Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!acorn!moncam!emmo
From: emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0
Summary: still sceptical
Message-ID: <685@marvin.moncam.co.uk>
Date: 6 Jul 90 22:24:14 GMT
References: <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au+ <1018@ashton.UUCP+ <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au+ <7671@fy.sei.cmu.edu+
Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 18

In article <7671@fy.sei.cmu.edu+, bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
+ In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu+ brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes:
+ 
+ I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC
+ could not really multitask.  However, he was having a hard time starting
+ a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In
+ the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and
+ asked him "you mean something like this?"  He stood there dumbfounded as I
+ started a few more.  This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't
+ multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago.
+ 

Are you saying that if I buy Windows 3.0, I can take any mix of exes and coms
from my \bin and run them all concurrently like I can on one of our Suns?
Great! why didn't anyone say so before?
'Scuse me while I go find my cheque book..

Dave E.