Re: NT: please define vapor.

Article View: comp.sys.next.misc

Article #2075

Back to comp.sys.next.misc Previous Next

#2075

From: Matthew Dillon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:52

21 lines
1159 bytes

>In article <jbone.716138069@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>
>That about sums up vapor as far as I'm concerned.  This product,
>which has no end users at all, has somehow created what basically
>amounts to market hysteria.  Sanity check!  As of today, 9/10/92,
>NT has 0, that's *0* end users.  I'd call that vapor.
>
>Standard dissing, standard disclaimers. ;)

    NT isn't vapor, it's silly to argue that it is.  It isn't going to be
    much better then 3.1 though from the users standpoint.


					    -Matt

--

    Matthew Dillon	    dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    891 Regal Rd.	    uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Berkeley, Ca. 94708     ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA 		    Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000

Technical Details

Message-ID: <dillon.0nkv@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillon

References: <1992Sep09.164238.2487@microsoft.com> <jbone.716138069@splat>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillon
From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re:  NT: please define vapor.
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <dillon.0nkv@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
References:  <1992Sep09.164238.2487@microsoft.com> <jbone.716138069@splat>
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:52:26 PST
Organization: Not an Organization
Lines: 22

Reply to Parent Message