🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> In article <5gsssh$bvk@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>, crobato@kuentos.guam.net wrote:

> >Nonsense.  This goes against the grain and every prediction and
> >expectation of everyone in 1992 and 1993 about NT and Cairo.
> 
> Please provide sources for this Chris.  You can't, because they don't exist.

Erik,

The Source is in your library Erik.  Try looking up a trade rag from
1992.
This is has become a Sophmoric rant where you hold you personal
ignorance.

The sources do exist.  MS dissemented lots of information about CAIRO
and NT starting back in 1992 which is where was first exposed to CARIO. 
I have seen that MS material in hard copy as it was given to Windows
Developers who were learning OLE. 

> I challenge you to name 10 products that MS was more than 3 months late with.
> I can name dozens that were on time or early.

You have gotten absurd.

Try naming just *one dozen( of MS products -- of the many dozens -- that
were on time or early.  Office97 -- nope. 


There are two classes of people: those who MS lied to about CARIO / NT
and OLE and those who were not important enoungh to be lied to by MS. 
You have decided to spin those who were insigificant and do not matter
and as an added plus you get to mildly irritate those who were lied to
by MS and remember the lies.  Big deal.  You could also get attention by
peeing in your pants in public and milding irritating people.

Windows 1.0, windows 2.0  windows 3.0 windows 95 and apparently windows
97 are/were late.
NT3.1 and NT 4.0 and Apparently NT 5.0 are all very late.


-- 
Joseph Coughlan
Replies are welcome at joseph_coughlan@otter.montery.edu