Re[2]: Documenting for LCD or most common?

Subject: Re[2]: Documenting for LCD or most common?
From: Keith Arnett <Keith_Arnett -at- RESTON -dot- OMD -dot- STERLING -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:27:02 EST

Too-shay, mon ami...

:-)

Keith

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Documenting for LCD or most common?
Author: barry -dot- kieffer -at- exgate -dot- tek -dot- com at ~sydressmtp
Date: 2/13/98 11:19 AM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Arnett [SMTP:Keith_Arnett -at- RESTON -dot- OMD -dot- STERLING -dot- COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 7:13 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Documenting for LCD or most common?
>
> Despite the shared name (and some functionality), Win 3.1 and Win 95
> are two different operating systems, and generally speaking, they
> should be documented separately.
>

Now hold on there Keith,

You are right up to a point (and a fine point it may be).

Let's clarify: Windows 3.x is an application running on top of
the DOS (disk operating system). Windows 3.x is not, and never was
intended to be an operating system. Windows 95 on the other hand is
integrated tightly enough that it is considered an operating system.

The differences between Win 3.x and Win 95 are vast. Entire
papers are written in collages on this topic.

Just to set the record straight.

IMNSHO,

Barry




Previous by Author: Re: Documenting for LCD or most common?
Next by Author: Re[2]: HELP: Printing Process References
Previous by Thread: Re: Documenting for LCD or most common?
Next by Thread: Re[2]: Documenting for LCD or most common?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads