Win 95 had a compatibility mode MS DOS, not a real one, however, you could boot up to DOS only mode which was a true, real mode DOS, but then the Win 95 was not running. I remember, that was a huge advantage on old DOS and even Win 3.1 apps that is the app crashed it did not bring down the OS (well, much less frequently than on 3.1) >From the TechNet: "As illustrated here, Win32-based and Win16-based applications run in the System VM. Win32-based applications each run in a separate address space, while Win16-based applications run together in a shared address space. *Each MS-DOS =96 based application runs in its own VM= ..*" http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751120.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#Dependence_on_MS-DOS Anyway, I still believe Win 95 was a pretty good thing in its time (even though I was a big fan of OS/2 Warp). Tamas On 19 October 2011 11:46, Michael Watterson wrote: > On 19/10/2011 10:49, slippyr4 wrote: > > Rubbish. There were quite a lot of differences between windows 3.11 and > > windows 95. The most obvious and important one was that Windows 95 had > > preemptive multitasking, 3.11 did not. Plug and play was new to 95. > > Win 95a multitasking was no difference. Only NT had true pre-emptive > multitasking. Win95 (all three main versions) ran on DOS and ran DOS and > 16 bit applications natively. It was technically impossible for Win95 or > win98 to do true pre-emptive multitasking. > > Plug and play was largely marketing till a decent amount of stuff was on > USB on Win98. Win95 originally didn't have USB. Even today "Plug and > play" is an aspiration and not entirely real. Any device that exists > AFTER the OS is released needs installed essentially the same way as in > 1991. PCMCIA subsystem for win3.x and WFWG 3.11 was "plug and play" if > the PCMCIA device was in the database. This was no different to Win95a. > Or indeed to USB today. > > > You are confusing the differences of Win 3.1 and Win2000 rather than > final version of WFWG3.11 and first version of Win95. The Explorer shell > and Direct X (to allow easy ports of DOS games, back then "real" windows > graphics used GDI, VFW or OpenGL) where in reality the only major > differences. NT4.0 had OpenGL and Win95 didn't have openGL. In 1995 > only ported DOS games and some MS demos used Direct X. "Real" windows > graphics programming then didn't use it. > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=3D"int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=3D%s%s%s, q=3D%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=3D%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }", q=3D"\"",s,q,q,a=3D"\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); } --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .