Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 3rd Nov 2007 00:05 UTC, submitted by Kim Haverblad
Thread beginning with comment 282693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
If you seriously think that eCS is comparable to an flavor of Win9x in terms of general features, I would politely suggest that you don't have much clue about eCS's capabilities as an operating system. :-)
The two OSes existed at roughly the same time (OS/2 2.0 actually predated Win95 to market by three years), but OS/2 2.x and later was one or two generations ahead of Microsoft's Windows 9.x line in almost all respects, and it was (and is) also arguably ahead of Windows NT and its successors in several respects (OS/2 is much smaller, faster, far more responsive under load, has a better native scripting language, has a MUCH more flexible desktop, has better legacy software support in general, etc.).