🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>,
Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
>
>>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>>future.
>
>Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>right!!!!  

Yes.  I did this on a 486/50 w/ 4 megs. when the very first beta of Warp
came out.  There are certainly more pleasant things to try, but this was
surprisingly fast with little swapping.  Such a feat would be even more
unpleasant on Win95, and a flat out impossibility on Win NT.

>OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day. 

The above statement is a lie; there is no point trying to excuse something
so ludicrously incorrect as even ignorance.

1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
  8 megs. will allow NT to boot, but it will swap for almost a minute just
  to login.  Don't even think about running _any_ applications on NT with
  such a system.

>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.



Farewell-


Aaron