Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2001 comp.windows.ms:12439 comp.os.os2.misc:1279
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!ysub!psuvm!mxd118
From: MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Message-ID: <91128.201709MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 9 May 91 00:17:09 GMT
References: <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Penn State ACA (American Churl Association)
Lines: 22
X-Subliminal-Message: UNIX sucks!

In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com>, larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry
Salomon, Jr.) says:
>
>In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes:
>>
>>I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2.  Last summer, when I co-oped for them
>>the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the
>>unbelievers.  IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view.  There's
>>nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the
>>company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em.

Actually - I worked in an OS/2 development division last summer,  and the
people there weren't all that excited about 1.3.  It's faster than Windows,
and has less reliability problems - but we all knew Windows was better
marketed,  and even a kludgy DOS multitasking is still multitasking.  I
really didn't see anyone "hot on OS/2" at that time,  since 2.0 was very far
from completion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Dahmus              MXD118@PSUVM / dahmus@endor.cs.psu.edu
504 Beaver Hall  Phone 862-5141      UNIX is for EUNUCHS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------