🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7APR199209593168@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes...
>In article <1992Apr7.131856.20251@alw.nih.gov>, donnel@helix.nih.gov 
>(Donald A. Lehn) writes...
> 
>>Even more interisting, this suggests that this was produced by a 32-bit
>>version of Pagemaker running on NT.  Perhaps Microsoft may be closer to
>>dropping the NT bombshell on OS/2 2.0 than we have been led to
>>believe and with a whole slew of 'NT' specific applications at the same
>>time.
> 
>Which again raises the question regarding what market segment NT is gearing 
>for.  Based on previous threads, NT was going to be priced beyond the 
>"average" stand alone user (and functionally beyond the needs of the 
>"average" user), while OS/2 2.0 is offered as an alternative to the Windows
>-MS DOS combo.  With 3.1 on the streets, maybe more info will be 
>forthcoming on NT.
> 
>JD
Yes, I would like to know more too about NT's pricing.  I assume this has 
not yet been set, but from what I've been hearing (495-995), it is being
priced like MS OS/2 1.x was priced.  I hope MS releases some version of NT 
that is affordable for non-corporate desktop  users.  Since the system is
modular, maybe this would entail unbundling optional subsystems (POSIX?)
and removing security features (C2 security is likely to slow the system
down).   Perhaps someone from Microsoft can clarify this. 
andy mendelsohn

ps. win 3.1 is impressive.