HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.145533.7862@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.041214.16986@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
>jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>|> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
>|> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.
>|> 
>|> >Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0",
>|> IMO.
>|> >It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>|> >two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>|> >definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.
>
>You are right, that's why is now called /NT, after MS and IBM decided not
>to develop a new OS together (not to say they started their OS war)
>
>|> Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
>|> (including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.
>
>Don't blame them for it. The July PDK calls itself Version 3.1 at the startup
>screen. I assume to show that this /NT is the High-End pendant to WIN 3.1
>
>Those things are just normal. Remember Digital research called their followup
>of DR-DOS 3.41, Version 5.0 to be one version number ahead MS-DOS. And MS
>did something similar with their SQL-Server.
>

But honestly, most of MS-Dos ver 5.0's feature is there in DR-DOS ver 5.0.
Maybe Digital Research is right afterall.

>Christoph
>-- 
>Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>Fido: 2:243/660


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:55:12 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: "world"

In article <wiegand.717773743@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>[Most of chart deleted]
>
>>Total for Windows:					=	91.87
>>Total for OS/2:					=      205.34
>
>>Conclusion... OS/2 users must have 22 times *** the number of problems that
>>Windows users do.  (Think about it... ignoring advocacy postings, most
>
>Try again -> 205/92 = 2.2
Wrong... there is approximately 11X more Windows users than OS/2 users.
Thus one could expect (all other things being equal) 11X more messages
about Windows than OS/2.  Thus I said 22X messages per user.  This is of
course ridiculous...  I don't really believe that OS/2 has 22 times the
problems of Windows.
I can think of a dozen factors as to why that 22X figure is misleading.
Still, it does seem clear from the numbers that OS/2 users have more
trouble than Windows users.

...
>I would expect that most Windows users use their machines to run a few
>different Windows programs, one at a time.
>The OS/2 users are running DOS, Windows, and OS/2 programs, and are more
>likely to be running multiple programs at the same time.
>Plus OS/2 is a more powerful operating system, and as such there is more
>to learn about to become an expert.

I don't believe this one... at least not for the reasons you state.
There are plenty of people out there multitasking with Windows 3.X
and they clearly have the harder job as Windows 3.X is not really
up to the rough stuff.  OS/2 _should_ be easier to use... the protect
mode should help make program crashes softer, etc.  But from my own
personal experience I've found I often had to ask questions
about OS/2 because of poor documentation and overly complex and buggy 
interfaces.  A scan of the groups seem to confirm that this was often
the case there too.

...
>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:50:32 GMT

In <1992Sep25.005328.17332@microsoft.com> tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston) writes:

>One reason that we would like to see many people with CD's
>is that it becomes economical for us to distribute technical
>information widely & cheaply on CD.

Yes, there are a lot of reasons why VENDORS might like to see their
customers having CD's.  Of course, having all that technical
documentation on CD is somewhat less useful than having it on paper,
IMHO.  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
question is why would WE want to?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ian's Outlook on OS'es
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:54:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.celc7W200VRB0=YEkz
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
> whatsoever.  There really isn't any need for another shell.  The reason that
> no one has come up with a finder replacement is that Apple would sue the pants
> off anyone who tried.  (Until recently that is)  The reason that there is a
> market for third party shells for Windows, is that the Windows shell is such a
> pain that is becomes almost unusable.

I thought that the reason the finder was not an integral part of the
system was so you could replace it with something else if you wanted
to.  I know some people who have such products.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172133.23442@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <7497@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Raw computing power is wasted if the CPU has to sit around waiting to get
>>something to compute. Fast disk and fast video have just as much of an effect
>>on overall performance as does a fast CPU. I shudder to think just how much
>>time my 386/40 is wasting waiting on my Trident SVGA; there's a faster card in
>>my future, but it's going to wait for the OS/2 driver issue to settle down.
>
>Psst!  8514/a.
>
>
Psst! Psst! xga-2

1280x1024 resolution
65,536 colors at 640x480
1MB VRAM
graphics coprocessor
SVGA modes
busmaster 
$270 (NEP)
ISA version available from Radius


-- 
 < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:       rj+@osu.edu   > 
 < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
 < 338 West Tenth Avenue       |    FAX:(9-5PM)  (614) 292-7151 > 
 < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |        "eschew obfuscation"    >      
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:27:31 GMT

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com>,
sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
>olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>
>>When NT finally will be available (by the
>>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
>
>Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
>Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
>with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
>When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
>instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.
>

