🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 at 09:41:14, Mart Rogers <mart@rogers.demon.co.uk>
wrote in demon.ip.support:
(Reference: <eRUkFDA6cjv4EwSe@rogers.demon.co.uk>)

>However, Demon imv are trying to pull a bit of a fast one here if they 
>are claiming not to support Windows NT (see Malcolm's post earlier in 
>this thread).  If Turnpike is not intended to run on NT why even bother 
>evolving from 16 to 32 bit.

Most of the discussion in this thread has centred around whether Demon
would support Win2k and has given me the impression that it was right to
expect them to provide support for ip, and for Win2k aspects of that,
but support for any version of Windows is something you should seek from
its suppliers.

If you wanted to know about Turnpike's support, that would have been
another matter. I don't think it is a matter of pedantry to understand
the question "What are Demon's plans to support Windows 2000?" as
referring to Demon, and not Turnpike. You didn't specifically ask that,
but the question you did ask raised a problem which had nothing
whatsoever to do with Turnpike and required support in installing and
configuring Windows. The discussion has centred around that issue. The
question of Turnpike support for Win2k has been mentioned in passing and
has never been in doubt - as is made clear by Richard's parallel
response.

With respect, I do not think it is fair to dismiss as pedants those who
understood you to be referring to Demon, the ISP, when you said "Demon",
and not Turnpike, the program and its producing company which you didn't
actually mention directly in the discussion. If this discussion had
taken place in demon.ip.support.turnpike, your intention to discuss
Turnpike might have been better understood, but you did raise the issue
in demon.ip.support and demon.ip.support.nt, in neither or which groups
is it immediately obvious that Turnpike would be the principle object of
your concern.
-- 
John Underwood