🚀 go-pugleaf

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!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

> Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!

Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 

>Rob (in dreamland) Vanden Heuvel



----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Speichts
Beaverbank Nova Scotia

King Neptune (dmo...@globalx.net) wrote:

Just to begin with, would you please set your word wrap to 80 
characters?  The last two words of each of your sentences will be 
unreadable on about half the terminals in the world, if not more.


: On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
: a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
: the 30 billion range.

So Win'95 is better than OS/2 because MS is 46th on the list?  (IBM is 
most assurredly higher on the list, but even if it were'nt, so?)

[stuff deleted]

Your post seems to imply that you will stick with MS whether or not they 
have a good OS.  Why?  And, as if you were'nt looking blindly faithful 
enough, you talk about the imminent release of Cairo.  Do you remember 
the last time MS made claims like this?  The city in question that time 
was Chicago, and it (renamed) still isn't finished.  Why will you 
continue to refuse to try something that everyone that knows the 
technical side of computers acknowledges to be superior?  And one that 
will have a large speed performance in addition to the already superior 
power it boasts?

As far as that goes, I predict that P6 systems will be evenly divided 
btwn OS/2 and NT.  NT's system requirements may be huge, but I can't see 
anyone ever buying a P6 system with less than 32 megs of RAM anyway, can you?
What would be the point?  If the latest I've read is accurate (granted, 
it was semi-dated, being in May) the  P6 will be out 4Q this year.  Give 
it another quarter or so to roll out the higher megahertz systems, and 
you must see that the mainstream p6 systems will be out well before Cairo 
will be.

Now, if MS can just work on NT's pitiful compatibility, I may actually 
think about running it instead of OS/2.  Then again, I just may buy a 
Phat Powermac.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>right!!!!    
>[rest of post snipped]

Well, actually yes, it does.  I tried it once - it was not too bad most of the
time but it was dog slow when it had to hit the disk for anything.  However,
except for speed (or rather lack thereof), I did not experience any problems. 

Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:

: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 

OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  

: right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
: '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

Only if (a big if) MS upgrades NT's lousy Dos emulation (for the record, 
NT cannot run Dos Doom as it is, though it supposedly can run win32 Doom, 
although it has not been released yet.  Pitiful really, it still being 
unreleased over a year after the original was released, and after it has 
lost its appeal to most [the same goes for the OS/2 version])

: Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
: the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 

Hah, hah.  Because OS/2 for the PowerPC is not finished yet.  Because the 
original was not microkernel based, requiring a larger amount of work in 
the port.


: ----------------------------------------------------
: Kevin Speichts
: Beaverbank Nova Scotia

And it really is rude to modify someone's signature.

(that having been said, you will no doubt alter mine as well)

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

I would like to modify you signature because I find it 
offensive.

So you have hit no a key point as to why the Power PC is dead 
in the water for the time being, there is no damm mainstream OS 
and apps for it.  Damm emulation doesn't cut it, as you point 
out for NT.  

I have a question for you - do you know if the Cairo beta 
support the standard WIN32 and WIN32c or is it a another 
modified type?

bye

/USER





eh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) wrote:
>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>
>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>
>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  
>
>: right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
>: '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>Only if (a big if) MS upgrades NT's lousy Dos emulation (for the record, 
>NT cannot run Dos Doom as it is, though it supposedly can run win32 Doom, 
>although it has not been released yet.  Pitiful really, it still being 
>unreleased over a year after the original was released, and after it has 
>lost its appeal to most [the same goes for the OS/2 version])
>
>: Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
>: the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 
>
>Hah, hah.  Because OS/2 for the PowerPC is not finished yet.  Because the 
>original was not microkernel based, requiring a larger amount of work in 
>the port.
>
>
>: ----------------------------------------------------
>: Kevin Speichts
>: Beaverbank Nova Scotia
>
>And it really is rude to modify someone's signature.
>
>(that having been said, you will no doubt alter mine as well)
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

In article <3tnn0r$f...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@mirac.unm.edu> wrote:
>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>
>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>
>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  

NT _does_ technically run in 8.  A friend of mine got masochistic one time
and tried this.  It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and after pressing 
CTRL-ALT-DEL to login, expect about a minute delay for the login prompt to
appear.  Do not attempt to run anything under such an NT system.  So, to be
absolutely correct, NT runs in 8, but is not usable (far less usable than
OS/2 with 4 megs).

