🚀 go-pugleaf

In <75641-8...@mindlink.bc.ca>, Eugen_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Eugen Woiwod) writes:

>In fact, I dont think you know what your talking about :-)
>In fact it seems to me like you havent tried WIN95, or perhaps you tried
>one of the VERY early first build's of WIN95 and perhaps based your opions
>on that.
>>
>Sound like you know what the fuck your talking about? Sure doesn't to me
>
>Ttul

Ttul:

You shouldn't be so quick to call me stupid.  If you have a chance
look in Microsoft Systems Journal.  It is a Microsoft publication for programmers.
In it MICROSOFT explains that the ENTIRE operating system is 16-bit
for compatibility and it would be impossible to get good Windows 3.1
compatibility without this.  Read it, then act like you know something.

As far as applications running under Windows 95 vs. OS/2.  Microsoft
announced last week they have tested 2600 Windows 3.1 applications.
Of that somewhere around 800 have problems with Windows 95 and
of those 800, 200 do not even work.  IBM has tested on the order of 25,000
applications (I admit I don't know exactly the #), of those, you can read
the list of applications that do not work at all on a single piece of paper
(like 10 or 20).


Dwayne