🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40orsb$nla@steel.interlog.com>,
daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:
> terjeb@vestnett.no (Terje A. Bergesen) wrote:

[Compress]
> >Well, very few of these magazines put on the fron cover:
> >"Windows 95, a complete failure" and in small prints under
> >that "Not even ONE of the features MS promissed have been
> >delivered on".
> 
> Most magazines have no desire to lie outright.  MS has delivered on
> most of their "promises" (did they ever "promise" anything)?  Every
> review of 95 in these magazines I've read has always indicated:

 - Fully 32 bit OS.
 - preemptive multitasking of new and legacy apps.
 - memory protection.
 - delivered in 1993, no, 1994, ...

> 1)Many of the GUI "enhancements" the Mac has had for a while, but it
> is significant for the PC community.

There is not one significant part of the UI of Windows 95 that
OS/2 hasn't had since version 2.0.

> 2) Despite the promises of full-protection, 32-bit apps are not fully
> protected.
> 
> 3) There is still some DOS code in it.
> 
> The magazines I've read are from this year, not 2-3 years ago when the
> "details" on Win95 were that its code name was "Chicago".

About a year and a half ago, the first beta of Chicago was
"accidently" send to several computer magazines.

> No, closer to the truth in your own wishfull-thinking,
> platform-bigoted view.  They've actually used 95.  They like it,
> because it's far from flawless (NO OS is), but it certainly is a very
> good product.

MS promised more or less that Windows 95 would be something
in the class of NT, minus security and stuff, but with close
to 100% compatibility as a bonus. They "promised" an OS that
would be 32 bit, multithreaded and multitasking, with memory
protection. They didn't deliver. And STILL the press is
extatic.

Lets have another car analogy.

1993 Ford promises:
New car, completely crash proof, will run through the US on
one litre of petrol, space inside for the whole family,
including an extra room for your mother in law. Will do
200 MpH without making any noice.

1995 Ford delivers:
A car that is very ordinary, beautiful paint job, but just
a bit slower than average. Uses a bit more gasoline than
average, and can ALMOST house the whole family, and the dog.

Would car magazines be extatic over this new car? Even if
it was easier to drive than the 1994 model? Why is the
computer press extatic. They are supposedly computer literate.
Windows 95 is the WORST - technically - OS that will be sold
to the general PC community in 1996. Still they are extactic.



_______________________________________________________________________
Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data