Happy to add a bit of technical trivia.


Farewell-


Aaron

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
           kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca "Kevin Speichts" writes:
> 
> 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!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
> '95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

In fact, OS/2 _will_ run doom in a DOS box in 4MB.  Not very well (the VM
paging tends to kill the performance), but it does run.

As for OS/2 requiring as much hardware as NT, all that comment proves is
that you clearly haven't used one of them (or possibly either of them).

OS/2 will work in 4MB - I personally don't think it's really usable, but
it will run.  NT _requires_ 12MB just to run, and it's performance isn't
too good until you have 32MB.  Both OS/2 and Win95 are fairly happy in
8MB, although 16MB is probably the right figure if you want to do real
work with either.

NT, even with enough memory, is also slower.  This is an almost inevitable
consequence of it's architecture (IMO, it's virtualised too close to the
hardware - this makes it quicker to port; it also ensures that the ports
are highly compatable with each other.  But it does slow things down).

Also, the Win95 shell for NT is _not_ in beta.  It's currently in alpha,
and (FWIH) it's still rather buggy.
> 
> > Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
> >possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
> >dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
> >any sense!
> 
> Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
> the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 
> 
That's easy.  See the comments about the NT architecture above.  This makes
porting very easy.  IBM have decided _not_ to do a plain port of OS/2 to
the PPC.  Instead, they have redesigned it around a microkernel, which is
a rather longer job.  It will make later porting much eaiser, however.

> >Rob (in dreamland) Vanden Heuvel
> 
Since you appear to be a clueless newbie, I should point out that modifing
peoples .sigs is considered one indication that you've already lost the
argument (rather like mentioning H*tl*r).  Why don't you go out and buy
a bag of clues - the're not that expensive.

Pete
-- 
Peter Bell  <pe...@bell.demon.co.uk>

SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.
--j...@proteon.com (John Woods)

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

I gotta ask you what the point of arguing about how OS/2, WIN95 
and NT running on 4 megs is, as you well know mobody in their 
right mind would want to run any of these OS's with that amount 
of memory, certainly you will not be very productive.

Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
think they are very useful.

SMD

/NEP








syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>In article <3tnn0r$f...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@mirac.unm.edu> wrote:
>>Kevin Speichts (kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>>
>>OS/2 doesnt run will in 4 megs.  NT doesnt run at all in 4 megs.  Or 8.  
>
>NT _does_ technically run in 8.  A friend of mine got masochistic one time
>and tried this.  It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and after pressing 
>CTRL-ALT-DEL to login, expect about a minute delay for the login prompt to
>appear.  Do not attempt to run anything under such an NT system.  So, to be
>absolutely correct, NT runs in 8, but is not usable (far less usable than
>OS/2 with 4 megs).
>
>Happy to add a bit of technical trivia.
>
>
>Farewell-
>
>
>Aaron
>

King Neptune (dmo...@globalx.net) wrote:

: Now the 8 meg argument interests me.  WIN95 works great on 8 
: meg allow there is a lot more productivity happening at 16.  
: Same argument with OS/2.  As for NT, I think you are not 
: looking at NT's niche.   High end server type machines are 
: typically the target for NT.  I don't think any MS literature 
: would ever advocate NT as a entry level home user OS.  
: Basically don't make apples to oranges comparisons.  I don't 
: think they are very useful.

You are correct in your argument that (for now at least) NT's main niche 
is as a server OS.  This, however, is decidedly not the niche MS aimed 
it at.  And, in the near future (ie: when the standard PC comes with 16+ 
megs of RAM) it may well become the mainstream OS, especially if MS's 
campaign of Win32 compliance is successful. 

Actually, I see this as the only good thing to come out of Win9x.  I 
wouldn't mind using NT instead of OS/2 if I had to (assuming they 
actually finish the OO interface)

: /NEP

I can't help but wonder why you use a false name?  No flame, just wondering..

Also, it would be more courteous (and less wasteful) if you would delete 
all text you're not refering to.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

There is an Alpha, but I don't really see the difference 
between Alpha and Beta, as I have talked with one person that 
says they are running a version of Cairo at a University. Now 
this may be crap, but most people agree that an NT with the 
object oriented interface in WIN95 is well under way in the 
Alpha stage.

/NEP




>>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

King Neptune <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:

>There is an Alpha, but I don't really see the difference 
>between Alpha and Beta, as I have talked with one person that 
>says they are running a version of Cairo at a University. Now 
>this may be crap, but most people agree that an NT with the 
>object oriented interface in WIN95 is well under way in the 
>Alpha stage.

That's a contradiction, actually.  First off:

NT with the 95 interface is _not_ the Cairo project.  It is a
hold-over until Cairo appears.  The official name will likely be NT
4.0.

MS announced some time ago that Cairo would not be a full-blown
seperate version of NT, rather a series of add-ons.

Win 95's interface is _not_ object oriented.

In article <3tp4ls$a...@carbon.concom.com> syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) writes:
>>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.

Me a liar ... no, not me!   ;)

Nit picking tisk tisk.  Alpha, Beta, same thing in my books.  It's out 
in ALPHA.   Free download for COMPUSERVE members.  Not sure of the forum.
It's been discussed a bit in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.setup, the forum is 
mentioned in one thread.   Contact MS for info. on joining any MS Beta.    

How this effects games, in my book not.   For the moment, you still can't beat 
plain old DOS for that, hense I multiboot for games.


----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Speichts
Beaverbank Nova Scotia

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.

>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.


>>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.

Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:

: 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.

Damn, I wish this was an "official" MS release date, so we could all 
happily know the real release date (ie: _very_ early in '97) is.

(g)

-Dan


--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

deh...@indus.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:

>Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:

>: 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.

>Damn, I wish this was an "official" MS release date, so we could all 
>happily know the real release date (ie: _very_ early in '97) is.

   Actually, you can believe the date on this one. They've been testing it
internally for quite a while before they sent out alpha version of the 
interface. They didn't sent out alpha till now because they didn't want to 
release the NT version too close to the release date of WIN 95. Of course,
they might again delay the release date of WIN 95.

P.J.

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

In <3tq6bb$4...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>
>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.
>
This is pointless discussion about an operating system that needs 16MB
RAM to run, and 32MB to run well, costs over $200, and is so complex 
to install that the average game player will revert to messing with
DOS' config.sys and autoexec.bat rather than try to understand it. How
many users need the robustness and security features of NT to play
games and are willing to shell out that sort of money for it?

Nigel J. Clarke
NASA Tracking Station BDA
Office (809) 293-1142 x 203	Fax (809) 293-6955
EMail:	ncl...@bda-hp.bda.nasa.gov
Any views expressed are those of the author.

ncl...@sysadm.bda.nasa.gov wrote:


>This is pointless discussion about an operating system that needs 16MB
>RAM to run, and 32MB to run well, costs over $200, and is so complex 
>to install that the average game player will revert to messing with
>DOS' config.sys and autoexec.bat rather than try to understand it. How
>many users need the robustness and security features of NT to play
>games and are willing to shell out that sort of money for it?

A user posted about the OS "Cairo", which doesn't exist in any
pre-form (alpha or beta) yet, and confused it with NT 4.0.  So I
corrected him.  I certainly have no desire to "discuss" NT.  

