🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3n0rvg$13...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
a>In article <Pine.CVX.3.91.950418...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>, 
a>jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu says...
a>
a>>Perhaps you can answer a question for me.  As I understand it, the
a>>settings you refer to in Win95 apply system-wide, is that the case?  To
a>>me, that seems like an unacceptable limitation.  With OS/2, I can
a>>tailor the settings for each program individually.  
a>>
a>>Now, let's say that I want to run a DOS game that likes FILES=50.  In
a>>OS/2, I simply change the game's settings to boost the files for that
a>>session -- then, whenever I run the game, it uses FILES=50 and then drops
a>>back to my system default (FILES=20) when I exit the game.  Why should I
a>>penalize all my other tasks just for the sake of that one program by
a>>increasing my system-wide FILES statement?  How does Win95 handle this
a>>example?  From what I understand, it would require that I use FILES=50
a>>system-wide or reboot into another configuration -- is that correct?  If
a>>so, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement over what many people
a>>currently do in DOS. 
a>
a>Nope sorry wrong.  Quit wasting bandwith with something you admit to a>knowing absolutely nothing about.
a>
a>Thanks,
a>
a>	 - Rich
a>>
a>>JOHN
a>>

He (John) was being polite and asking a constructive question.  How do you expect him to learn more about the product that you feel he knows "nothing about" without asking questions?  Instead of your inane/childish "nope sorry wrong" response, why don't you try being more polite and informative?  You seem to be more interested in being abrasive than wasting bandwidth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Habib
Mcgill Research Center for 
Intelligent Machines
Montreal, Quebec
email: ph...@cim.mcgill.ca