🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tvvet$2...@news.rz.uni-passau.de>,
   her...@spock.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann) wrote:

>Once Win95 is released, and a while after that the plus pack, it will
>include bugfixes for those bugs that have been found and corrected by
>then. As to testing them, of course MS does test them, how do you think
>the NT bugfixes (quarterly) do work ?

The Plus! pack will be released *at the same time* as Win95, not " a while 
after that."

The Plus! pack (I am running the current build) does *not* contain bug fixes 
for Win95!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.         From the keyboard, off the modem, around the SLIP
                        server, through the router, nothing but NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3ttpu9$7...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jma...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu says...
>No, you don't understand.  The claim made was that the Plus! pack is going
>to fix bugs, so if that is true, certainly the expectation is that we
>would see some sort of patch work already.  Besides, if MS can make money
>selling a separate CD-ROM (or disks), why wouldn't they?  So what you're
>saying is that the Plus! pack will fix bugs, but the bug fixes won't be
>beta tested.  Sorry, this isn't your father's IBM!

   Do you people know anything about software development ??? Win95 is
in BETA ! You don't patch beta software, you build the next version.

   No wonder why MS products are so buggy... It would seem many of
their beta testers don't know what a beta version is :-)  

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asou...@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
als...@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 

> The Plus! pack will be released *at the same time* as Win95, not " a while 
> after that."
> The Plus! pack (I am running the current build) does *not* contain bug fixes 
> for Win95!

Okay, for the last time now:

Whether the Plus! pack (PP) is released at the same time as Win95 or shortly
after is irrelevant.  By no means does a same-day release indicate that there
are no bug fixes in PP.  The simple fact of the matter is that Win95 (being
an OS) must be finalized sooner than PP because OEMs (who don't care about PP)
require Win95 at least 6 weeks prior to Aug. 24 if they have any hope of
making it available by then.  This deadline would appear to have been missed
but that's another story.  So, Microsoft has several weeks following the
code lock on Win95 in which to code bug fixes to be included in PP.  Naturally,
these bug fixes will not be found in the beta versions os PP which fall prior
to the code lock on Win95 because if the code were not locked, then they might
as well put the fixes right in the OS!

There, 'nuff said. 


Rob Vanden Heuvel

In article <DBpvI...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
   rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:
>> The Plus! pack will be released *at the same time* as Win95, not " a while 
>> after that."
>> The Plus! pack (I am running the current build) does *not* contain bug 
fixes 
>> for Win95!
>
>Okay, for the last time now:
>
>Whether the Plus! pack (PP) is released at the same time as Win95 or shortly
>after is irrelevant.  By no means does a same-day release indicate that there
>are no bug fixes in PP.  The simple fact of the matter is that Win95 (being
>an OS) must be finalized sooner than PP because OEMs (who don't care about 
PP)
>require Win95 at least 6 weeks prior to Aug. 24 if they have any hope of
>making it available by then.  This deadline would appear to have been missed
>but that's another story.  So, Microsoft has several weeks following the
>code lock on Win95 in which to code bug fixes to be included in PP.  
Naturally,
>these bug fixes will not be found in the beta versions os PP which fall prior
>to the code lock on Win95 because if the code were not locked, then they 
might
>as well put the fixes right in the OS!
>
>There, 'nuff said. 

No Rob, not 'nuff said. You are clueless on what Plus! is. Plus is not a bug 
fix for Windows 95. This does not qualify as FUD, it is down right not true. 
Is this what Team OS/2 has been teaching  you, to not tell the truth? To make 
things up that sound bad against Windows 95? You are yet another Team OS/2 
member out spreading untruths.

Dale Ross
L & H Technologies

|==============================================================|
| Nothing I have written here is in any way, shape, or form is |
| official or unofficial L & H Technologies policy or opinion. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   Sysop Win32 Support BBS Charlotte, NC USA (704) 588-2669   |
|       INET: dale...@cybernetics.net; dale...@msn.com       |
|       CIS: 71034,1573; msn: daleross; Fidonet 1:379/45       |
'=============================================================='
sig '95 - RTM

In article <3ubfk1$b8_...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
Dale Ross <dale...@cybernetics.net> wrote:
>

...

>No Rob, not 'nuff said. You are clueless on what Plus! is. Plus is not a bug 

"you are clueless on xxxxx"

>fix for Windows 95. This does not qualify as FUD, it is down right not true. 
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is this what Team OS/2 has been teaching  you, to not tell the truth? To make 

>things up that sound bad against Windows 95? You are yet another Team OS/2 
>member out spreading untruths.

Once again we have Dale Ross

a)  telling somebody that he disagrees with that they are clueless, or don't
	know what they are talking about, simply because they disagree with
	Dale Ross.

b)  The same old smear job of Team OS/2 :
	"you don't spout the MS company religion therefor you are a liar".
	"you advocate OS/2 therefor you are a Team OS/2 fanatic"
	"you are a liar and and a Team OS/2 Fanatic therefor Team OS/2 is a"
        "bunch of liars."

c) Dale Ross sets himself up as THE judge of what it true and is not, uses
	every last synonym for "lie" and "liar" that he can find, but doesn't
	have the nerve to use "lie" or "liar".

First we had :
	"OS/2 is dead"
Then it was :
	"OS/2 is a niche OS"
Then it was :
	"Win95 will sweep OS/2 before it. ( like NT was supposed to )"
Now it is :
	"Team OS/2 is ....."

Must be something worrying these people that they need to spend the effort
to smear Team OS/2.  A trivial group they could just laugh off.

