[rescue] FrameMaker FYI

[Dan Duncan]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Andrew Weiss wrote:
> Agreed, but at the time I loved the Win 3.x interface.  I thought 3.51
> was so cool because I could use 32 bit Win 95 apps just fine, I had a
> system 100 x more stable than Win 95, and it had the old interface...

I felt the same way running DOS and Win apps on my OS/2 box at
the time.  I could get really picky DOS games to run under OS/2
that I could never get to run under actual DOS because of its
moronic "conventional ram" ceiling and the drivers I needed
for some of my hardware.

Up until OS/2, I was using Desqview for pretty much the same reason.
Win 2.0, 3.0, and 3.1 sucked ass in terms of performance.  Despite
claims to the contrary, Win 3.1 multitasked about as well as I
dance, which is to say not at all.  I couldn't background a
download without serious speed degradation.  Desqview lapped it
up and asked for more.

> in hindsight the user interface was ass... but so are the Win95, 98,
> 2000, and XP interfaces.  2000 is about my favorite.  XP is my second
> least favorite with 3.x being my least favorite.

I consider 95, 98, NT4, 2k, and XP as having the same interface.  I've
never had the displeasure of using ME.

-DanD

-- 
#  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  dand at pcisys.net  http://pcisys.net/~dand
# I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.
# 		ASHLEIGH BRILLIANT
#