Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!gibdo!slh
From: slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Request for information from OS/2 neophyte
Summary: what?
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.131520.12846@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 13:22:37 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.211632.4960@colorado.edu> <1991Apr24.125818.26340@watson.ibm.com> <1991Apr24.214625.12397@netcom.COM>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
Reply-To: slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: zippity
Lines: 15

In article <1991Apr24.214625.12397@netcom.COM> resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes:
|In article <1991Apr24.125818.26340@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes:
[stuff]
|>Not really, although there are a lot of misconceptions about OS/2:
|>        (Seen in a trade mag) OS/2 is not a preemptive multitasking
|>        operating system.  Windows is.
|	
|	Windows is not preemptive multi-tasking. OS/2 is. 
|>
[more making the same points the originaly poster was making]
|
|What you've said here almost entirely contradicts my experience with OS/2.
|
	Read the msg again, especially the first line I quoted,
	these are exactly the points the original poster was making.