Received: from upsmot01.msn.com ([204.95.110.78]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA27553 for <executor@nacm.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:05:43 -0700
Received: by upsmot01.msn.com id AA09110; Thu, 22 Jun 95 22:04:23 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 05:02:24 UT
From: Jesse Sightler <Jess3DO@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL04.199506230503280908@msn.com>
To: executor@nacm.com, "Michael H. Jackson" <mjackson@cln.etc.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: Why a Windows 95 version?
Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
Precedence: bulk
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.
