Robert Wilderspin said > > > That's an unfair comparison. Computers in general are more evolved > > > these days, so it stands to reason that any new operating system will > > > appear to get further in a shorter amount of time. Perhaps one should > > > compare Windows NT to big-box Unices? NT is much younger, and yet > > > it's got a lot of nifty features that took Unix years and years to > > > develop. Why, Unix didn't even have CD-ROM support until it was > > > nearly two decades old! > > > > Tal about unfair comparisons. How old was Unix before CD-ROM's even > > existed!? You say we can't compare the old with the new because > > technology has excelerated the pace of development - yet that's > > exactly what you're doing when you compare NT to "big-box Unix". > > I was being facetious to illustrate the worthlessness of the previous > poster's argument. I'm fully aware that Unix predates CD technology > by about two decades. So sorry. I missed the sarcasm. > > > Regards, > Rob > Humbly Yours, Chuck
-- Chuck Stickelman, Owner E-Mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Practical Network Design Voice: +1-419-529-3841 9 Chambers Road FAX: +1-419-529-3625 Mansfield, OH 44906-1301 USA