But 32 megs to run well?  "Complex" to install?  Most reviews I've
read stated it runs well in 16 megs, and it's "one button"
installation was actually quite easier than OS/2's.

In article <3ts388$f...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave
Glue) wrote:

> A user posted about the OS "Cairo", which doesn't exist in any
> pre-form (alpha or beta) yet, and confused it with NT 4.0.  

What makes you think Cairo is not NT 4.0?

-- 
Regards, Gary

Gary E. Bloom                      POB 219
SoftWorlds for Children       Edmonds, WA 98020
g...@halcyon.com                 Voice/Fax: 206.672.2107

dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:

>syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:

>>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.

   Actually, NT runs rather nice with 16 megs. Although you'd need 24 megs
to do programming. It's not fast but it's certainly not doggy with 16 megs.

>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.
   
   Nope, they haven't even finished coding yet. I believe they hope to have
an alpha version by early '96(or even end of this year) and hopefully ship
by '97

>  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.

   It won't be 4.0. I think 4.0 will be cairo. They are testing the interface
and it will go on top of 3.51. I'm guessing it will be called 3.6. Should
ship late 95 or early '96.

>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.

   Actually, it's still designated as alpha(last time I checked at least), and
it is pretty buggy. It could be called early beta since Microsoft had been
testing it internally for a while now.

   BTW how did this discussion come up in the comp.*.games.* group?

P.J. Kim

>> 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.

That was no lie.  OS/2 works fine in 4 megs.  I know, I do it.  I used to run
it in 8 megs but I sold 4 to help finance my forthcoming upgrade so I speak
from experience.  Certainly it was a fair bit faster in 8 megs but I still
don't have any problems with it in 4.  All my apps run as stable as ever.
Even at 4 megs, FX Fighter plays better under OS/2 than under DOS.  I have
no complaints but will defintely be happy when I'm back to 8...and when I
can afford 16!

>> 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.

No exaggeration, again from experience.

Rob Vanden Heuvel

>I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
>correct.
 
Accually, it was Intel themselves that released this statement.

>I will look for these wonderful articles that you deliver to us like they are pages from 
>the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with portions of GDI and USER 
>in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the transistors?  I am 
>know expert but that seems to go against the grain that has been demonstrated through X86 
>compatable Intel upgrades in the last few years.  Anyway, IBM OS/whatever may have the 
>same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will dominate for 
>sometime.

	Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a large 
amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is being designed to 
optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp and NT (or any other 32-bit
OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems that 95 will.

What exactly is the "Cairo" version that I've been seeing discussed?

<snipped>
<    Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a 
<large amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is
<being designed to optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp
<and NT (or any other 32-bit OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems
<that 95 will.

I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
I go about checking it so see if it actually does have these problems?  It
would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
environment rather soon.

In article <3u3m8p$j...@cainews.concept.com>, Ceng...@Concept.com says:
snipped
>        Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a large 
>amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is being designed to 
>optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp and NT (or any other 32-bit
>OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems that 95 will.


I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
I go about checking it to see if it actually does have these problems?  It
would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
environment rather soon.

In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  

Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
a happy camper.

Paul Hanlin, jr.
Pau...@ix.netcom.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=======================================================================
"This is your brain.  This is your brain in the street. Any questions?"
        Beavis, of course!
=======================================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Paul Hanlin, Jr. (pau...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  

: Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
: scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
: a happy camper.

W R O N G ! ! !
===============

Don't start a flame of Microsoft or any other company when
you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

In article <3u68d0$o...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Hanlin, Jr. says...
>
>In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
>Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
>need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
>booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
>or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
>

Actually, I was just told today by a Microsoft Rep that the Plus Pack will 
ship with the CD-ROM edition of W'95.

