It's 16 Aug 97  21:13:58,
We'll return to Ryk Deyoe and Jun Martin's
discussion of OS/2 switch...
 JM> You like Win3.x better than Win95 for a 2-node BBS????  
 RD> Yeah.....the 3.11 has a lot less overhead and doesn't hide as much
 RD> from the user.  As we've heard in the os-debate echo, it's just a
 RD> shell....so is win95, but 95 is such a big shell it covers up
 RD> everything.  And when a lockup or other problem happens it's hard to
 RD> tell where it came from.
Hmm, I've found Win95 at least runs DOS apps better than 3.x.  And it's
usually easier to recover from a failure under Win95 (CTRL-ALT-DELETE
seems to work better).
 JM> Oh, sure.  Win95 is way beloooooooow OS/2 especially in terms of
 JM> communication.  Win3.x is worse than Win95.
 RD> I'm in the process of trying out OS/2 now (not yet but sooooon!).  I
 RD> haven't had many problems since i switched back to the old 3.11...i
 RD> would use Desqview but my copy got corrupted.
You'll find OS/2 very nice for BBS work, it supports standard DOS BBSs
at least as well as DOS itself, and you can add some nifty features.  If
there's an OS/2 native version of your BBS s/w, I'd consider upgrading,
OS/2 apps are far better again! :-)
... PATH=LOOK AROUND ON HDD;DESK DRAWER;UNDER DESK;RUBBISH BIN
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------