🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tq6bb$4...@steel.interlog.com>,
Dave Glue <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>>1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
>
>While we're speaking of lies...
>
>OS/2 will LOAD in 4 megs.  You cannot do anything productive with it
>in that configuration.  You'll have a hard time trying to convince
>someone who's actually used the product in 4 of that.

I did not claim 4 megs made OS/2 a dream machine.  No lie exists in the
statement 'You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.'  In another post, I've mentioned
that NT can even run in 8 megs, although it will make that OS/2 in 4 seem
like a dream machine. :-)  'Running' and 'operating' are not terms which
necessitate tremendous performance.  Do not claim my truthful statements about
operation to be lies.

>>2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
>
>"Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
>NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.

'Pleasantly' is admittedly more subjective, which is why I also added the
qualifier 'for several apps.'  Both NT in 16 and OS/2 in 8 are sufficient
to do say, a word processor, background download, music player and several
pointless apps like screen savers without much pain.

>>>NT, with 
>>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>>to information on joining it.
>
>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.

I have been used to people making the incorrect equation of NT w/95 shell ==
Cairo, and responded in kind.  Since I have encountered someone who realizes
there is in fact a distinct difference, I apologize.  I do not know the
status of the shell; I doubt it would be a tremendous task, however.  Early
96 seems reasonable for such a release for existing NT.  Whether a new major
rev. of NT accompanies the shell is a bigger question.


Farewell-


Aaron