Re: OS/2 vs Win'95(or '96)

Thread View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Eugen... Eugen Woiwod Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00

#2365

Author: Eugen... Eugen Woiwod
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00

26 lines
1277 bytes

In article <3usbj4$2f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord
McFee) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <3usbj4$2f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
> References: <DC3Fq...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
> Posted: 23 Jul 1995 02:19:16 GMT
>
> In message <3ur5qs$f8_...@line04.socketis.net> - jco...@socketis.net
> (Jody Coo
> per) writes:
> :>
> :>In article <DC3Fq...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
> :>   rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:
> :>
> :>>Yet Microsoft has achieved compatibility which, by all reports on this
> :>>newsgroup at least, are no better than OS/2s.  Now seeing that OS/2 is
> :>>a fully 32-bit OS, please explain to me again why it was so necessary
> for
> :>>Win95 to use so much 16-bit code?  Hmmm?
> :>
> :>Two words:  Backwards Compatibility.
>
> *One* word:  Backward.


*One* word: Take this stupid debate to some other group :-)

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads