Re: Microsoft at Columbia University

["Kendall G. Clark" <kclark@computek.net>]

  On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Erick Andrews wrote:
  
  >At the risk of using an often heard quote 
  >by OS/2 users:  
  >
  >"Windows95 is 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 
  >8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 
  >2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition."
  >
  >Regrets to give the proper credit,
  
  Erick,
  
  That's funny, as a Linux user, I always thought we came up with that <grin>.
  
  I think above and beyond all of the legal, moral, and competitive issues we've
  been discussing, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that some or much of MS
  software is shockingly bad: poorly written and conceived, poorly documented,
  proprietary, non-extensible, etc.
  
  It's just not very good stuff. This makes their success all the more suspect:
  how could they have gotten where they are without things like vendor
  pre-loads?
  
  The majority of people I know who've been made aware of MS alternatives---Mac,
  OS/2, Linux, Novell, etc---change in a heartbeat.
  
  MS slogan ought to be: ``How many times do you want to reboot today?''
  
  Best,
  
  	Kendall Clark