🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vb4a8$f...@news.iadfw.net>,
                  tdsh...@airmail.net (T.D. Shadow) wrote:

>>        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).

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck then
it must be DOS.  And it IS, plain in simple.

>           Win95's command line is singletasking because MS has the
>attitude of "Who needs to multi-task in command line mode?" --

Yeah sure, who needs to multitask?  Get real!

>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.

It is Dos and that is just plain true.


>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.

Win 95 less the GUI is Dos and it is inferior, plain and simple.

>                                     Shame that IBM has an inept
>marketing department.

What the hell has IBM's marketing dept got to do with the fact that
Win 95 minus the GUI = Dos?.


>                  Windows 95 will sell millions of copies,

The P. T. Barnum school of marketing at Microsoft.

>it will soon become the standard, and IBM will rush behind to be
>compatable.


No it won't.  Microsoft has already given it the kiss of death.  It
is probably the first time in the history of computing where a major
product was pronounced "dead" while it was still in BETA.  This is
exactly what Microsoft has stated relative to Win 95.  It it NOT even
released and Microsoft has proclaimed that is will be short-lived.


How ludicrous?




Bill Oconnor