🚀 go-pugleaf

King Neptune (dmo...@globalx.net) wrote:

Just to begin with, would you please set your word wrap to 80 
characters?  The last two words of each of your sentences will be 
unreadable on about half the terminals in the world, if not more.


: On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
: a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
: the 30 billion range.

So Win'95 is better than OS/2 because MS is 46th on the list?  (IBM is 
most assurredly higher on the list, but even if it were'nt, so?)

[stuff deleted]

Your post seems to imply that you will stick with MS whether or not they 
have a good OS.  Why?  And, as if you were'nt looking blindly faithful 
enough, you talk about the imminent release of Cairo.  Do you remember 
the last time MS made claims like this?  The city in question that time 
was Chicago, and it (renamed) still isn't finished.  Why will you 
continue to refuse to try something that everyone that knows the 
technical side of computers acknowledges to be superior?  And one that 
will have a large speed performance in addition to the already superior 
power it boasts?

As far as that goes, I predict that P6 systems will be evenly divided 
btwn OS/2 and NT.  NT's system requirements may be huge, but I can't see 
anyone ever buying a P6 system with less than 32 megs of RAM anyway, can you?
What would be the point?  If the latest I've read is accurate (granted, 
it was semi-dated, being in May) the  P6 will be out 4Q this year.  Give 
it another quarter or so to roll out the higher megahertz systems, and 
you must see that the mainstream p6 systems will be out well before Cairo 
will be.

Now, if MS can just work on NT's pitiful compatibility, I may actually 
think about running it instead of OS/2.  Then again, I just may buy a 
Phat Powermac.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html