--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00000Date: 09/14/95 From: BOBBY SHOOPMAN Time: 09:22pm \/To: STEVE UNGVARY (Read 11 times) Subj: WFWG & Win95 Hello Steve,, SU> I run a 4 node bbs across 4 macines under WFWG. 3 of the machines are SU> 8megs and 1 machine, the server (used loosely) has 16megs. My question SU> is will a WIN95 install on the 16meg machine still be able to network SU> with the WFWG machines? SU> Any other tips about this scheme would be appreciated! It sure will. I have 95 & wfwg 3.1 networked with no problems. When i installed 95 it did not find the network. I did a custom install on 95 & set it up myself. I set the network up on 95 with the same drivers that wfwg uses. Make sure you set up sharing, right. In 95, control panel, network, access control checked on to use Share-level access control. My wfwg machine would not read the 95 machine until i did this. But before 95 would read the wfwg machine. Play with it, it will work. Hope this helps you out. By the way, the 95 machine is 8 megs & wfwg machine is 16 megs. Bye Have a great day.......Bobby * PowerEdit 2.0 * Origin : The HookUp BBS * Brazoria,Tx * 409-798-6302 (1:3812/80 --- FidoPCB v1.4 [fb34e/D] * Origin: The HookUp BBS (1:3812/80) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00001Date: 09/14/95 From: DAVE BREHM Time: 01:48pm \/To: RANDALL AINSWORTH (Read 11 times) Subj: WINDOWS 95 SUCKS RA> Pay 'em now or pay 'em later. You won't have a choice. I'd say OS/2 was a choice! Not EVERYONE is under the MS Spell ! D - % dbrehm@SBT.SBTINFO.COM Logging in from Lyndie Computer & Broadcast Service - Mishawaka IN --- Michiana's Mail Hub! * Origin: CW Technical Support - South Bend, IN - (219) 272-8129 (1:227/129) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00002Date: 09/14/95 From: BRUCE SIMS Time: 01:26am \/To: MIRCO BABIN (Read 11 times) Subj: W4W, internet, uucp Replying to a message of Mirco Babin to bruce sims: MB> Hello bruce! MB> Tuesday September 05 1995 15:30, bruce sims schreef aan ALL: bs>> I'd like to import my uucp mail into the windows for workgroups bs>> postoffice. Any ideas how this could be done??? MB> As far as I remember there is a gateway voor MS-MAIL to SMTP (read MB> Internet) or UUCP (read Internet, but more Unix-oriented). In the MB> book WINDOWS (for workgroups) RESOURCE KIT 3.1, all the possible MB> gateways are listed for MS-MAIL... CU, Mirco Babin Hi Mirco, thanks for the reply. It seems I may be the only person in the world interested in doing this. Another question does arise......is this a published book or the docs from an MS Resourse Kit???? Thanks again B. --- FleetStreet 1.10 NR * Origin: Public Link Net (1:359/300) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00003Date: 09/13/95 From: DAVID RIVSHIN Time: 04:33pm \/To: GILBERT BOLLINGER (Read 11 times) Subj: Windows 95 vs OS/2 Warp -=> See what happens when Gilbert Bollinger talks to All <=- GB> I'm curious whats better OS/2 Warp or Windows 95. And why. I really GB> want answers.. I mean what makes one OS better then the other one. GB> I've heard nothing but good things about OS/2 and well I've heard GB> nightmares about Windows 95. Which is more stable,etc,etc.. OK, you want answers, I'll give you answers, as best I can. I'm a veteran DOS/Windows user, using them for some time, and recently switched to OS/2 Warp v3. I'm also running Linux. I have not run Win95, but I probably will within 6 months because of external demands. Here is my setup, so you have a reference point: Digital Celebris model 590 (P90/PCI), a 500MB EIDE, and a 700MB EIDE HD, 16MB RAM, S3-864 2MB DRAM video chipset (PCI on MB). While I have not run win95 I do know some facts about it from friends of mine, and plenty of horror stories. You should also know that the next version of OS/2 should be out by the end of 95. Win95: ug, a 16bit OS that is trying to become 32bit, while still running 16bit apps with some speed. Well, as far as I've heard, it hasn't done a good job. While MS tells you it is an OS that doesn't need OS, well it does, but it comes with it's own DOS to run on top of. If you need proof, when you shut down Win95 it gives you a VGA screen that says you can trun off your computer, well at that point your really at DOS, but you can't see that. There is a way to get rid of the screen, and you will