david, at 19:30 on May 23 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> I've file-attached it to a netmail message, so if you don't get
BG> it, hassle Paul to see what he's fucked up this time.  :)

db> It didn't get here. 

Damn and fuck!  It's on his board somewhere, but no problem, I've UUencoded
it, and will send it to you as netmail instead.

[ ... later ... ]

I see that Paul has forwarded it, so I shall delete that netmail forthwith.

db> Let me guess, Paul - you don't have the technology, right?  ;-)

I think he wants TIC files, but surely not for simple file-attaches?

BG> As a GUI OS, I still genuinely believe OS/2 to be far superior to
BG> MS-DOS/Win4 (otherwise known as Win95)...

db> Seen the new interface to appear with Merlin (OS/2 Warp Version 4)? 

Nope.  You forget that MY OS/2 ain't broke...

db> *Very* slick, and much more like X11/Motif (UNIX) than previously, with a 
db> touch of Win95 thrown in.  And joy of joys, DEATH TO THE UGLY SYSTEM FONT!!  
db> :-)

In a CLI, you mean?  Funny, I don't mind the font at all here.

BG> ...but decent apps for it are few and far between.

db> Certainly nowhere near as "flash" as Windows applications;
 Lotus Word Pro 
db> 96 may change that when it's released in 3Q96.

I hope so, although my WFW 2.0c still works great under WinOS2 anyway.

BG> Unless some software manufacturers get off their arses quick smart, I
BG> may be tempted to have a look at NT 4.0, which could well be as good as
BG> OS/2, but with far better app support.  Might need all of my 32Mb
BG> to run it though.  :)

db> I ain't giving my 32Mb to WinNT that easily!! 

Why not?  All you'll need is a 64Mb swapfile as well, and away you go...  :)

db> I'd rather run Quake or Linux, quite frankly.  ;-)

Will either of those run OS/2 or Windows apps though?

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.30