🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3n3j7a$12...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>, ro...@wentz1.reslife.okstate.edu (root) writes:
>In article <3n1n10$i...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu says...
>Hahhaha, I can sniff a OS/2 zealot from a mile away.  Yup, you can run 
>separate DOS sessions with specified or automatically allocated EMS, XMS, or 
>DPMI memory, different environment size, configurable conventional memory 
>amount, separate autoexec.bat and config.sys for each dos app.
>Good thing is, you can leave everything on auto and you don't have to screw 
>around with a zillion ambiguous dos session settings like warped.

> [Win95 RULZ...bla bla bla] [snip]

It amazes me. I hear Win95 advocates going on about stuff that their 
new operating "system" (MS DOS7 & Win kludge 95) might be able to do -
and it's stuff that other platforms have been doing for years. This situation 
is like showing off a musket to a stone-age tribe. Even though it's obsolete 
and unreliable technology, the ignorant think it's incredible, mostly because 
they've never been exposed to it. This technology (multi-tasking OS's which 
Win95 will NEVER be,) is not rocket science and has been around
for years. M$ is now just moving into the mid-1980's. Wow. 

I'm real impressed.

When are they going to start offering object-oriented technology?
2010?