see DOS staring right at you, and from there you can restart windows. Just one more cheap MS trick. Win95 pretends to give you a new file system called VFAT that lets you use long file names, well it doesn't. In fact it is normal FAT with normal 8.3 names, but there is a special file that hold a reference to the 8.3 name, nd the long name. This technique has been around for years, and there re windows (and app) addons that have been around just as long. The only difference is that is it now an official part of Windows. If you run a DOS program it will see only the 8.3 name. Another cheap trick. Oh, and it's not a 32bit OS, it's still largely 16bit, especially in the low-level areas. On proof of this is that a true 32bit OS would not let one VDM overright memory space it doesn't own (unless it was running on ring 0 which is reserved for the OS and low-level rivers). Well if you start a DOS shell and use debug to fill memory from 0:0 through to FFFF:FFFF (all memory) with 0s you will crash the system, signifying that the memory space was indeed overwritten my the lowly DOS box that the rest of the system is supposed to be protected from. OS/2 Warp v3: Well what can I say? It's a true full 32bit OS (it provides a 16bit API for 16bit programs), it offers an alternate file system that gives better performance and is efficient, and it can run DOS and windows programs just as fast, and sometimes faster, than OS/ Win. HPFS is a completely new file system with a set .5k cluster ize, VERY little fragmentation, REAL long file names, extended attributes, and is MUCH faster than FAT. Of course it also supports FAT. It is true that a DOS program will not see a long file name on an HPFS drive, but that is because DOS has no way of interperating them, so it just throws them out, not because they aren't there. Warp v3 can run windows program very well, I use a Win32s FTP program from Warp with no problems, and it runs at full speed, and thats while I'm playing DOOM, and I have a windows mail program checking for mail every 15 minutes. I have yet to see a Win95 user claim that. Keep in mind that I'm a novice with OS/2, so my system is less than ptimized, I know people that have gotten their systems to run much faster than mine with less RAM. Oh, and OS/2 doesn't really care about the processor as much as RAM, a p90 and a 486DX2/66 run at about the same speed if they have the same amount of RAM. Also OS/2 can dynamically allocate the swap file, if you start with say an 8MB swap file and ou then run more programs than usuall and run out of memory, OS/2 will enlarge the swap file (with a slight hit in performance), and when you close those apps it will shrink it after a certain amount of ime. I don't believe Win95 will do that. And I have heard you can run in95 UNDER OS/2 Warp (full GUI everything).... Bottom line: Well Win95 is a worse OS IMHO, but it has more people drooling over it, so it has more people writting software for it. Win95 is unstable at best, OS/2 Warp is VERY stable, I know people that have been running BBSs under OS/2 and have had them running for months without a crash (non-stop, no turning it off). You can run Win95, and therefor Win95 software under Warp, so that can solve the software problem (though it will probably be slow). Warp can go on any partition, on any HD, I have 5 partitions on my two HDs, the last one holds OS/2, Win95 just like DOS has to go on the active partition on the first HD, IOW it has to be on drive C:, no ifs ands or buts about it. OS/2 if MUCH more flexable in almost every respect, and thats why I run it. And with the HUGE amount of shareware for OS/2 available it is very viable. Oh, and Object Desktop is going to be released soon. OD is an addon to the OS/2 shell (called WPS) that extends almost every part of OS/2 and makes OS/2 an even better choice. And then there is the cost, Win95 costs $200 minumum if you want to get Plus (the part they left out to charge you more), Warp costs $80 for the version with Windows code built in, and that includes all the utils htat MS markets sperately, like internet access and a good file management system. And I have yet to see a driver to allow DOS or Win95 to read Linux partitions, while I'm using one (read and write that is) for Warp at the moment. Again, IMHO OS/2 is the best choice for the power hungry user, Win95 is for people that want to be able to say that they run Win95... If you want any specs or anything just ask, I'll be happy to supply. ... He's got Blue Wave fever and it's spreading through the message bases! