home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news.dell.com!texsun!digi!harlie!mitch
- From: mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
- Message-ID: <Bx73Kr.44D@harlie.lonestar.org>
- Date: 4 Nov 92 14:14:49 GMT
- References: <1992Oct29.194450.9856@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Oct29.102113.27239@microsoft.com> <1992Oct30.100235.25484@microsoft.com>
- Organization: Motorcycle Riders Anonymous
- Lines: 29
-
- petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
- >So, IMHO, complaining that MS is fibbing to the market by calling Windows
- >an OS doesn't understand that the market doesn't care what the technical
- >definition of an OS is, and doesn't want to care about things technical
- >if at all possible. It may be that people are trying to get an ego boost
- >by telling netland that they know what an OS is better than the MS marketing
- >department, but I guess thats their right.
-
- This is a first -- a programming newsgroup where someone touts the computer
- 'expertise' of marketdroids as support for their argument. :-> :->
-
- Pete -- When Microsoft sells Windows as an operating system - that is when
- I can buy a copy of Windows 3.1; take it home and boot/install it on a 'virgin'
- hard disk; without purchasing a copy of MsDos to support it - then I'll
- believe it is an Operating System (mabe :-))
-
- Check out what it says on the Windows 3.0 5 1/4" diskettes:
-
- "Microsoft(r) Windows (tm)"
- *** "Graphical Environment"
- [... disk number and startup instructions deleted...]
- *** "For DOS Systems"
-
- I never bothered with 3.1 :-> so I can't quote from those diskettes.
-
-
- --
- * mitch@harlie.lonestar.org Mitch Mitchell *
- * {digi| egsner | letni}!harlie!mitch Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
-