yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (05/16/89)
Ok. If we're going to have an argument let's do it with maturity and drop the childish flaming. Hopefully, we'll salvage something worthwile from a discussion with such a bleak beginning, and the other people on the net won't think us complete morons. Obviously, we were both rather emotional when we wrote our respective postings: me, because I was disappointed in Windows/286 for what it didn't do, you, because (I can only speculate) you didn't appreciate the criticism towards MS. Let's stop this now. At the end of your posting, you _told_ me to email flames directly to you, I don't consider this a flame and I don't generally do what I'm _told_ (Geez, you would not believe the amount of restraint I'm excercising here :-). If, with my posting, I insulted you, I apologize. Now, to the task at hand. All I want to know is whether Windows/286 was deliberatly crippled so as not to compete with OS/2 and PM. Considering the sharpness of your attack below, I feel you (being an MS employee) owe it to a prospective customer (me) to give a straight-forward, sincere answer. It would be nice if the new version of Windows (whatever you choose to call it) supported the protected mode of the 286, I don't think OS/2 is worth the extra memory chi- Ohhh... ....I'm just going to leave it at that. Davin. In article <5723@microsoft.UUCP> paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011) writes: >In article <89May12.000432edt.19614@me.utoronto.ca> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >>Okay. I give up. Why did Micro Soft (skull) call windows/286 what they >>did when the beast doesn't use the protected mode of the 286 to provide >>pre-emptive multitasking? It runs just the same on a '86 machine? > >To differentiaite it from Win386, of course. > >>This is truly annoying (hence the mind flame). For my purposes 'cuz >>the '386 laptops are too heavy and pricey. > >Ouch! I hate mind flames, they really hurt. Would you be happier if >I attached helium balloons to the 386 for you? > >>They should change the name, it's misleading. >> >>Peaved. >> >>PS: Isn't there a law against this? > >No, you can post anything you want, no matter how trivial. > >By the way, how does WordPerfect get away with selling a word >processor that isn't perfect? Very misleading in my book. And >did you know you have to by a PRINTER to even use the darn thing! >Cost me a lot more money than I first thought it would, by the >time you buy that sort of accessory. None of the reviewers >caught this either. Sheesh! > > >DISCLAIMER: >These are my opinions, not those of Microsoft. Flame via email. >That way, half of it won't go through, and my email reader is much >more powerful than RN, so I can filter the junk easier. Thanks.