🚀 go-pugleaf

> > This is not unique to the Macintosh. Minor OS revisions often have 
> > performance improvements: Win3.0 -> 3.1, OS/2 2.0 -> 2.1, WinNT 3.1 -> 
> > 3.5, ... Win96/97 will probably have better performance than 95.
> > 
>  
>  What a crock.:-)  Everyone knows that everytime MS upgrades that bloated
> OS called Windows, it gets slower. If it didn't, the clone fans wouldn't
> be drooling all over Pentium Pros.
> 
>  Now the Amigas OS (OTHO) does get faster with updates. Anyone going from
> AmigaOS 1.3 to 3.1 can tell you that the performance of their system
> improved. Anyone going from Win2 to Win(whatever) can tell you of hardware
> upgrade stories.
> 
>  The bloat in Microsoft Windows code has done more to improve the Intel
> chips then anyone wanting the apps on the system to run faster (which is
> just a nice side affect.) 
> 
>  Throw enough hardware at something, and you can get  *any* piece of
> software to run faster. I guess this makes up for bad/sloppy code. :-)
> 
>  Microsoft is the only company _I_ know of that has 80 million Beta
> testers and still can't get it right!


   I've used Amigas, Macs and IBM clones. The best OS I've worked with is 
AmigaDOS. I know it doesn't have all the software but the OS is slammin! 
Macs and Windows 95 come in second. They are almost the same except 
System 7.5 is a little more responsive than Windows.

Peace