🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nDioMWAY+av4EwF$@thehulls.demon.co.uk>, Robert Hull
<Robert@thehulls.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <ti0$lVAM7Qv4EwGf@scout.demon.co.uk>, Chris Wilkinson
><chris@scout.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>In article <1suegPAz7Ev4EwF1@thehulls.demon.co.uk>, Robert Hull
>><Robert@thehulls.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>No, but your contribution allowed the interpretation that you expected
>>>Demon to support W2000, rather than just to support IP connections that
>>>have the misfortune to be made via W2000.
>>
>>I might be wrong here but the dial up accounts are a domestic and small
>>business product where Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 are common.  Demon has
>>supported these OS.
>
>Again, I dispute that. Demon has always supported people's use of many
>OS's _in so far as it relates to IP connections to Demon Internet_

Its a fine distinction between supporting the o/s and supporting the use
of the operating system as far as connecting to Demon, too often we have
been told of enquiries to the help desk being brushed off when NT is
mentioned 'oh no we don't support that', ever since 3.51!. 
Yet for SBS supplied by Demon the situation is different. Of course,
they have paid more.
So many NT users will be left (again, again) to their own resouces
making offerings such as Surftime (where presumably support is/will be
non existent or highly expensive) even more attractive. At least no
worse than Demon's.
Demon will (IMO) have to offer its dial up users something more if it
actually wants to retain a customer base of dial up users.
-- 
John Chapple