🚀 go-pugleaf

> >Again, I'd be interested in stories on both sides.  I haven't heard of a 95
> >installation on a 486 or better taking more than 1-2 hours.
> 
> Are you serious here?  A friend of mine told me it took him just over an hour
> to install Windows 95.
> 
Uh, unless my math skills are off, "just over an hour" would be less than 
1-2 hours.

>  Yet both of us took only about forty minutes to install
> OS/2 Warp.
>
Let's detail the configs: Sound cards on both sytems?  System speed?  
CD-ROMS?

 
> PPP is in the box, WinSock is supported.  The list goes on.  IP suport seems
> fine to me.
> 
There were three points; you responded to one.  The list *didn't* go on...

> The problem isn't that Microsoft is shipping the Microsoft Network with Windows
> 95, but that they had an unfair advantage because the MSN team could work
> closely with the Windows 95 team to more closely integrate the MSN software
> with Windows 95.  This gives MSN an unfair advantage over other Information
> Services.
> 
That's your opinion, but not the opinion of the DOJ. Also, your arguement 
falls flat, since both CompuServe and AOL have had the earliest betas, 
and full support in developing their 32-bit clients.  Not that CompuServe 
is already shipping a Win95-native version of Internet in a Box; a 
little hard to do if they just got the code in August.