🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert J. Murphree wrote:
> 
> I think that they do Both.  That's why they are a success.
> 
I disagree. It's true that MS has made significant improvements
over the years, but their OS is not technically superior. It does
have some good points.

> From what I understand, MacOS is not a multi-threaded OS so that
> takes it out of the picture IMO.  As far as OS/2 is concerned, yes
> it is a good OS but Win95 is a better all around OS. 

Why is multi-threading so important to you? If the new MacOS is 
NextOS, you might have to reconsider. Why is W95 better than OS/2
"all around?" Isn't OS/2 more in NT's category as far as being 
a full 32 bit OS with high stability. From what I've heard W95
isn't as stable as NT or OS/2.

> People buy brand name items from brand name companies because they
> know what they are getting.  Microsoft and IBM are both brand names
> but customer's will pick the one brand name that they feel is a
> better product.  In most cases that would be Microsoft.
> 

Microsoft has used it's marketing muscle to push just about everyone
else out of the market. Granted there's still the MacOS, solaris, etc,
but for most PC users, Microsoft is close to the only game in town.

Solaris, HP/UX, SUNOS, etc, are not really contenders for the PC
home user even if they are available on the platform. That's not what
they are for.

No matter how much you like Microsoft, don't you think it's better
if they have some real competition so there's not just one guy
driving the market? How'd you like to have 1 car company? How about
one soft drink company? One airline?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Griffin     Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mailto:dgri...@gms0.mar.lmco.com   http://www.magicnet.net/~davidg
----------------------------------------------------------------------