Re: Delphi 2.0 vs. Powerbuilder 5.0

> Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg_at_eos.ericsson.se> wrote in article
 <31E24ACA.2781E494_at_eos.ericsson.se>...
> Phil Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Systems Analyst wrote:
> > >
> > > mark-esp_at_tir.com (Mark Bolen) wrote:
>> >
> > > The problem is that Microsoft is the most successful dishonest
 marketing
> > --
> > Phil Edwards phil_at_news400.com
> > Editor, NEWS/400.UK +44 (0)161 929 0777
>
> My sense of humor must have deserted me. What is funny about calling
> Microsoft ``the most successful dishonest marketing company''?
> --
>
Hi
Just a short note. Just dont comment. Everything I say is TRUE (almost) I agree with Phil.
Bill Gates is a hell of a salesman.
Selling so many pieces of sh.. . It's incredible . Until win95 it was really like hell. 20 reboots every day (you know what i mean)
So they Microsoft said. We save the world: Go 32 BIT ( Big laugh HA HA HA HA).
The Amiga was 32bit (internal) from the very beginning ( 1984 ). There's no reason to discuss whether the AmigaOS3.0 beats Win95 (Cause it does ). Microsoft(also known as MicroBoot) wins, because Bill knew how to keep the crowd waiting (for what)
The same thing happend with Win95. It's not even 32bit all way though. Sending god knows how many BETA's to everybody, noone really was going to buy OS/2 (Thats also a kind of crap, good job Bill). It's not before we have a stable NT4.0 that you can say that Microsoft grew OLD
Microsoft Backoffice is a hell of a product. It really simplifies a lot. But even running our corporate database on NT3.51 SP4 , MS SQLServer SP2 we still get a Kernal CRASH once a month. Our Vax/vms only crashes when a disk fails. Is NT a adult system??? I sure hope it will be better in NT40.
Come on. The commodore 64 was more stable than win95 ( yeah , beat me on that, no reason to compare)
Even NT4.0 Beta 2 is more stable than their win95 (incl service pack 1)

Thank you Bill, for giving all of us a job Georgios Received on Wed Jul 10 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST