🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr6.102130.6975@midway.uchicago.edu>
chi9@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

<stuff deleted here and there>

>	In order to resolve whether or not Windows is an operating system, we
>are going to have to look at some other things whose extent of being operating
>systems can be determined by non-subjective methods.  Logically, one would
>pick the other things such that they will have some relation to Windows, in
>order to make the comparisons more meaningful.  Therefore, I will pick DOS and
>OS/2.

Thank you for your contribution to the argument. It's one of the best
I've seen although I don't agree with your conclusion.

>	The case of DOS is slightly less obvious, but careful application of
>numerological regressive analysis indicates that, as (again) the name implies,
>it is a deci-operating system -- that is to say, 0.1 of an operating system.
>Successive enhancements and cloning of it have brought it up to the point
>where Microsoft is currently marketing 0.5 of an operating system, while
>Digital Research/Novell is actually marketing 0.6 of an operating system.
>IBM, on the other hand, was until recently marketing 0.401 of an operating
>system for those able to see through the obvious division of an operating
>system by 2 but gullible enough to be fooled into buying a deci-operating
>system.  Previous versions of DOS have been 0.33 or less of an operating
>system.

I agrree with this.

>0.0333333333333, which gives us the astounding answer that Windows 3.0 is 1.5
>of an operating system!

By the same calculation that you used on Dos version numbers, I would
assume that Windows 3.0 is 0.3 of an operating system.

Therefore the combination of Dos 5.0 and Windows 3.0 would be 0.5 +
0.3 = 08 of an operating system.

THis numbers seems about right to me.

:-)

-- 
Thomas Farmer      | tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz | I need an apartment!
Datamark Intl Ltd  | tfarmer@datamark.co.nz | +64-4-233-8186 (work)
Technical Writer & Dos M/Wrangler           | Love is a warm beagle.