[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Why a Windows 95 version?



Actually, OS/2 is a better overall OS than Win95, though.  Multitasking 
support for Windows and DOS apps is better than under Win95, and the GUI even 
has some advantages.  Microsoft's decision to use a 16-bit kernal in Win95 is 
a bit silly, if you ask me.  :)  The system can really have some clumsy 
quirks if you compare it to a nice stable OS like OS/2.


----------

From: 	owner-paper@nacm.com on behalf of Michael H. Jackson
Sent: 	Thursday, 
June 22, 1995 5:06 PM
To: 	executor@nacm.com
Subject: 	Re: Why a Windows 95 
version?

At 12:17 PM 22/6/95 -0400, you wrote:
>I, for one, would much 
rather see a version running under an established OS
>with a proven track 
record (like OS/2 or even Windows 3.x) than a Windows 95
>version, since I 
don't see my workplace switching to Win/95 for a year or
>more, and I likely 
won't use it at home at all.
> 
I would love a win95 version. What I've 
seen from running win95 for the last
month or two has convinced me to 
switch. It's a neat and good system. The
E/d version runs (mostly) under it.


Win95 is looking pretty solid already, and certainly seems robust.
...

Mike Jackson

||||| Jesse D. Sightler |||||