Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uunet!lotus!lotus.com!robertk
From: robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: new windows OS
Message-ID: <ROBERTK.91Apr11180840@lotatg.lotus.com>
Date: 11 Apr 91 22:08:40 GMT
References: <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1991Apr6.233850.5871@cc.helsinki.fi>
	<9383@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Sender: news@lotus.com
Organization: /homes/robertk/.organization
Lines: 14
In-Reply-To: eeh@Dixie.Com's message of 8 Apr 91 23:40:36 GMT

In article <9383@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> eeh@Dixie.Com (Ed Howland) writes:

   In article <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu>, cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes:
   > Why not?  Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS
   > that can still run DOS apps from a shell?
   > 
   > Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL 
   > machines, not just microchannel.  Plus, it better not be as buggy.

Back when IBM thought OS/2 was going to rule the world, they named it
like their new machines so that the gullible would *THINK* it would
have to run on PS/2s or Microchannel.

Of course, OS/2 was developed on Compaqs.