🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 Apr 1995, NICHOLAS PHILIP LAZARUS wrote:

> this short, windows 95 is definetely faster although it lacks in 
> stability. But in the world of computer I guess speed has to take first 
> priority. Specially where backk-ward compatibility is concerned. I always 

Speed over stability is not always the best choice if you are concerned 
about loosing data.

> hate arguing with Os/2 users because they are so biased, it just seems 
> pointless to argue with them.

Listen to who sounds biased here and especially in your following sentence.

> I will happily flying in windows 95 while those other losers are 
> sloughing in their so called os/2
>  systems.

OS/2 is hardly slow if you are running native apps (or even DOS apps for 
that matter); only having to load the Windows kernel slows it down.  
Besides, once you get a Windows program loaded, most run just as fast as 
under Windows 3.x.

JOHN

* John M. Martz:  Psychology Dept, UNC-CH  *                            *
|                 CB# 3270, Davie Hall     | B = f(P,E)                 |
|                 Chapel Hill, NC 27599    |          --Kurt Lewin      |
*                 JOHN_...@UNC.EDU       *                            *