Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!concert!balsam!kepley
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: head-to-head win and os/2
Date: 17 May 1993 16:48:34 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1t8fl2$ehs@balsam.unca.edu>
References: <1993May16.143722.4555@samba.oit.unc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: photon.phys.unca.edu

In article <1993May16.143722.4555@samba.oit.unc.edu> dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu (Dave Laudicina) writes:
>question. The next question is even if I did want to run OS/2
>and I had this big monster machine to run it on, is there a diverse
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think you're deliberatly overstating the requirements for OS/2.  
Considering that OS/2 is a multi-threaded true multitasking OS and
takes the place of DOS and Windows and more, I actually think the 
requirements for OS/2 are very reasoable.  I also think that anyone
using Windows 3.1 without 8 megs of RAM, a 386-40, and 200 megs of
hard drive space, is beating their head against a wall.  Those are
also legitimate requirements for OS/2.  In fact, the requirements 
for Windows 3.1 and OS/2 are about equal.  
  
-- 
|          "The natural progress of things is for government             |
|              to gain ground and for liberty to yield"                  |
|                           Thomas Jefferson                             |
| Brad Kepley   kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu    704-252-8330/Voice-Days   |
