🚀 go-pugleaf

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

: Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
: meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
: Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
: looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
: typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
: would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
: Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
: think they are very useful.

You are correct in your argument that (for now at least) NT's main niche 
is as a server OS.  This, however, is decidedly not the niche MS aimed 
it at.  And, in the near future (ie: when the standard PC comes with 16+ 
megs of RAM) it may well become the mainstream OS, especially if MS's 
campaign of Win32 compliance is successful. 

Actually, I see this as the only good thing to come out of Win9x.  I 
wouldn't mind using NT instead of OS/2 if I had to (assuming they 
actually finish the OO interface)

: /NEP

I can't help but wonder why you use a false name?  No flame, just wondering..

Also, it would be more courteous (and less wasteful) if you would delete 
all text you're not refering to.

-Dan

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