Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???

Article View: comp.os.os2

Article #539

#539

From: John J. Allen
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:42

15 lines
1199 bytes

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
: Strange... OS/2 was extremely buggy and unstable in it's early incarnations
: (1.2 was awful!, and I'm told earlier versions were worse).
: I've worked with NT enough already to know it's more stable that 1.2
: was... I guess a miracle has occured!  Shall we take this a sign that
: NT has been blessed? :-)

NT has been blessed by Dave Cutler and his merry band of absolutely brilliant
engineers, what have had Microsoft (bg) strangle a beautiful OS(/2) by 
clampin the MS-Windows User Interface API onto it.

And NT it is more stable than OS/2 1.[0-2] because Microsoft used some real
quality engineers on it instead of the old-time hackers.

Oh I feel better with that off my chest.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Aug31.094223.17876@wsl.ie>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!wsl!jja

References: <1992Aug29.132709.5155@hellgate.utah.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!wsl!jja
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Message-ID: <1992Aug31.094223.17876@wsl.ie>
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
References: <1992Aug29.132709.5155@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:42:23 GMT
Lines: 15

Reply to Parent Message