-rich


>Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
>scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
>a happy camper.
>
>Paul Hanlin, jr.
>Pau...@ix.netcom.com
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>=======================================================================
>"This is your brain.  This is your brain in the street. Any questions?"
>        Beavis, of course!
>=======================================================================
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

On 9 Jul 1995, Aaron Bilger wrote:

> 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.
> >
Speaking if NT not being a viable choice, unless you have a massively 
powerful system... isn't that what the P6 is supposed to be???  Win95 
products are REQUIRED to work with NT.  When people get around to moving 
to the more powerful systems, and more powerful os (the majority of 
people), their Win95 Apps 
and games will work fine.  Just a side note... IBM announced that OS/2 
will not be made to support Win95 software.  Of course as usual IBM also 
said that they reserve the right to change their mind at any time.
Perhaps this means nothing to you, since many have already decided 
whether they will go for Os/2 or W95, to me however it means if I choose 
to go with W95 now, I am going to be safe with NT in the future, and the 
interface will be the same (I won't have to learn a new way of operating 
again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
especially when you enter a store and see all three products dedicated to 
it, as compared to the hundreds displayed and activly merchandised for 
win and dos), and finally they like going with software and companies 
they are familiar with (like it or not Microsoft is definatly that).

> 
> Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,

NT with the 95 interface is not Cairo.

What they have been talking about is just an upgrade to NT.

dan....@stpete.honeywell.com (DLRapp) wrote:

>I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
>I go about checking it to see if it actually does have these problems?  It
>would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
>environment rather soon.

I'm curious to see if you have systems that have Windows 95 _and_ a P6
chip, as that is the combination of which we are discussing.

In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert Lucier) says:
>
>: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
>: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
>: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
>: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
>W R O N G ! ! !
>===============


I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
various other utils on it. 
It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
And I do have a clue in this regard.

What's contained in the Plus Pack?

While channel surfing at 3 a.m., I happened to go to one of those home
shopping stations (QVC).  They were advertising WIN95 for 89.95.  Is this
actually available or do they have some type of special deal?

Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
>again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
>ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 

I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.

Heck, there never has been.


Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.

I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

-- 
| kr...@netcom.com \     1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100      |
|   PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87  0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2  |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \   Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad!!  |
| [303/777-2911] Data \                     - Malorey Knox -            |

dan....@stpete.honeywell.com (DLRapp) wrote:

>>>While channel surfing at 3 a.m., I happened to go to one of those home
>>>shopping stations (QVC).  They were advertising WIN95 for 89.95.  Is this
>>>actually available or do they have some type of special deal?

Windows 95 won't be available in stores until August 24. If you order
now (at any store), you won't receive your copy of Windows 95 until
August 24.

In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>,
Peter Cox <pc...@orca.ucd.ie> wrote:
>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>various other utils on it. 

Think about what you are saying. The Justice department is considering 
bringing an action against Microsoft because they are planning on 
bundling MSN with Win95. If they are forcing you to buy something else in 
order to access MSN, not only are they not giving themselves an "unfair" 
advantage, but they are in fact putting themselves behind Cserve and AOL 
who give out their access software everywhere you go.

People, I know we want to nail Microsoft for everything under the sun, 
but we really need to pick on side or the other:

1) Are they dirty monopolistic bastards because they are throwing in MSN 
access software for free and therefore pushing all the other service 
providers into chapter 11?

or

2) Are they dirty money grubing bastards because they are going to try to 
milk an extra $50 out of us in order to use MSN?


>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....

Now I know that we all can take it as a matter of faith that everything 
that Microsoft does is evil, but could you back up this statement? Could 
you give me even one example where Msoft claimed to be selling (giving) 
something and then forced you to buy something else? Can you give a 
closely related example? Or a distantly related one? The closest one I 
can come up with is the Internet Asistent that they made a seperate 
product from Word, instead of including it together. Oh wait, they gave 
that away, didn't they? C'mon Peter, show me something to justify the 
comment "typical MS business". 

>And I do have a clue in this regard.

Sure, sure.

