Re: Microsoft at Columbia University

["Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>]

  On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:57:35 -0600 (CST), Kendall G. Clark wrote:
  
  >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
  >
  Methinks Janet Reno had to reboot her PC just once too many.
  
  Erick