slippyr4 wrote:
>
> But it is suprising that, when windows 95 was released, not a lot of
> software used directx? not really - it was a brand new API. Again, that's
> why the reboot into dos mode was left in, in the short term.
>  =20
Read up on why the Pentium Pro was really fast running 16 bit windows=20
software on true 32 bit NT and why it was deadly slow running 16 bit=20
windows software on Windows 95. The material from technet you quote is=20
extremely misleading. =20

Also did you read all the SDK for Direct X in 1995?

Of course Win95 wasn't *just* a shell. But it was just an incremental=20
change on Win3x  You had to exit out of WFWG / Win 3.1 too to run many=20
DOS games as they used various extended modes 286 and 386 so could not=20
run on win 3.x / win 9x as those had no true VM.

Win95 (three quite different versions), Win98 and ME were all POINTLESS=20
and massive millstone on MS neck and on Business.  Smart  companies=20
running Win 3.x  waited  hardly a year and upgraded to NT4.0 =20
Workstation instead of  Win95 as by 1996 they needed new HW anyway,=20
which was more than good enough.

It would be different if  we were arguing Win95 vs OS/2 Warp and MS only=20
had Win95. But they had NT since 1993 and by 1995 HW to run NT was=20
economical (it wasn't in 1993) and very economical in 1996.

Between 1996 and 2003 I maybe installed or managed installs of about=20
900+  Networked, managed and locked down (users only users not Admins)=20
NT4.0 workstations.
Don't believe hype by MS marketing dept. Win95, 98 and ME was rubbish=20
game console fodder compared to MS's  *OWN*  NT3.5, NT3.51, NT4.0  and=20
Win2000 (NT 5.0) during the parallel time scale. Win95 delivered nothing=20
extra for non-game players over a properly configured WFWG3.11, with=20
MS's own 32bit TCP/IP statck,  VFW, Win32s, and 32bit Disk manager.






--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.