CompuServe Thread

#NT, Win95,DOS etc.

14 messages in this thread
#169330From: DAVID CAMPMay 10, 1995 12:34 AM
Ok, I had DOS / WFWG. ( With Multi-configs) I added NT 3.5 I held my breath, and loaded Windows 95 into it's own directory. I looked at the PATHs in my autoexec.bat. I saw that "Windows95" path was added to all the configs. My menuitems are… Windows Windows + CD Imagine 3.0 3D Studio DOS DOS + CD I took out the "Windows95" paths from all but the two windows menuitems. Everything works great. When I boot up, the NT dual boot system kicks in and asks me if I want NT or DOS. If I pick DOS, then my multiconfig pops up.(with Quarterdeck quickboot) If I pick one of the windows configs, Windows 95 starts. If I pick one of the other ones ( without Windows 95 in the PATH) Then I get a message that the system "can't find WIN.COM" and it goes to the dos prompt. ( DOS 6.22 not the new Win95 Dos) 3D Studio (and all the other DOS programs) work fine I can even change to my original Windows for Workgroups directory and start the "old" Windows This is exactly what I wanted. Windows 95 is cool as you know what ( NT is still the best,… by far) Thanks to all those who tried to help. I just had to put my mind to it (and cross my fingers ( and toes)) NT and Windows 95, on the same system can work perfectly. So can both of them and DOS and Windows 3.x ……… Just thought you all might want to know Bye David
#169342From: John EllisMay 10, 1995 2:07 AM
David, That's amazing, I'm sure alot of people will be very happy to hear it. I haven't yet figured out if I need Win95 or not, but I'd be most interested to hear your views on why one might wish to acquire it. John
#169480From: DAVID CAMPMay 10, 1995 5:27 PM
>why one might wish to acquire it. Because it's there David
#169492From: John EllisMay 10, 1995 6:54 PM
>> Because it's there… << Oh come on… <g> I thought you had a _good_ reason. 🙂 FWIW I was impressed you got them all running. Seriously. John
#169668From: DAVID CAMPMay 11, 1995 5:46 PM
> impressed you got them all running. Seriously. Thanks. . I really appreciate it. It just goes to prove how valuable compuserve can be. Even though I didn't get a complete answer from anybody, all the hints, tips and past failures really added up and helped me along. Over all, looking back, it wasn't that difficult. I think the new BETA of Windows95 has addressed some past flaws when it comes to dealing with multiple operating system setups. I also realized that I've gotten lazy in the past 6 months or so. I've allowed my machine to get a bit flaky. That was something that I've always tried to avoid. It was a wake up call for me. I'm just lucky that I didn't end up with a total system crash because of it. You are absolutely correct about system tightness being the name of the game. I have a distinct feeling that NT will cause a lot of rude wake ups. Thanks again. David
#169695From: John EllisMay 11, 1995 8:11 PM
>> I have a distinct feeling that NT will cause a lot of rude wake ups. << I hope not, but you're probably right. I know alot of places they just don't bother. Its time consuming and as a result expensive but maybe forwarned is the best possible outcome. You've certainly proven than when all the elements are intergrated correctly, it all works! Thank you! John
#169836From: DAVID CAMPMay 12, 1995 6:36 PM
>Thank you! And thank you!…….. I mean it, I really do appreciate the information / comments.
#170504From: John EllisMay 17, 1995 9:21 AM
>>Thank you! > Thank you! Thank you! I think we've got it covered eh, David? <g> John
#170834From: DAVID CAMPMay 18, 1995 7:54 PM
>I think we've got it covered eh, David? <g> I thank so…..<g>
#169682From: DAVID CAMPMay 11, 1995 6:28 PM
>>why one might wish to acquire it. Ok, the real answer, …… At this point I haven't used it enough to say what I like /don't like about it. It seems MUCH faster than WFWG ( 32bits does a lot) . I think Microsoft wants you to think it's fast. I get the feeling that the default mouse speed is much faster than the Win3.x mouse speed. It's a minor thing, but it feels like it was put there to FOOL reviewers ( or maybe I'm just paranoid <g>) It's not as graphicly capable as NT. ( As you know, when you drag a window in NT, you drag the whole window ( this is a switchable feature), with Win95, you still drag the outline of the window. The interface isn't as cutesy as it seemed in the magazine pictures, it grows on you. I'll play with it some more and keep you and the forum informed ( could we call that "keeping inforumed" <g> )about the workings of 95' Now as for WHY to BUY. When I said "Because it's there" I was only halfway kidding. I like to keep up with the latest stuff if I can. If you have NT, then the reasons for getting Win95 are far less pressing. I got because… Until all my Windows programs run on NT ( if it ever happens) I want to keep a copy of "regular" Windows running on my system. If I must have regular Windows, why not have the newest, fastest, coolest one I can get. Microsoft is constantly updating there knowledge and abilities. By getting the latest upgrades, I can keep up with out having to search for the newest drivers, DLLs etc. Well that's not totally true, I'll never stop searching because they never stop coming, but by getting an "UPGRADE" I get the newest stuff in one swoop. In the case of Windows95, it doesn't only have a new look, ( Which I'm really starting to like) but it's a new level of Windows. I'm sure many people will just have NT and MS-DOS ( or not DOS) , but there are still many reasons to have a copy of regular windows, and if that's the case, 95' is a step beyond any other regular Windows. That's it See ya David
#169407From: MatthewMay 10, 1995 10:28 AM
I'm new here, and I don't mean to be rude, but after reading the number of operating systems you use why don't you try loading up Linux and maybe even a mac emulator or two? insincerely, Matt
#169485From: DAVID CAMPMay 10, 1995 5:56 PM
>I'm new here, and I don't mean to be rude yeah, right >, but after reading the number of operating systems you use why don't >you try loading up Linux and maybe even a mac emulator or two? I've already downloaded LINUX from the NET, I just don't have a partition to dedicate to it. I love computers.I like playing with them, tweaking them, caressing them, you get the picture. Now the reason I have the operating systems I have, is very straight forward. I have MS-DOS mostly for 3D Studio. That's where 3DS feels most at home, and consequently that's where it works best. There are a few other DOS only programs that I rely on, Imagine 3.0 is one and it is very picky about what it sits on.. I am keeping Windows for Workgroups on my system until I feel comfortable with Windows 95. (Right now I can't get my MODEM to work in Win95 so I'm glad I put it in another directory, rather than a straight upgrade.) When '95 works as good as WFWG, I'll probably dump it. I have Windows NT because that's where 3D Studio is headed. I also have a few programs that literally SCREAM on NT, (Photoshop on NT and my P90 looks faster then SGI workstations of just a couple of years ago.) I haven't yet played with Elastic Reality on NT but I'm sure it is MUCH faster. As far as LINUX goes, I'm just curious. I'd like to learn UNIX because learning about computers (and other things) really turns me on. That's all there is to it. I'm sure a lot of the people on this forum have multiple operating systems and , with the proliferation of so many kinds of software out there, there is little reason to stick to just one. I think I will pass on the MAC emulator though. BTW, Do you know of anyplace I could find cool programs for my 1) apple 2 c 2) ATARI 1040 ST 3) Tandy 100 4) Tandy 1000HD 5) Yamaha ( I forgot the name, but it has a built in synthisiser) Or just memories ….. 5) Commodore PET ( Gone with the wind, thank god) 6) Commodore AMIGA 500 ( had it for a short time, traded it for something???) 8) Kaypro II ( OK I didn't own it, just played with a friends) I think I'll put off loading CP/M (for now anyway) >insincerely, Now, now, be nice see ya round ( Welcome to forum) David Camp
#169565From: James Coulter[Mindscape]May 11, 1995 2:09 AM
What!?!? No TI 99/4A ?? I wrote a bunch of games for the TI with Extended Basic. I probably still have them hidden in a box around here somewhere. Or was the TI the missing #7 on your list? — James — Choreo Motion —
#169671From: DAVID CAMPMay 11, 1995 5:57 PM
>Or was the TI the missing #7 on your list? I think #7 was some kind of kit that I could never quite get working. It wasn't a MITS ALTAIR or an IMSAI, I'm not really sure what it was….. maybe a heathkit, no that wasn't it…..I'll have to think about it. Also, those numbers weren't in any kind of order, just wrote as I remembered. ( You probably guessed that) It's been a fun twenty years of microcomputing, hasn't it? Oh, I also forgot to add my PANASONIC 350 ( the last one before they added a HD, I think I missed it by a few weeks, lucky me) I considered getting a TI99, but for some reason, it never happened. Bye David