🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ttt34$a...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
jma...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:

[Compress]
> Sigh. I explained this already.  Where did the rumor start about the
> Plus! pack being a bug fix?  (Ah, my dear Terje, what was it some ostwo
> teamster was saying about the extraordinary civility of the ostwo poster?)

It is VERY difficult to be polite with people like yourself. Becides - I don't
concider my selfe an OS/2 advocate. I concider my self an advocate of
quality. I make a living of computers, and would like my work to be as
fun as possible. OS/2 is nice to work with, so I advocate that, NT is
nice to work with (now that resource req's have come down) so I advocate
that. I like UNIX a lot, and advocate LINUX and AIX in the appropriate
fora.

> Let's assume it *will* contain bug fixes: are you of the opinion that
> Microsoft will *not* release the fixes separately?   If they do release
> the bug fixes separately (a likely occurrence), what's so bad about the
> Plus! pack containing them as well? 

Well, here we are getting somewhere. I stated in another post that it
would be plain stupid of MS NOT to include bugfixes - if they exist -
in the plus pack. This thread is about wether the plus pack is an upgrade/
bug fix or not. I believe it is. It will bring Win95 closer to it original
goals, but not by much. It will probably - if MS have them ready by then -
contain bug fixes.

> My point has been that MS is almost surely not going to force you to buy
> the Plus! pack just to get the fixes.  They, themselves, advertise the
> Plus! pack for 486 and higher processor machines with at least 8 MB ram;
> what about all the 386s in the world?

No, but MS advocates have been denying very hard that the plus pack will
be a bug fix... So...


_______________________________________________________________________
Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data

In article <3tvvnu$2...@news.rz.uni-passau.de>,
her...@spock.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann) wrote:
> In article <3ttt34$a...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jma...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
> |> 
> |> Sigh. I explained this already.  Where did the rumor start about the
> |> Plus! pack being a bug fix?  (Ah, my dear Terje, what was it some ostwo
> |> teamster was saying about the extraordinary civility of the ostwo poster?)
> |> 
> |> Let's assume it *will* contain bug fixes: are you of the opinion that
> |> Microsoft will *not* release the fixes separately?   If they do release
> |> the bug fixes separately (a likely occurrence), what's so bad about the
> |> Plus! pack containing them as well? 
> 
> Of course they will release the bugfixes seperately as well. Noone ever said
> it will be bad that they are included in the plus pack... but the very fact
> that there will be bugfixes shortly after the initial release tells a lot
> about the state Win95 is in
Yes in constant development to an even better product. Isn't life great!

> A 486DX2-66 with >= 8MB is about the acceptable minimum for Win95

I can agree with that one. But on fast 386'es it does run acceptable



Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl)      | Generals are in the nice white tent
                                      | on the hill, sipping sancerre
                                      | directing the battle; They are
 http://www.xs4all.nl/~wverveen/      | men of honour             Rimmer