Michael




-- 
                        | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack 
   Michael L. Kaufman   | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched 
    kau...@mcs.com     | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. 
                        | All those moments will be lost in time - like tears 
                        | in rain. Time to die.        Roy Batty - Blade Runner

In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>,
   pc...@orca.ucd.ie (Peter Cox) wrote:
>In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert 
Lucier) says:
>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>various other utils on it. 
>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
>And I do have a clue in this regard.

Are you sure?  We just got the "golden" CD's which is the same build that was 
sent for production.  MSN is definately on the main CD and not on the Plus! 
pack.

I'd go look again for that "clue."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.

          "If I'm not mistaken, that's a duck sensitive pressure trigger!"
                                                                   - Phish
                                "I've got a duck and I'm going to use it!"
                                                                     -Chip
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Cox (pc...@orca.ucd.ie) wrote:
: In article <3u8oej$p...@hecate.umd.edu>, co...@news.umd.edu (Corey Robert Lucier) says:
: >
: >: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
: >: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
: >: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
: >: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
: >W R O N G ! ! !
: >===============


: I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
: need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
: various other utils on it. 
: It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
: And I do have a clue in this regard.

--

...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

b...@primenet.com (Brad Grossman) wrote:

>...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
>included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 

I can vouch for this. MSN was included in the April Test Release of
Win95. I assume it would be included with the official release.


---------- Matt Bruce -------- mbr...@orion.tower.com.au ----------
Kryten: "It seems, after all this time, that Mr Lister is a robot."
Rimmer: "I'll write you into my will if you let me tell him."
----------------- http://www.tower.com.au/~mbruce/ ----------------

>: [SNIP]
>: I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>: need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>: various other utils on it. 
>: It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....
>: And I do have a clue in this regard.

It Is WRONG, in case you have missed out on the news in the last month
or so, MS is being probed for including it in the OS, not the plus
pack.  It is an itegeral part of the OS.  Check out COMA and the
millions of posts there.  BTW whoever is cross-posting this to games
is a freakin idiot!  Flame me for replying to all, but this is getting
out of hand!  Pull your heads out when you cross-post an orig article!
Many users don't realise they reply to all as well!  
Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page       

> ...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
> included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
> stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
> use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
> a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
> install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

   Don't be too sure that MSN will come included in Win95 when it finally is
released.  The Department of Justice has been carrying out an ongoing 
investigation into whether or not MSN's inclusion in Win95 is anti-competitive
and give MS ann unfair advantage in the Internet service provider arena.  The
basis for the argument is that, based on the likelihood that Win95 will be
on a very large number of computers in a fairly short time, other third party
providers will not even be considered.  This may be illegal because MS is
using its virtual monopoly of the OS market to try and achieve a monopoly of
the service provider market.

   According to the latest PC Week, the DOJ did not rule out the possibility
of taking action within the week (meaning certain delays for Win95).  Needless
to say, this has Compuserve officials pretty excited.


Rob Vanden Heuvel

kau...@MCS.COM (Michael Kaufman) wrote:

>In article <3ueqig$l...@gate2.internet-eireann.ie>,
>Peter Cox <pc...@orca.ucd.ie> wrote:
>>I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I know for a fact that to use MSN you
>>need to buy Microsoft Plus, which is an add-on package for '95 with
>>various other utils on it. 

>Think about what you are saying. The Justice department is considering 
>bringing an action against Microsoft because they are planning on 
>bundling MSN with Win95. If they are forcing you to buy something else in 
>order to access MSN, not only are they not giving themselves an "unfair" 
>advantage, but they are in fact putting themselves behind Cserve and AOL 
>who give out their access software everywhere you go.

>People, I know we want to nail Microsoft for everything under the sun, 
>but we really need to pick on side or the other:

>1) Are they dirty monopolistic bastards because they are throwing in MSN 
>access software for free and therefore pushing all the other service 
>providers into chapter 11?

>or

>2) Are they dirty money grubing bastards because they are going to try to 
>milk an extra $50 out of us in order to use MSN?


