🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <3o2tie$b...@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk> - en3b...@bs47c.staffs.ac.uk (Steph
en Clemson) writes:
:>:> Yes, but OS/2 is slow and quirky, and NOWHERE near as friendly as Win95.
:>
:>
:> Get a clue.
:>
:> Steve
:>
:>--
:>             Stephen Clemson <<st...@planitia.demon.co.uk>>
:>          Lieutenant Commander Stephen Clemson, Chief Engineer
:>                      USS Discovery - NCC 74206
:>
:>          >>I am built for COMFORT.....   Not for SPEED.....<<

  Lets see, the other day I was playing Descent while printing a 20-page
document while running pcAnywhere for DOS in host mode(a customer of mine
was downloading an 11MB IC Database from my machine) while FTPing some
files from the Hobbes FTP site(yes, I have two modems)....all under OS/2.
  Never mind that fact that Win95 cant support this sort of multitasking
and that it's interface is an OS/2 rip-off and that it is STILL based on DOS
and that IT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST AS A RETAIL PRODUCT...... I'd say that you 
are the one who needs to get a clue.
  Of course it's slower....it's an honest-to-God 32-bit, preemptive
multitasking, memory protected operating system. What did you expect?
I've GOT Win95 and it does not hold a candle to OS/2 in terms of memory
protection and multitasking....and you have to go into Single Application
Mode to run most cool DOS games(as well as many cool programs like Autocad12).
  Those of you who dont need multitasking and stability can stay with Win3.1 
and later move to Win95. Those of us who USE our computers will be running 
OS/2 or NT.