🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan19.012804.13784@bsu-ucs>, 01mbmccabe@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> > More people aren't using OS/2 becuase:
> > 
> >     a) OS/2 1.x was _terrible_... even worse than Windows 3.0
> >     b) People using DOS aren't aware of the fact that it'll do DOS
> >        better than DOS can; not to mention the added functionality
> >        they'll be getting (multitasking, a GUI, etc).
> >     c) People using DOS/Windows are convinced that, "Oh well, Windows
> >        is pretty sucky, OS/2's probably just as bad.  Might as well
> >        stick with what I have now."
> >     d) MS has brainwashed people into thinking Windows is "cool" and
> >        "the way of the future".
> >     e) People are too lazy (and too stupid) to install any software
> >        onto their system, beyond the stuff that came with it in the
> >        first place (betcha there's a million DOS 3.3 users still out
> >        there).
> >     f) They were too intimidated by the installation diskettes...
> >        there's ~29 of them.
> 
> So...If I ever were to become infected with the clone-virus, but I did not
> become lazy or stoopid, OS/2 would likely be the best choice for me if my
> primary uses for the computer are wordprocessing, and T-comm; secondary are
> programming and games-playing?

Yes.  If you ran into a nasty game (ie, Ultima VII), you could boot DOS
to run it, and go back to OS/2 when you're done playing (especially if
you kept a 20M or 30M partition for DOS, and the rest for OS/2).

Add DTP to the above list of primary uses, and you've pretty much got me
(add raytracing and animation to the secondary uses)...  IMHO OS/2 is
the only logical choice, unless you're utterly in love with Micro$oft.
-- 
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca