🚀 go-pugleaf

In A[Aarticle <3n1u8t$14...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, gy...@ibm.net writes:        
A[A
>In <3n0opu$j...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yn...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Yann Nicolas) writes:
>>>I have hear>
>>Are you out of your friggin' mind??!! (no offense intended)...
>>
>>Nah... Every single Win3.11 program will (and already do) work on
>>Windows95... :)
>>
>You have to stop lying to people like this.  LOSE95 tries to run existing DOS and 
>WINDOWS programs, however, programs that use specific memory calls (namingly
>95% of WINDOWS programs) have more lockups than Windows 3.0.
>
>The feature that LOSE95 is promoting (32 bit multitasking) is not working the
>way Microsoft thought it would (being polite here).  They knew about this 
>problem several months ago, and it's still not fixed in the latest beta.
>
>So what you have with LOSE95 is an enhanced version of Windows 3.1 with more
>Application errors and lockups.
>>Thank you
>
>- Melissa
>
What lockups? I'm not having any and I'm using all the same ones I had in WGFW.
Lose95 works great for me and all my friends are having problems with Oh Shit/2
so I have no idea what you're talking about.   All of the old apps work with no
problem and faster than they did before.  I haven't found any of the problems
that IBM propaganda would have us believe.  Even Multitasking works smoothly.
Sorry.

>===================================================================================
>==============================================================================>        Melissa N. Mortellaro
>           gy...@ibm.net
>        <<TEAM OS/2>>
>--------------------------------------
>        "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue.
>        I have '95, it's called OS/2"     - anonymous
>
>