Bob

>>require Win95 at least 6 weeks prior to Aug. 24 if they have any hope of
>>making it available by then.  This deadline would appear to have been missed
>>but that's another story.  So, Microsoft has several weeks following the
>>code lock on Win95 in which to code bug fixes to be included in PP.  
>Naturally,
>>these bug fixes will not be found in the beta versions os PP which fall prior
>>to the code lock on Win95 because if the code were not locked, then they 
>might
>>as well put the fixes right in the OS!
>>
>>There, 'nuff said. 
>
>No Rob, not 'nuff said. You are clueless on what Plus! is. Plus is not a bug 
>fix for Windows 95. This does not qualify as FUD, it is down right not true. 
>Is this what Team OS/2 has been teaching  you, to not tell the truth? To make 
>things up that sound bad against Windows 95? You are yet another Team OS/2 
>member out spreading untruths.

Oh, dont even bother talking to a team OS/2 member.  Save your breath for 
your cheers on August 24th.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
                    __________    No matter where you go,
                   /  ______  \       there you are.
                  |  |      |  |        

In <3uchst$k...@selway.umt.edu>, may...@selway.umt.edu (Robert L Maynard) writes:
>In article <3ubfk1$b8_...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
>Dale Ross <dale...@cybernetics.net> wrote:
>>
>
>....
>
>>No Rob, not 'nuff said. You are clueless on what Plus! is. Plus is not a bug 
>
>"you are clueless on xxxxx"
>
>>fix for Windows 95. This does not qualify as FUD, it is down right not true. 
>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Is this what Team OS/2 has been teaching  you, to not tell the truth? To make 
>
>>things up that sound bad against Windows 95? You are yet another Team OS/2 
>>member out spreading untruths.
>
>Once again we have Dale Ross
>
>a)  telling somebody that he disagrees with that they are clueless, or don't
>	know what they are talking about, simply because they disagree with
>	Dale Ross.
>
>b)  The same old smear job of Team OS/2 :
>	"you don't spout the MS company religion therefor you are a liar".
>	"you advocate OS/2 therefor you are a Team OS/2 fanatic"
>	"you are a liar and and a Team OS/2 Fanatic therefor Team OS/2 is a"
>        "bunch of liars."
>
>c) Dale Ross sets himself up as THE judge of what it true and is not, uses
>	every last synonym for "lie" and "liar" that he can find, but doesn't
>	have the nerve to use "lie" or "liar".
>
>First we had :
>	"OS/2 is dead"
>Then it was :
>	"OS/2 is a niche OS"
>Then it was :
>	"Win95 will sweep OS/2 before it. ( like NT was supposed to )"
>Now it is :
>	"Team OS/2 is ....."
>
>Must be something worrying these people that they need to spend the effort
>to smear Team OS/2.  A trivial group they could just laugh off.

Yes....quite!  It's the same old FUD from Dale that som many of us got tired of 
in FidoNet.  I and many others had enough and put him in the twit list....most
fitting I think.  Thankfully, my reader will allow it here as well.

Fred

Rob Vanden Heuvel (rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>someone who this guy above cut out wrote:
>> The Plus! pack will be released *at the same time* as Win95, not " a while 
>> after that."
>> The Plus! pack (I am running the current build) does *not* contain bug fixes 
>> for Win95!
>
>Okay, for the last time now:
>
>Whether the Plus! pack (PP) is released at the same time as Win95 or shortly
>after is irrelevant.  By no means does a same-day release indicate that there
>are no bug fixes in PP.  The simple fact of the matter is that Win95 (being
>an OS) must be finalized sooner than PP because OEMs (who don't care about PP)
>require Win95 at least 6 weeks prior to Aug. 24 if they have any hope of
>making it available by then.  This deadline would appear to have been missed
>but that's another story.  So, Microsoft has several weeks following the
>code lock on Win95 in which to code bug fixes to be included in PP.  Naturally,
>these bug fixes will not be found in the beta versions os PP which fall prior
>to the code lock on Win95 because if the code were not locked, then they might
>as well put the fixes right in the OS!
>
>There, 'nuff said. 
>
>

Sorry--you're wrong.  I'll give you credit for trying, though.




sy...@msn.com

Just to let you know, QVC (an at-home TV shopping channel) is selling 
WIN95 on their channel now.  Just saw it this weekend while surfing.

> No Rob, not 'nuff said. You are clueless on what Plus! is. Plus is not a bug 
> fix for Windows 95. This does not qualify as FUD, it is down right not true. 
> Is this what Team OS/2 has been teaching  you, to not tell the truth? To make 
> things up that sound bad against Windows 95? You are yet another Team OS/2 
> member out spreading untruths.

   You have officially pissed me off, twit.  I did not fabricate any of the
information which I presented.  I simply relayed information which had been
reported on in a computer publication.  When people suggested otherwise, I
countered the arguments to show that their points were not solid evidence to
counter the proposal that Plus! pack is a vehicle for bug fixes.  Why do
morons like yourself have such a hard time dealing with this?  I have yet to
see a single shred of solid evidence to discount what I read.

   Finally, for your information, I am  not a member of Team OS/2 not do I
even have any type of contact with Team OS/2 members (apart from occasionally
reading their posts in this newsgroup).  I am sick and tired of people like
yourself spewing falsities and blatant slander with nothing to back it off.
Get the hell out of this discussion if you don't have anything contructive
to offer.

Very sincerely,

Rob Vanden Heuvel