-=> Quoting Fred Speir to Mike Fellhauer <=-
 -=> Quoting Mike Fellhauer to Bill Tracy <=-
 
 MF> I agree, but how many programs are available for OS/2?  Think
 MF> of all the programs you use in a day, and how many are
 MF> available for OS/2?  (Yes, OS/2 can run it's own stuff, plus
 MF> DOS, and Windows 3.1, but not 95!)
 FS> Win95 can be launched from it's own box under OS/2.
  Nope, while you can launch a DOS session of the Win95 boot loader files
  (also known as DOS 7, or Window95 DOS)  that is not the same as loading
  ALL of Windows95 (The GUI, protected mode APIs, and 386 OS Kernel)
  (And yes, I have done that).
 FS> There is nothing "fancy" about Win95, but an improvement over 3.1.
  There is a lot more to W95 than just improvements to win3.1.  Both the
  underlying OS and the Inteface are much better than the old "iconic"
  interface of Win3.1
 FS> It is NOT it's own operating system, nor is it as stable as OS/2.
  It is just as stable (when set up properly) as OS/2 can be (when set
  up properly).  I've run and crashed both, and IMHO its more a
  matter of "taste" than any measure of funtionality, which an average
  user is more likely to want to have sitting on their system.  And its
  just as much an OS as UNIX w/X-Windows,  OS/2 w/Workplace Shell, and the
  MAC OS make themselves out to be.
  An Operating Environment is the software that manages your Hardware to
  allow you to do things on the computer;  An Operating Interface is the
  front end that the User sees to allow them to do things with the computer.
  Put them together, and you have an Operating System.  Arguements that
  ignore those simple points are to be dismissed as Hype, FUD, and general
  TechnoBabble.
 FS> And no.. I do not use OS/2.
   It would seem that you don't use Windows95 either...
   Could you do us a favor?  Instead of telling us what OS you DON'T
   reccomend, why don't you tell us about the OS you do like to
   use, and why you feel it works best for you?
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.21 [NR]
---------------