🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jragosta-0609951347510001@ppp-1016.dca.net> jragosta@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) writes:
>From: jragosta@dca.net (Joe Ragosta)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 6 Sep 1995 17:46:07 GMT

>In article <42b97r$paf$2@mhafm.production.compuserve.com>, Nathan Jones
><73754.717@CompuServe.COM> wrote:


>> 
>> BTW: What caused the confusion about whether system 7.5 has everything
>> a GOOD machine has is that it has 32-bit addressing and some degree of
>> plug&play (which is no more real than Micorsoft's, since ALL SCSI
>> peripherals are P&P, and MS's only works with major brand name parts)

>If you're trying to compare MacOS PnP to Microsoft's, you _really_ don't
>have a clue. MacOS PnP _works_. Win3.1 doesn't even have it and Win95
>works some percentage (<< 100%) of the time.

	I think it is easier for a company which in fact does have a form of monopoly 
(Apple) to create a PnP system. They make all the hardware of CURSE they can 
make it PnP, they designed it they sure as hell better be able to. However to 
add PnP to a giant group of hardware and then have it work "some percentage" 
sounds good to me.  It aint perfect but it has worked pretty darn good for me. 
There really is no comparison between the two.

	Stephen Johnston
	stephenj@mindspring.com

>-- 
>Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
>Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
>in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
>this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
>constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation
>to docjoe@interramp.com and Postmaster@microsoft.com