🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40vl1c$d...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,
jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) wrote:
> >But the DOS part of Win95 is still good old, non-reentrant, real mode,
> >DOS. It will not change however much you would like it to. Without
> >good old 16 bit (who cares about the bitness???), real-mode (this is
> >important, and BAD for DOS), non-reentrant (this is important and BAD
> >for DOS) DOS Windows 95 will not function at all. Not even if you
> >use something else to boot it. Windows 95 needs DOS to run Win32
> >software.
> 
> Hey, I remember you.  Terje Bergesen - OS/2  zealot.
> 
> Hey everybody, don't believe anything that comes out of an OS/2 zealots 
> mouth.  Anybody who hates Microsoft is going to bash everything they 
> make.  When they can communicate well its even more dangerous because 
> they can persuade people to believe in the same false ideas that they do.
> 
> Heres what everbody should do.  Read, the posts of Windows 95 -vs- OS/2 
> but don't believe any of it; for or against Windows 95.  Most of it is 
> well presented bull shit anyway.  Instead, wait until after Windwos 95 
> comes out and you read an article in it from a respected publication.

No, I have another suggestion. Get Windows 95, then get
the book by Andrew Schulman. Get the one with a CD. On
that CD there are tools that allows you to look into the
things I adress above. See for your selfe. Don't trust
a jerk who is using two paragraphs, and gives NO info
or try in NO WAY to refute what I say.

Just for the record - I use OS/2, NT and Linux, not in
that order always. I like them all. Compared to any of
them, technically, Windows 95 is a piece of junk.


_______________________________________________________________________
Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data