🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KZD5AHU@mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de> remke@cs.tu-berlin.de (Jan K. Remke) writes:
>ARE there *ANY* high end machines running under DOS.
>A HIGH END MACHINE does definately *NOT* run under such
>a single tasking system, and the very slow multitasking
>emulation called MS Windows... :-)

I'd like to mention two things here. I work with a number of different
operating systems every day, including: DOS, Windows, Windows/NT, OS/2
 (1.3.1 and 2.0), and UNIX. Each different OS has different benifits 
and drawbacks.

I'd never think of using one of my OS/2 machines to do some of my work,
and I'd never try and run my SQL server on a DOS box. (not that I even
could. . .). Each has it's uses.

Second, What do you mean by "high end machine?". I've got some DOS
boxes around here with windows that might well blow the doors off
alot of their competitors, but if I put it up against a Multiprocessor
RISC box, they'd look like an AMC Pacer.

If you're going to make a broad generalization, at least offer some sort
of fact or SOMETHING to back it up. "Slamming" an OS for the sake of
"slamming" dosn't do anyone any good. If, on the other hand, you prove
that OS/2 or UNIX is better for something, then present that, as well as how
you discovered that info.

That's useful.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* garthb@microsoft.com | "I've lost my cookies. Could someone give  * 
*                      |  me a pointer?"                            *
---------------------------------------------------------------------