🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3sleni$j...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> big_...@ix.netcom.com (Big_Bear
) writes: 
>
>In <804113...@the-zoo.demon.co.uk> Simon Heyward
><Si...@the-zoo.demon.co.uk> writes: 
>>
>>In article <3skhek$e...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
>>           big_...@ix.netcom.com "Big_Bear " writes:
>>
>>> In <3sj9kt$c...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@pegasus.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig)
>writes:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >JORDAN  SPENSER AARON (jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >: I agree, the OStwo zealots clammor about how customizable their
>OS
>>> is, 
>>> >: but it still looks like shit.  Windows 95 could be completely 
>>> >
>>> >You claim to have never used OS/2, but also claim it looks like
>shit? 
>>> 
>>> >You have led us to a multiple choice test:
>>> >
>>> >A.  You're Stupid.
>>> >B.  You're Lying.
>>> >C.  You can't remember if you've used OS/2.
>>> >D.  You can't remember if you're stupid and lying.
>>> >E.  All of the above.
>>> >
>>> >I choose E.
>>> >
>>> >: uncustomizable and it would still destroy OStwo.  Yes, Microsoft
>has
>>> 
>>> >: their act together and the OStwo zealots are scurring about like
>>> Sadam 
>>> >: Hussein spreading untrue propoganda to try to fool us into using
>>> their 
>>> >: OS.  Well they are the fools.
>>> >
>>> >Who's the fool, he who tests all the options and chooses the best
>one,
>>> or he 
>>> >who blindly commits to using an 'OS' (note that WinXX is not
really
>an
>>> OS, 
>>> >as it is, once again, a shell on top of Dos) without checking out
>the 
>>> >competition?
>>> >
>>> >Note:  As if trying to prove my point, MS is including
memmaker.exe
>>> with 
>>> >the release of Win9X.  
>>> >
>>> >-Dan
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>>> >http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html
>>> 
>>> I say that both have FUCKING lost it!!!  Everyone know that OS/2
>will
>>> and can KICK THE SHIT OUT OF WINDOWS AND DAY, MONTH, OR YEARS TO
>COME. 
>>> When Windows decides to make sure that they come close to what OS/2
>has
>>> to offer. (THEN THEY CAN COMPETE IN THAT RACE) But not before!!! I
>>> don't care when it comes out!!
>>> 
>>> Big_...@ix.netcom.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>Not like windows then ? I had a go at os but when it got a shit on
>with my
>>cd drive I got rid. At least windows works on my system well some of
>the
>>time !
>>-- 
>>Nomis
>>
>
>Well so did I.  I had a go at OS/2 WARP my computer class of a month
>and a half.  It worked all the time and never had any problems.  On
>other hand, I have had Windows 3.1 for my computer for 6 year and it
>SUCK.  It messes up all the time.  Plus Windows 3.1 was free with the
>computer and the network program that I use has to run in Windows and
>doesn't work in the OS/2's window area.  That is one of those program
>that go into that 5% area that OS/2 can't run.  Besides if someone
gave
>me Win95 I might think of using it.  I would never buy the FUCKING
>program.
>
>BIG BEAR
Im using the final beta version of win95 and it sure as hell kicks the
shit out of os2. I had 22 hours online with IBM trying to get the shit
installed because IBM  was in such a fucking hurry to beat win95 they
did'nt bother to take all the fucking bugs out of the piece of shit. I
used it exactly 30 days It would not run my cdrom nor would it run 75%
of my software so i gave it away and the person i gave it to gave it
back. win95 on the other hand is working with every piece of software
that i have and some i just installed. It runs all my dos software and
has great multitasking. i ran 4 mpeg movie files with sound at the same
time along with winprobe and faxworks with voice on a machine with
8megs of ram. they worked beautifully. now that I have it I will never
change it win 3.11 will never compare with win95