From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: f907c,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gidf907c,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 145623,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid145623,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d4aba2022b03306e X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: lionel@quark.zko.dec.com (Steve Lionel) Subject: Re: M$ to STRIKE again... Date: 1997/04/07 Message-ID: <5ib5h3$2t4@usenet.pa.dec.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 231320425 Distribution: world Sender: lionel@quark.enet.dec.com (Steve Lionel) References: <33489A15.453C@ix.netcom.com> Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH Reply-To: lionel@quark.zko.dec.com (Steve Lionel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.pascal.misc,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.basc.visual.misc,de.comp.lang.c Date: 1997-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <33489A15.453C@ix.netcom.com>, essoft@ix.netcom.com writes: |>"Bay Area Computer Currents", March 18-31, 1997, page 13 |> |>Apparently, Microsoft has decided that it is time for you to burn your |>bridges. Unlike previous versions of Windows 95, Windows 95 OEM Systems |>Release 2 (OSR2) does not allow dual-booting between it and Windows 3.x. Um, given that OSR2 is supported only when installed on a new system, and not as an upgrade, I don't quite understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this. Who knows what the situation will be when the generally available "Windows 97" (or whatever it's called) arrives? There's also non-MS solutions such as Boot Commander, which as far as I know, should work just fine. I agree that MS doesn't really have an incentive to go out of its way to maintain dual-boot compatibility with Windows 3.1, but I don't view this as evidence of evil incarnate. -- Steve Lionel mailto:lionel@quark.zko.dec.com Fortran Development http://www.digital.com/info/slionel.html Digital Equipment Corporation 110 Spit Brook Road, ZKO2-3/N30 Nashua, NH 03062-2698 "Free advice is worth every cent" For information on DIGITAL Fortran, see http://www.digital.com/fortran