     It may make sense to do this *if* you think that OS/2 users
will be satisfied running Windows programs.  Although Win-OS/2 works
very well (better than Win 3.0 did, and just as fast), I would
rather have native apps, and haven't bought any Windows apps for
quite a while (which means I haven't bought *any* apps :-(   ).
     I don't think it's a correct assumption to think that OS/2
users
will want to use windows apps, though.  NT users probably won't mind
because of the association with the name.  It's pretty apparent that
Win NT is a completely different entity than Win 3.1, though.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6794 comp.sys.intel:1842 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26012
From: oistony@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anthony M. Petro)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:40:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct2.235540.24297@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes...
>In article <1ai5sbINNi7l@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>>In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>>IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
>>>to some Asian manufacturers. AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix
>>
>>I thought IBM could only sell the Intel-licensed processors if they
>>sold as part of a complete computer, or at least a motherboard.  I did
>>read about IBM selling just processors in one of the rumor/gossip columns.
>>--
>><-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
> 
>It is my impression that IBM can only clone Intel chips for *internal* use.
>I think they want to start selling them alone. 
> 
>Their 386SLC and 486DLC-2 (is that right?) sound like pretty good chips.

the last issue of electronic engineering times had some things to say 
about this issue, including that ibm was either thinking of or 
actually selling their processors to others on the "merest scrap" of a 
piece of pc board, so as to fulfill the letter, if not the intent, of 
the ibm/intel agreement.  it also goes on to say that ibm has sold a 
significant number of their own processors to asian mboard 
manufacturers...



anthony m. petro   "beethoven"    i can say what i want; i'm just an undergrad
oistony@UBVMSD.BITNET             "frame by frame,
petro@eng.buffalo.edu              death by drowning,
petro@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu         in your own
                                   in your own...
                                   analysis..."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:09:15 GMT

In article <BvBI4u.AnI@research.canon.oz.au> andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>.... A seceratary
>>>who types things and maybe does scheduling and makes phone calls does not
>>>need preemptive multitasking.  A developer, or a server, or a network
>>>manager might need a preemptive multitasking system.
>>>
>>
>>You're correct, the secretary doesn't need it [PMT - the scheduling
>>kind :-)]  Its the people who write the applications he/she is using.
>>It sures makes life easier (thank god NT, like OS/2, has the necessary
>>OS features) for the developers.
>>
>
>I should clarify what I said here otherwise I'll sound just like Peter
>(wouldn't want that would we :-)
>
>By "PMT is good for the developers" I mean they don't have to design
>around it or do it themselves (and end up with the god awful TSR mess
>in MS-DOS). I do not mean that only developers need PMT but that by
>making use of a decent OS their applications are easier to create.
>
>-- 
>Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"


Thank god that someone else feels the way I do.  I was beginning to feel
like a voice in the wilderness.  I've kept saying that "printing in the
background, downloading in the background, waiting for mail... were
trivial."  Why?  Because I've been doing this with *DOS* and a huge
"TSR mess."  But--THANK GOD FOR OS/2/NT FOR THE NECESSARY OS FEATURES TO
WRITE APPLICATIONS. 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.041110.14388@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>p.s. - I know none of you are wondering how I got my copy of Windows 3.0,
>but I am going to tell you anyways.  I bought a Microsoft bus mouse about
>two months ago, I don't have a 5.25" drive, so I sent in the form for a
>free 3.5" disk containing the mouse drivers.  Well, when I opened the
>package, out poured *eight* disks to my surprise.  1 mouse driver disk,
>and 7 windows 3.0 disks!  I guess MS is giving away copies of windows 3.0
>to anyone hoping that they will install it and like it enough to go and
>buy the new version.  I can't imagine anyone not knowing about windows 3.0
>or windows 3.1 and just installing 3.0 not knowing what to expect.  
>Hmmm...I guess their are many people out their who know what Windows is
>but have never tried it, so MS gives them a free copy of an older version
>to try, they like it and buy the new version!  Sounds good to me!

I guess this one is counted as yet another copy of Windows that has been
"sold" or "shipped" ....

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.040718.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>,
f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.121944.5568@gw.wmich.edu>, 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
|> writes:
|> 
|> YES!  I have Flight Simulator, and I also have Wolfenstein and Civilization.
|> (Under Windows, I have a number of Wingames like Chess and Tetris.  Oh
|> yeah, and Solitaire too. :-)  I have had problems running the latter 2 under
|> my Windows setup (any MS employees have recommended PIF settings?), but FS
|> runs just great.
|> 
|> Sure, they are most definitely non-productivity applications, but
|> sometimes even the most productive people need a break, and a game-
|> friendly multitasking OS seems to be just the ticket.

I agree fully. That's why IBM put Solitair and Reversi in OS/2.


|> "[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
|> 	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
|> "The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."

Where? In Wolfenstein or Civilization? And are they using OS/2 or /NT :-)

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston)
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:22:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Folks, please note the ">> >>" in the article below.  Mr. Lacy has
attributed to me lines which I did not write, but merely replied to.

Mr. Lacy then goes on to berate posters (presumably me) who are
not sufficiently well-informed.

I confess my sins.  They are plentiful.  Please do not add
additional ones which I did not commit.

