🚀 go-pugleaf

[note followups -- where would you put this thread from hell?]

In article <40m24d$ojm@steel.interlog.com>,
Dave Glue <daveacg@interlog.com> wrote:
>jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>And are magazines really in an "ecstatic orgy"?  I really wonder when
>>>95 naysayers spout this.  Both Windows Sources and PC World have been
>>>quite honest and critical of 95.  You see a big "95" on the cover-
>>>what do you expect?  But it doesn't mean they're not objective.
>
>>Well, when every single PeeCee magazine has a big "95" on the cover,
>>visible from 50 feet away, and you constantly see articles entitled:
>
>Thank you.  That basically proved my point.
>
>>"Windows 95 - the upgrade of the century"
>
>It is, for PC users and the PC architecture in general.

   *snork*

   That is if you define "upgrade" as "converting to a OS that will
make a 586 as sprighty as a 386, and will force you to discard all
the perfectly usable '386s and '486s you've got lying around, and
really does nothing except make your machine look somewhat like the
Mac."

   If I wanted that upgrade, I'd just run out and buy VMS, which
at least pretends to be a real operating system.

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ thanks, but I'll stick with Unix.
                  \/