🚀 go-pugleaf

>        1.  Win 3.x less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

True.

>        2.  Win 95  less the GUI equals Dos, plain and simple.

Not quite. Win 95 less the GUI equals Win 95's SAM command line mode.
Just because OS/2 is superior (ie: multi-tasks in command line mode)
doesn't mean that Win95's command line is DOS. It looks the same, and
has the same (or similar) file names (as MS-DOS) because the
programmers over at MS have little imagination (proof is in the fact
that every complimentable feature in Win95 appeard somewhere else
first).  Win95's command line is singletasking because MS has the
attitude of "Who needs to multi-task in command line mode?" --
Very similar to their "640K? That's more than anyone will EVER need!"
attitude back in 1982.
...but to call it DOS is just plain wrong. 

That is like calling Julian Lennon "John Lennon". He looks the same,
sounds the same, sings the same... 


>        3.  OS/2    less the GUI equals OS/2, a fully protected,
>            interrupt driven, 32 bit flat memory model, preemptively
>            multi-tasking operating system, with the ability to run
>            OS/2, Dos, and Windows app simultaneously, plain and simple.


>Take away the GUI from any of the Microsoft so called OS's and you are
>left empty.  Or MT as Joseph Coughlan so aptly points out.  It's just
>that simple.

I agree. OS/2 is a superior product, but the INFERIOR product is not
as inferior as you make it out to be. Shame that IBM has an inept
marketing department. Windows 95 will sell millions of copies, it will
soon become the standard, and IBM will rush behind to be compatable.

>>Leo Comitale



>Bill Oconnor