just as if y

Re: Multi-tasking

1998-04-09 Thread Ian Keith Setford
editing and comparing it > with the other. I use pico when I edit the files. Yes! Debian has true multi-tasking. You didn't mention if you are running X-Windows or not. In any case, with X you may act just as if you are in Windows when editing a file. If you are using the console just use

Multi-tasking

1998-04-09 Thread Pete Poff
Is there a way I can multi-task in debian? Like with Win95, you can open two programs and switch between them. I compare files, and it would make my life easier if I could switch between two files, rather then editing it, looking at a section, quiting, then editing and comparing it with the o