🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 11:15:52 GMT, Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.ns.nl> wrote:

>daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>>On Sat, 06 Jan 1996 20:08:46 -0800, Remy Saville <rem@guild.bc.ca>
>>No, Nashville will likely be released before mind-96.  Minor upgrades,
>>nothing spectacular.  It's basically the "fix pack", and why not name
>>it Win96 is the process?  People aren't going to like buying a "95"
>>product in 96, and MS knows that.
>
>Not to mention that naming it Win96 offers them the added revenues from
>*selling* this ("basically") fix pack...
>I wonder how people would react if car vendors acted the same way:
>You buy a car that says it has ABS (anti blocking system, English?), but when
>you need it (and to put it in Jerry Pournelle-lingo, you need it badly) and
>stomp on the brakes, they turn out to hung by plastic and just break. After
>having been dismissed from County General Hospital (*if* you're lucky), you
>complain to the vendor, which says: "oh, you can buy this year's model, it
>fixes that problem". Who would smack this vendor in the face?

The upgrade is supposedly going to be free for previous Win95 owners.


>>>Why does nobody compare OS/2 to win95 or copland?  Its better than win95, 
>>>better than what I hear about copland, and its out now, with a nice update 
>>>due out in a few months. (Merlin)
>>Software.  Industry support.  
>
>This is hardly intelligable English, but it sure smells like the MS party line
>of "no software for OS/2", which is *only* true if the final criterium for there
>to be "software" is the existence of MS Office...

And it's hardly my quote either.  Take the time to reply to both
seperate messages, please.