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Crash Test Dummies of the Information SuperHighway (1:2613/308.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00004Date: 09/15/95 From: BOB DUNNELL Time: 12:59pm \/To: GILBERT BOLLINGER (Read 11 times) Subj: Windows 95 vs OS/2 Warp GB> What does Win95 offer. And is it stable,etc. I couldn't crash it when I TRIED to. I opened EVERY application on my hard drive (including Word, Visual Basic, MSN, Delphi, all of Corel 4, etc) and resources dropped to around 45%. That would have just about killed WFWG. It was SLOW (only 20 megs RAM and a ton of programs running) but it worked. Then I did various things that should have crashed the OS (putting things in various memory locations with DEBUG, etc) and got some GPFs which resulted in the closing of the VM I was "playing" with, but nothing else... I think that's pretty stable. Then again, I have no real-mode drivers loaded, so none of them could be "broken." ... rtfm (314) 843-1855 *** Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- TriToss (tm) Professional 1.0 - #122 * Origin: Fido has been naughty again. Naughty Fido. (1:100/340.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00005Date: 09/15/95 From: CHARLES DEWAR Time: 02:35pm \/To: GILBERT BOLLINGER (Read 11 times) Subj: Windows 95 vs OS/2 Warp Original From: Vadim Maksimenko To: Gilbert Bollinger Date: 09-13-95 16:53 VM>On 10 Sep 1995 Gilbert Bollinger wrote to All: > I'm curious whats better OS/2 Warp or Windows 95. And why. I really > answers.. I mean what makes one OS better then the other one. I've h > nothing but good things about OS/2 and well I've heard nightmares ab > Windows 95. Which is more stable,etc,etc.. VM> The main Windows'95 disadvantage is its instability. When DOS or Win1 VM>application dies you have nothing to do but a hard reset. Alas! Even Wi VM>apps VM>go to hell at the moment. And what about OS/2 Warp, it copes with these VM>problems much better. But only fraction of the apps out there are written for OS/2 and OS/2's compatibility with hardware is picky. -Charles charles.dewar@blade.net --- * WR 1.33 # 690 * Feminist computer: (A)bort, (A)bort, (A)bort. * Origin: The Contrails BBS Dallas/Ft.Worth, TX 817-571-3424 (1:130/83) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00006Date: 09/10/95 From: BOB MILLER Time: 05:34pm \/To: BUI WANDS (Read 11 times) Subj: RAM DOUBLERS BW>---------------------- BW> DT> Has anyone out there used SoftRAM or MagnaRAM? Do they really BW> DT> work? How well do they work on a 4MB notebook? BW>I got SoftRAM 95.. and it works great... a necessity if you've got 4 BW>or 8 megs of RAM under windows... the SoftRAM 95 was mad for Windows BW>95, but it is backward compatible to Windows 3.0 and above.. Get it.. BW>it's only $35 at Babages... MagnaRAM is more expensive... $59 in most BW>places... --- On Mars, maybe. It stinks. It is worthless for 95 and only marginally useful for 3.1. Bob * CMPQwk version 1.42 reg #9999 * --- * Bureaucat: A kitty who sleeps on your undies... * --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0042 * Origin: The Mass Running Board *-617-828-0868-* (1:101/330) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDK00007Date: 09/12/95 From: BOB MILLER Time: 08:37pm \/To: DIRK DENHARTOG (Read 11 times) Subj: WINDOWS 95 SUCKS DD> Any feedback as to WHY I should upgrade to 95 ??? Get thee to a software store. Look at Office 95. Case closed. Bob * CMPQwk version 1.42 reg #9999 * --- * Confidence is telling someone how to use his Twit Filter. * --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0042 * Origin: The Mass Running Board *-617-828-0868-* (1:101/330) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 219 WINDOWS/WRKGRPS Ref: CDL00000Date: 09/16/95 From: TIM MCVEY Time: 11:39am \/To: GILBERT BOLLINGER (Read 11 times) Subj: Re: Windows 95 vs OS/2 Warp GB> I'm looking for a OS which will Multi Task great, very stable, fast, GB> easy to use. Get Windows NT... Pavement is for getting to the races! See you there! Sprinter 77 --- MacKennel 2.1.1 * Origin: Skunk River Outpost, Oskaloosa IA (1:14/623.0)