JF> Roger!
 JF> In a message to Joe Siegler you wrote:
 RF> one such person.  .  I wish that one day, these
 RF> Microsoft-bashers would come to grips with the fact that Windows is
 RF> here to stay, and that game companies have to make money by writing
 RF> for the OS most of the public uses!
 JF>     Actually, although I do like Win95 (when it's not crashing or making 
 JF> me look at an hourglass for ten minutes at a stretch), 
 JF> I also have to make a DOS vs Windows observation.  If 
 JF> you agree that having more RAM available (not used by 
 JF> other programs) will help a game run more smoothly, then why would you 
 JF> want to buy more RAM, then kill that benefit by running 
 JF> your game-of-choice under a memory hog like Windows?  
 JF> Simply by running it under Win instead of DOS you've 
 JF> effectively killed off several megs of available RAM 
 JF> (about 4meg with Win95).  Think how much smoother your 
 JF> game would run under an OS that takes a few hundred K 
 JF> instead of 4 megs.  Not to mention an OS that'll just 
 JF> let the game run instead of one that stops and checks 
 JF> all of its resources every fifteen seconds or so.
        I know about the techincal benefits of DOS gaming.  Take Quake, for 
example: you can run it in windows, but the game's swap space is cut 
tremendously.  On one system I've run the game on, the game has 29 MB of swap 
space in DOS.  In Win 95, it's only 9 MB, unless you specifically add a 
command for more!
 JF>     Sorry, this is getting WAY too off-topic.  I just 
 JF> wanted to point out that there are some good reasons 
 JF> for preferring a DOS-based game to a Win-based one 
 JF> without being a Windows basher!
        I can see why, but to put it bluntly, DOS is dead...
 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------