David Simpson wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:34:12 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >RV wrote: > >> > >> JTK wrote: > >> > RV wrote: > >> > > >> >>JTK wrote: > >> > > >> > Yeah, I know IE and NC4.7x BOTH fly on semi-modern hardware. I was > >> > referring to *Mozilla*. > >> > > >> > >> Wordstar used to fly on old hardware too. Win 3.11 ran very well in a > >> 486 environment with 4megs yet Win 95 replaced it despite the fact it > >> required a Pentium class CPU and at least 16 megs of RAM. > > > >Win95 was a hell of a lot better than Win3.11. Mozilla is a hell of a > >lot *worse* than NC4.7x and IE. >
HOLY CHRIST TWO WHOLE PARAGRAPHS!??!?! Must be an english assignment, huh Dave? > Win95 better than Win3.11. You'd have to be joking. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! So you tried Win95 and then went back to Win3.11? Naha. > The second release > did a few things better but it still crashed far more often than > Win3.0 ever did. > Numbers Dave? Yeah, thought not. > You are obviously having some sort of love affair with M$ so why don't > you take your negative attitude and put it where your mother never > kissed you. (Of course with your attitude she might just have been > kinky enough to like kissing you there.) Nice. How 'bout you kiss me there Dave?
