Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Bowden <bowden@cs.odu.edu> To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: editors Message-ID: <Pine.3.91.960523144120.8014E-100000@fog.cs.odu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199605231646.RAA21420@cadair.elsevier.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Paul Richards wrote: > NT is not Windows, it's a "real" OS and the admin overhead that goes with > a real OS is embodied in it. All "Win95 Approved by Billy Bob Gates himself" software MUST run on NT. M$ isn't doing that for shits and giggles. They only want one os to: a: develope (they spend real money on developement) b: support (it isn't cheap either) c: advertise (yet another expense) Bill's not stupid, and if all the 32bit soft is NT ready, the upgrade becomes painless from a user standpoint. With NT getting Win95's interface, it's not even gonna be a noticeable change, and NT isn't diff to build a single user box with ( no more than OS/2, anyway ). I don't believe in 3 - 5 years, you are gonna see more than one os available from Microsoft. Jamie I have my finger on the pulse of the planet.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.3.91.960523144120.8014E-100000>