From owner-freebsd-chat Thu May 23 11:48:31 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA08836 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 11:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yucca.cs.odu.edu (root@yucca.cs.odu.edu [128.82.4.6]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA08831 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 11:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fog.cs.odu.edu (bowden@fog.cs.odu.edu [128.82.4.35]) by yucca.cs.odu.edu (8.7.3/8.6.4) with SMTP id OAA26226; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Bowden To: Paul Richards cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: editors In-Reply-To: <199605231646.RAA21420@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996, Paul Richards wrote: > NT is not Windows, it's a "real" OS and the admin overhead that goes with > a real OS is embodied in it. All "Win95 Approved by Billy Bob Gates himself" software MUST run on NT. M$ isn't doing that for shits and giggles. They only want one os to: a: develope (they spend real money on developement) b: support (it isn't cheap either) c: advertise (yet another expense) Bill's not stupid, and if all the 32bit soft is NT ready, the upgrade becomes painless from a user standpoint. With NT getting Win95's interface, it's not even gonna be a noticeable change, and NT isn't diff to build a single user box with ( no more than OS/2, anyway ). I don't believe in 3 - 5 years, you are gonna see more than one os available from Microsoft. Jamie I have my finger on the pulse of the planet.