: |> : |> None of this changes the fact that MSW3.1 is objectively inferior to its
: |> : |> competition.
: |> 
: |> : Do you mean that MSW3.1 is objectively inferior in _some_ respects (which
: |> : is trivially true), that it is objectively inferior in _all_ respecets
: |> : (which is trivially false) or do you mean something else? What criteria
: |> : have you chosen for your objective assesment? Are you sure that these
: |> : criteria are themselves objective?
: |> 
: |> I believe that enough is inferior to make it overall as a product
: |> inferior to its competition-- Apple System 7, OS/2 2.0, NeXTStep 3.0,
: |>                               UNIX/Xwindows (pick your favorite flavor).

: In other words, it is your *opinion* that MSW3.1 is inferior to its
: competition.  That's not the same as MSW3.1 being objectively inferior.

No.  It is technically inferior to the OS/GUIs that I listed.  I have already
described why.  To say briefly:

System 7 --easier to learn and use.  There have been independent studies to 
           that effect.
OS/2     --Can run MSW applications and has more stable multitasking.
NeXTSTep --easier to learn, use, and program. More stable multitasking
UNIX/X   --As easy to learn and use.  More stable multitasking.

With the prpoer setup, all of these will exchange data with MSW machines as
well as MSW machines will amongst themselves, so interoperability is not
an issue.

By this criterion, it is inferior.  If you have another, then perhaps I am
incorrect.  Do you pick up the glove?