home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!msmith
- From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
- Subject: Re: Impressions of Windows NT
- Message-ID: <y=qmc2#.msmith@netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:24:07 GMT
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1992Jul29.112608.8662@fics.uucp> <1992Jul30.093454.27114@wsl.ie>
- Lines: 34
-
- In article <1992Jul30.093454.27114@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
- >ekl@fics.uucp writes:
- >:
- >: NT is not a multiuser system in the sence that several people hook
- >: up terminals and use the system simultaneously. However, the system
- >: is multiuser in the sence that it can store several different user
- >: profiles, and differentiate between them when they use *one*
- >: computer at *different* times.
- >:
- >: In my book, that is not "multi-user", so "flatly wrong" may be a little
- >: strong. Anyway, it looks like a nice OS. The user interface is not quite
- >
- >Although I'm no Windows NT fan I believe it is a multi-user OS but not
- >in the traditional sense. I believe that traditional multi-user should
- >really be called 'simultaneous multi-user' to indicate that the machine
- >knows about multiple users and can also allow them to use the machine
- >simultaneously.
-
- Give me a Mother F..... break I do not think anybody would seriously think that
- a system that does not support CONCURRENT multiple users is a multi user system
-
- If multiple user profiles is considered enough to make a system multi user then
- DOS can be made multi user. Just create a little old routine that stores
- different autoexec.bats and a baby menu that allows you to enter a name and
- voila MULTI-USER DOS.
-
- Microsoft must hope that we are all morons who believe what they say all the
- time.
-
- Please get a grip multiple user profiles does not equate to multi user.
-
-
- Martin Smith
- msmith@netcom.com
-