🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <7NMQwAuLCtcK084yn@source.asset.com> - oconnorw@source.asset.com (Bi
ll Oconnor) writes:
:>
:>In article <41q9r5$n4g@camco.celestial.com>,
:>                    bill@camco2.celestial.com (Bill Campbell) wrote:
:>
:>>Flightline (flightline@aol.com) wrote:
:>>: Why dont you guys get off off Microsofts case.  Lets not forget who
:>>: trained the IBM staff in 32bit OS coding.  Gee was it Microsoft.  If those
:>>: Beamers werent such assholes then Microsoft would've continued the
:>>: partnership.
:>
:>>MS trained IBM on 32 bit OS coding?  That's the funniest thing I've
:>>seen in a long time.  First off, the only real Operating System that
:>>MS ever worked on was Xenix back around 1982 (when they got it working
:>>on a real 32-bit chip, the Motorola 68000).  Everything else MS had
:>>done is a BDPL (Brain-Damaged Program Loader).
:>
:>The thought that Microsoft trained IBM on 32-bit coding is not
:>just funny, it is "wacky".  Only a true Microsoft "loonie" could
:>come up with such drivel.


It's the theory of the Big Lie - say something often enough - no matter how 
ridiculous - and eventually there are people who believe it. 
Paradoxically, the bigger the lie, the easier it gets swallowed.

Speaking of which, they finally showed the CNN program comparing WARP and 95. 
The part where the Paid Microsoft Liar 'explained' (with an absolutely 
straight face) that the reason that WARP blew 95 out of the water when it 
came to multitasking was because WARP decided to sacrifice backward 
compatibility for performance, whereas 95 was more concerned with backward 
compatibility just about knocked me out of my chair.



<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
 [RJ]
 rj friedman Taibei, Taiwan
 rjf@tpts1.seed.net.tw
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>