>>It's not a scam, but it's typical MS business....

>Now I know that we all can take it as a matter of faith that everything 
>that Microsoft does is evil, but could you back up this statement? Could 
>you give me even one example where Msoft claimed to be selling (giving) 
>something and then forced you to buy something else? Can you give a 
>closely related example? Or a distantly related one? The closest one I 
>can come up with is the Internet Asistent that they made a seperate 
>product from Word, instead of including it together. Oh wait, they gave 
>that away, didn't they? C'mon Peter, show me something to justify the 
>comment "typical MS business". 

>>And I do have a clue in this regard.

>Sure, sure.

>Michael




>-- 
>                        | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack 
>   Michael L. Kaufman   | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched 
>    kau...@mcs.com     | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. 
>                        | All those moments will be lost in time - like tears 
>                        | in rain. Time to die.        Roy Batty - Blade Runner

did you notice that you are in games.strategic ?  I dnd'nt know that
Windows 95 was a game ?  maybe you'd get more replys in an operating
system forum.

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:


>> ...I heard from several sources that the software to access MSN is 
>> included w/ Win 95.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just like the rest of MS's 
>> stuff...if you're stuck with it, you are going to use it.  I ain't gonna 
>> use it.  You can use Win 95 with your usual I-net stuff and it comes with 
>> a FTP and Telnet client...but of course, it is difficult as hell to 
>> install.  Why....cause they want you to use MSN.

>   Don't be too sure that MSN will come included in Win95 when it finally is
>released.  The Department of Justice has been carrying out an ongoing 
>investigation into whether or not MSN's inclusion in Win95 is anti-competitive
>and give MS ann unfair advantage in the Internet service provider arena.  The
>basis for the argument is that, based on the likelihood that Win95 will be
>on a very large number of computers in a fairly short time, other third party
>providers will not even be considered.  This may be illegal because MS is
>using its virtual monopoly of the OS market to try and achieve a monopoly of
>the service provider market.

>   According to the latest PC Week, the DOJ did not rule out the possibility
>of taking action within the week (meaning certain delays for Win95).  Needless
>to say, this has Compuserve officials pretty excited.


>Rob Vanden Heuvel

Well I Am POSITIVE That MSN will come with Win95...
My friend is a beta tester and the MSN package comes installed in
win95.. they even put an icon on the desktop to install win95
nuff said
dont argue :)


 +----------------------------------+
 | Exodus - exo...@nj5.injersey.com |
 | Raj Shahani - New Jersey, USA    |
 +----------------------------------+

> Well I Am POSITIVE That MSN will come with Win95...
> My friend is a beta tester and the MSN package comes installed in
> win95.. they even put an icon on the desktop to install win95
> nuff said
> dont argue :)

   <Grumble>  If you'd read my posting more closely, you would have noticed
that my point was that, even though MS plans to ship MSN as part of Win95
(and is doing so at the moment), the Dept of Justice may step in prior to
August 24th to prevent it.  If that happens, then all current copies of Win95
will have to be yanked back and MS will have to release a MSN-free version
of Win95.  Needless to say, this would cost them millions of dollars and 
the deadline could not even come close to being met.


Rob Vanden Heuvel

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

>   <Grumble>  If you'd read my posting more closely, you would have noticed
>that my point was that, even though MS plans to ship MSN as part of Win95
>(and is doing so at the moment), the Dept of Justice may step in prior to
>August 24th to prevent it.  If that happens, then all current copies of Win95
>will have to be yanked back and MS will have to release a MSN-free version
>of Win95.  Needless to say, this would cost them millions of dollars and 
>the deadline could not even come close to being met.

>Rob Vanden Heuvel

Not necessarily.  They could potentialy release a with MSN version on
the 24th.  They could offer the non-MSN to those who request it later.
Packaging would not even have to be changed, just add a sticker to the
current 95 box sayin with/without MSN.  This would give the consumer
the option and stop the stupid DOJ from crapping on their parade!

