Regarding:
"Remember, one of the primary differences between any of the Windows Operating Systems (3.0, 95, NT, etc) is that they really aren't operating systems. They are humungous applications that run on the one true OS... MicroSoft Disk Operating System version (xx)."
You are incorrect about this. While it is true that Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 are really more of a UI running on top of the OS, Win95 and especially WinNT are Operating Systems in their own right. In fact WinNT has seperate Win32, OS/2, and POSIX subsystems. WinNT has much more in common with Mach or UNIX than it does with DOS, especially when you look at how the OS was designed. The orginal NT team borrowed heavily from the work done on Mach at Carnegie-Mellon.
About the validity, or lack thereof of the rest of the post, I won't even get into that. It's irrelevant and also inaccurate. Let us suffice to say that MS Word is not a good tool to benchmark CPU performance.
I don't profess any love for Microsoft, but, please let's keep our facts straight, and not devolve into this adolescent "my computer's better than your's" antics.
Hans Hohenner |
