🚀 go-pugleaf

kellcrai@cwis.isu.edu (Inconnu) wrote:

>In article <3vu47o$psu@steel.interlog.com>,
>Dave Glue <daveacg@interlog.com> wrote:

>>The fact is, 95 is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, step up from
>>Windows.  Because of this, it's incomparable to a brand-new OS written
>>from the ground up.

>Yeah, right.  
>Spoon-fed by Microsoft-- why don't you read up on Win95??  There is almost
>nothing new that wasn't there in WfW3.11-- it looks different; they renamed
>MSDOS.SYS and you think it's a new system.  It's a lot more stable because
>it relies on V86 a lot more, but it's nothing new.

To say there's nothing new in 95 from WFWG 3.11 is moronic.  But to
say 95 is a completely new OS is as well.  Which is why I said it's an
evolutionary step, not revolutionary.  Can you not READ?

>>That doesn't mean 95 won't have bugs- just that its "bugs" are far
>>less severe than 3.1's major architectural flaws.

>True, MS has gone to great extents to beta-test this; I wish every 
>developer would do this.

How can an OS so similar to WFWG 3.11 not have the same architectural
flaws?

Thanks for a pointless post.