> i dont see microsoft still trying to sell MSDOS 3.3 > > (but then again.... you never know microsoft - it is still the same OS.. > just has more 'features' (bugs)). you must be talking about Win9x. NT isn't even related to DOS, although it has an emulation layer that emulates DOS very well (though not well enough to play some of the older high-end games). but even for Win9x that's not nearly as accurate a statement as it used to be. but i know it's a favorite nitpick for Microsoft haters.
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael S. Davis
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Laurence Lundblade
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Sudipta Ghose
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Mark Nudelman
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Yam
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Bob Ebert
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Ray Rodrick
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Matthew D Moss
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
