"Peter" wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Snip
>> To: cameronm
>> Subject: Seybold report on office computing
>> Date: Wed Apr 29 19:11:02 PDT 1992
>>
>> Date: Wed Jul 24 23:42:16 1991
>>
>> >From billg Wed Jul 24 10:51:31 1991
>> To: jonl steveb
>> Subject: Seybold report on office computing
>> Cc: carls jeffr martyta mikehal paulma russw W-pamed
>> Date: Wed Jul 24 10:51:16 1991
>>
>> This report highlights our failure to get our message out.
>>
>> It praises Os/2 2.0 endlessly using the charts from the IBM
>> white papers. For example the chart showing windows giving you
>> only 506k of memory and Os/2 giving you 620k.
>>
>> It praises the better windows than windows capability - including
>> “one of the best attributes of windows applications run within
>> Os/2 is the superior system intgrity. Should an application crash you
>> can just closre the session and continue. No need to close down and
>> restart. Performance is helped by Os/2 preemptive multitasking and
>> the ability to share I/o. At the roll out bash in New York IBM
>> demonstated the same windows application running on a Windows
>> machine and on an Os/2 machine. Certainly there is no performance
>> trade off for the greater stability offered by Os/2 2.0″
>
> V
Uch, smells like fish, very flat fish...
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
|
|