Tom Johnston
tomjo@microsoft.com
____
My opinion

In article <kekmkWS00WB2BQ7ohB@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 25-Sep-92 Desynchronized
>Message Queu.. by Tom Johnston@microsoft.c 
>> >>one of the major problems porting to OS/2 is that you must immediately
>> >>multithread your app or you block the other PM apps.
>
>THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT.  I program OS/2 PM.  It is possible that if
>you're a stupid programmer, and don't follow general windowing
>environment programming rules, that you will block all other *INPUT*
>into the PM, but the processes will still be going in the background,
>even though you can't see them changing, or type into them.  But, to get
>this to happen, again, you have to have one hell of a stupid programmer.
> (You actually have to TRY to get this to happen)  
>
>Also, In OS/2 there are two types of threads: Quoting Petzold in
>"Programming the OS/2 Presentation Manager" page 803
>
>Threads used in Presentaion Manager programs fall into two categories:
>"message queue threads" and "non-message queue threads"  A thread
>becomes a message queue thread when it calls WinCreateMsgQueue.  ...
>
>So, each thread can have its own message queue, if that's what you want. 
>
>Steve
>
>p.s.   Too many people on these bboards are misinformed, or not informed
>at all, but they want to think that they are, so they make things up. 
>Don't talk about programming any system until you've really done what
>you're talking about.  Then I'll believe you.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:17:52 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct05.080217.12694@microsoft.com> mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos) writes:
>
>When Digital Research cloned MS-DOS, Microsoft didn't try to sue them
>  out of business. On the other hand, it hardly seems (in light of
>  industry history) an example of the "Dark Side" when we don't help
>  them debug their code when they have problems doing a good job in
>  cloning. After all, Windows 3.1 works fine with MS-DOS 3 which has
>  only given them about seven years to study it.

But MS was helping other companies debug their apps when porting from
3.0 to 3.1.  They refused to help DR simply because that product was
in direct competition with MS's mainstay: DOS.  Sounds a bit unfair to
me.  If you help one company, you have to help any who ask.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:26:36 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct5.161852.22158@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.094937.25572@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>>It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
>>need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
>>etc.
>
>Developers don't need full networking?  There won't be many networking
>apps out of that's MS's attitude!  If MS wants to push networking on
>the population, they're going to need good ISV support for their
>network facilities, and withholding them from the SDK isn't going to
>help.

Think!  What he means is that LAN Manager for NT is not included.
TCP/IP and the peer-to-peer stuff, RPC, etc are all there.

>
>No, I think they were omitted from the pre-release kit because they
>weren't ready yet.

You wish.

>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 27 Sep 92 09:29:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.welSyHm00UhW82D3MR
Distribution: world
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 27-Sep-92 Re: OS/2 Future
Trends and .. by Faisal Nameer Jawdat@and 
> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
> > puting world by Apple.  The Nubus and MCA bus architectures that these com-
> > panies use in their machines are among the most advanced
architectures in th
> e
> > personal computing world.  I could name lots of things that these companies
>  
> isn't Nubus TI's design?
> otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest of you post
> (personal opinion: MCA rocks - quickring wishes it was MCA)

TI?  Motorola designed Nubus for use with its 680x0 processors.  That's
what I've been told at least.

For quickring specs, look at the new BYTE (October).  There's a chart of
Rated Bus Performance.  It compares ISA, EISA, MCA, PCI (Intel's new
bus), 32 bit VL-Bus and 64-bit VL-Bus (Standardized local bus), and
Quickring.  How can you say quickring wishes it was MCA if quickring has
a speed of 350 MBps! Plus check out the figure about the twisted ring
topology of quickring, letting cards transfer data to each other, not
just to the cpu.
From: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: How many people are working on OS/2 and NT?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 05:15:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I'm curious about the number of people who are working at IBM on
OS/2 2.0 and at Microsoft on Windows, and, separately, NT.

Also, how many people (and who) are working on MS/PC-DOS?

Can anyone give a reasonably well-informed answer?

Please, let's not get into a debate about which company can produce
more code with fewer programmers, etc.

I'm simply interested in the human investment that each of the companies
have put into their respective products.

-- 

Brian Mathewson   bbm@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu
                  bbm at Cleveland Freenet
From: ahummel@ems.cdc.com (H. Austin Hummel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: you@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Sep30.175139.22736@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
|> |> >2. OS/2 is *almost* stable enough to run in a so-called mission critical
|> |> >   environment.  It *is* stable enough to run as a network server without
|> |> >   its buggy graphical interface.  I've just run into one too many, and
|> |> >   that was two months ago.
|> |> > 
|> |> 
|> |> I think its about time to explode the myth that OS/2 is ALMOST stable
|> |> enough to have mission critical applications run on it.
|> |>
|> 
|> I fully agree. If OS/2 is stable, I don't wanna know, how an unstable
|> OS will behave.
|>  
|> |> During development OS/2 crashed twice.
|> 
|> Twice what? Twice a day? Twice a week?
|> 
|> Many people report that they have no problems with OS/2, but most of
|> them use it only for multitasking DOS-Sessions.

But isn't that enough, with 96 million systmes and 7 million windows
users, a multi dos running system is great!!!