[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Micro$loth Windoze 95 Badges - how they should be
- Subject: Re: Micro$loth Windoze 95 Badges - how they should be
- From: daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
- Date: 1995/09/06
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc, comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc, aus.computers.ibm-pc, aus.computers.sun, aus.computers.os2, aus.computers.amiga, comp.sys.amiga.misc, comp.sys.apple2, comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc, comp.sys.intel, comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc, comp.sys.misc, comp.sys.newton.misc, comp.sys.next.misc, comp.sys.sgi.misc, comp.sys.sun.misc, comp.os.ms-windows.misc, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup, comp.windows.misc, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc
- Organization: InterLog Internet Services
- References: <welston-0409951915480001@blv-pm10-ip25.halcyon.com> <42ghu1$rra@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <42igbh$hrk@news1.deltanet.com>
fuz@deltanet.com (Scott Ellsworth) wrote:
>Win95 is a great improvement over Win3.1. It is still garbage, but it is a
>lot closer to what it should be. Had they been able to make these kind of
>interface changes over the fairly solid core of NT, and have it be compatible,
>then it might well have moved out of the dreck category, but they could not,
>at least not while missing the deadline by no more than a year and a half as
>they did.
Windows NT with the 95 interface has been in beta for a while now, and
will be relased in early '96.
And no, NT would never have been as compatible with existing DOS/Win16
apps, and wouldn't run them as well as 95 does simply due to it's
architecture. It's too much of a jump, so Microsoft created 95.
Simple.