🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <434u05$8...@hasle.oslonett.no>, sv...@oslonett.no (Sven Anders
Robbestad) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <434u05$8...@hasle.oslonett.no>
> References: <1995Sep11....@molienergy.bc.ca>
> Posted: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 21:27:05 GMT
>
> Org.  : Oslonett public access
>
>
> >This is a pathetic response.  Steve overwhelms you with
> numbers/facts/quotes/
> >dates, and all you come with is subjective fluff!  Why is OS/2 dead,
> >Why did OS fail, What are the reasons that are "not important", What
> >makes Win95 so great for networks?
>
> Ok, a spokesperson for OS/2 scoffs and says that they've lost the
> battle for the OSs. Can't remember where I read it so don't ask, but
> anyway - why argue about which is best and so on? I mean, I use
> Windows 95 - I am happy - I like it. I won't laugh at OS/2 just
> because I have Windows 95. OS/2 is good, even though I found it a bit
> slow on my system (whereas I find W95 fast). I liked some parts of
> OS/2 better than I like some parts of W95, but on the whole I prefer
> W95.


And that's what it all boil's down to. You use whatever OS you like,
whether it be WIN95, Win 3.1, WFWG, OS/2, Unix, DOS, etc etc. These stupid
OS war's should be in another group, like alt.os2.versus.windows95, or
alt.windows95.versus.os2