I would take the with MSN of course, not that I would use MSN, I just
want 95!

Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page       

I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
that)

David

**********************************************************
* David T. Payne     "Once in a while you can get shown  *
* dpa...@wlu.edu      the light in the strangest of      *
* Washington &        places if you look at it right"    *
* Lee University      - Grateful Dead                    *
**********************************************************

In article <408vf1$19...@firehose.mindspring.com>, 
dpa...@bham.mindspring.com says...

>I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
>prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
>motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
>believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
>release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
>actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
>that)

Headline News has said the the DOJ will not take any actions 
to prevent Microsoft from shipping Win95 with MSN on
August 24th.  They will, however, continue an investigation
afterward.  


Personal Note:
--------------
Personaly I like Microsoft products.  Although, I can see
why competitors get in an uproar.  But in my opinion the only
reason thier competitors are doing poorly is because Microsoft 
just does such a better job at producing quality software for the 
average computer user.  No one is preventing Novell or Joe Schmoe
from creating a personal computer OS to compete with Microsoft.  
The computer business is not like a telephone or cable company
Almost anyone can go out and buy a computer and begin coding.
Look at what id did.  They produced a piece of software on a
non-microsoft system, that (today) runs on several non-microsoft systems.
DOOM is probably one of the most popular peices of software 
in computer history.  (of course, Microsoft is liscensing it now) ;)

-- 
=================================================================
 Thomas Kadlec                                m...@ra.msstate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 "Bitchin!...  It's fun to say... Bitchin!" - Real Japanese Guy
                           From a Big Japanese Company in Japan
=================================================================

dpa...@bham.mindspring.com (David Payne) wrote:



>I believe in order for the DOJ to get an injunction against MS to
>prevent them from shipping 95 they would have needed to file their
>motion 20 days prior to the release.  I haven't heard anything so I
>believe the DOJ has missed their time to prevent the intial 24th
>release. (It may be possible to get an injunction once the system is
>actually released, but I'm not sure how the DOJ would go about getting
>that)

>David

You are quite right David, yesterday, the DOJ announced it would not
be able to stop 95 from shipping as it could not prepare anything
before the 24th release date.  Today it was confirmed.  I guess they
will end up with just a $$$ fine.  MS also announced it would limit
the MSN start up to 500,000 people.  This seems to be a ploy to get
the rush to MSN started.  Gates at work again, no doubt.  MS also
released pricing, something like $5/mo for 3 hours and of course a
nice hourly fee of about 2.50.  I might be off on the prices by a bit,
trying to remember what I read earlier.


Omega 
om...@comtch.iea.com       
http://www.iea.com/~omega/ 
Home Of The EOD Page       

> You are quite right David, yesterday, the DOJ announced it would not
> be able to stop 95 from shipping as it could not prepare anything
> before the 24th release date.  Today it was confirmed.  I guess they
> will end up with just a $$$ fine.  MS also announced it would limit
> the MSN start up to 500,000 people.  This seems to be a ploy to get
> the rush to MSN started.  Gates at work again, no doubt.  MS also
> released pricing, something like $5/mo for 3 hours and of course a
> nice hourly fee of about 2.50.  I might be off on the prices by a bit,
> trying to remember what I read earlier.

In response to this thread, even *if* MS was told that MSN was "wrong"
somehow, they wouldn't have to recall all those CDs/DISKs.  They'd simply
have to take MSN offline.

Also, I've been using MSN now for, oh...4 months, and it's pretty nice.
I mostly just use it as an Internet access provider.  Not bad...PPP, 28.8
dialups...competitively priced.  Internet Explorer (the MS web explorer)
sucks compared to Netscape though...so you can get away with deleting that
crap.

Only thing is, it's usenet server can't be accessed by anything but it's
MSN Data Center thing.  Oh well...it's not TOO sucky (except not being
able to uuencode/decode stuff easily).