🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Rogers <Ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>"Charles Randolph Hunter" writes:


>> Run a few tests for yourself. I am biased towards OS/2 so I would ask you
>> to do something like this:
>> run a windows application, say corel draw and then
>> immediately right after you click on the icon go and try and 
>> open a dos shell or another windows
>> app or anything at all. In Os/2 can do this easily, while windows 95 must
>> wait until the application is open. That alone is enough for me to
>> prefer OS/2.

>Even if it's true it's hardly the main decider on buying an operating
>system is it.  Word 6 takes 2 or 3 seconds to load on my system so by 
>the time I decide on the next program icon to click on it's loaded 
>already.  

I run with Win95 final beta, and its only true for old Win16 application,
and also PARTIALLY true for them. Most applications are loaded in the
background - Win95 loader is separate thread. 
You all argue about these small features, what about the most important
thing: Applications! Show me third of Windows applications for OS/2!
Sure, you'll say: OS/2 Runs windows application, well does it!? Run some
true Win32 applications and Win95 applications in it, and then we'll see
which OS is better. 

					Yours truly,
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
| Adi Rabinovich  | Adi...@Shani.Net    | Simplicity is out there ...     |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|