Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!mbcl!goldman
From: goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Ideas
Message-ID: <95.273208e4@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: 3 Nov 90 04:01:40 GMT
References: <4979@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <1990Oct22.135507.8837@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <58639@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Oct31.180551.2555@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct31.180551.2555@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes:
> In article <58639@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes:
> 
> I culled from three sources (only one was a weekly) about 18 months ago, when
> both companies were all gung ho for OS/2, that indeed 5.0 was it.  Now this.
> Major new technology was what OS/2 was for.  A modern modular base upon which
> major new technology could be easily added.  Let's see now..that's 2..4..
> yup, 2 decades before OS/2 becomes viable in the eyes of users...
>  
Gee, I hope you're wrong.  I am a confirmed OS/2 believer: if OS/2 doesn't make
it, I'm going to throw in the towel, throw out the PC's & throw my money at 
some system-7 compatible Macs.

                Adrian Goldman

Adrian Goldman                         |  Internet:  Goldman@MBCL.Rutgers.Edu
Molecular Biology Computing Laboratory |  Bitnet:    Goldman@BioVAX
Waksman Insitute,                      |  Phone:     (908) 932-4864
Rutgers University,                    |  Fax:       (908) 932-5735
Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA               |