🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BfW0mqrP...@vestnett.no> ter...@vestnett.no (Terje A. Bergesen) writes:
>In article <3tr9hh$a...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
>jma...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:
>> In article <3tqid9$4...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@indus.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
>> >rk...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >: 	The Plus pack is NOT a bug fix.
>> 
>> >Oh, contraire.  Look it up.
>> 
>> Ok, I just took a look through all the CAB files and the rest of the
>> CD-ROM on the Plus! pack (build 300) and I could not find anything that
>> looked like a fix for anything.  I see lots of WA8 (whatever they are, but
>> they are associated with the various themes) and WAV files, among others,
>> but none even remotely labeled a patch. Would you please name the names of
>> the files that are "bug fix[es]"? 
>
>No, my dear Joseph, are you completely stupid or what?
>
>MS has not released Win95. So, there would be no reason to release
>bug fixes in the beta of the Plus Pack would there. Wether MS will
>release bug fixes or not, I don't know. It would be rather stupid not
>to, if they fix bugs between the Win95 release and the plus pack 
>release...

Sigh. I explained this already.  Where did the rumor start about the
Plus! pack being a bug fix?  (Ah, my dear Terje, what was it some ostwo
teamster was saying about the extraordinary civility of the ostwo poster?)

Let's assume it *will* contain bug fixes: are you of the opinion that
Microsoft will *not* release the fixes separately?   If they do release
the bug fixes separately (a likely occurrence), what's so bad about the
Plus! pack containing them as well? 

My point has been that MS is almost surely not going to force you to buy
the Plus! pack just to get the fixes.  They, themselves, advertise the
Plus! pack for 486 and higher processor machines with at least 8 MB ram;
what about all the 386s in the world?