Re: "no longer requires DOS"
I'm not a real doofus, but I play one at a national laboratory. (BAISLEY@fndcd.fnal.gov)
Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:59:42 -0500
It seems to me that the annoyance has always been with the more-or-less
implication that Windows 95 "no longer *is* DOS". So, I might be irate if I
were a vegetarian and a new canned food product (the same old ham, or whatever)
were marketed with a phrase like "no longer requires killing animals", and the
"we've already done that for you" were left off. I really don't have a bee in
my shorts over this question, but I don't buy the argument that "no longer
requires DOS" meant "... license". FWIW.
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One
head is nice. It gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences. But the
other head of science is bad! Oh, beware the other head of science, Arthur.
It bites!" The Tick