> Sorry... but your really missing the boat. IBM offers
 > OS/2 at $90-$140
 > and MS offers NT, it's equal, at $300+. You can't
 > seriously compare
 > Win95 to anything IBM puts out. I have used OS/2 for
 > about 5 years and
 [----------^^^^ you said the above ^^^^-----------]
I concede price to that, but not as an OS may people would choose. Plain fact 
is those that have tried OS/2 dumped it and went back to Win3.x or simply to 
NT as it matured and yes there are still a good chunk of OS/2 users out there 
but i don't see it as a growing user base. NT, while it had a rocky starty 
finally is a decent OS, but for the typical home user can be alittle too 
much. As I see it, OS/2 and NT provide business users what they needed first 
and Win95 is growing into that simply because of the large user base. OS/2 
does a good job but it isn't that openly accepted by the shareware support 
world. I see little shareware compared to Win95 and basically that says alot 
of what any OS is being accepted. I'm not happy with Win95 myself but like I 
mentioned( I think I did), see it becoming the std. OS of many future users 
regardless of "why". I go to some computer shows around here I don't see 
hardly any OS/2 related s/w as well very little NT.
Anyways, I believe my orginal thread was about Win95 pricing and i don't want 
to get into an OS pissing contest, so I'll leave it there. -_-_-Bill
---
---------------