From: zargon AT hotmail DOT vom (Zargon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Internal compiler error
Organization: Zargon and Zed Take Over The Universe
Message-ID: <39454977.301279469@news.globalserve.net>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0005312058020 DOT 1241-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 17
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:36:10 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.45
X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca
X-Trace: news2.tor.primus.ca 960842366 207.176.153.45 (Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:39:26 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:39:26 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 31 May 2000 21:06:09 +0600 (LKT), Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel
<kalum AT lintux DOT cx> ate too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and wrote:

>Although I am not a fan of windoze Hans, I would like to ask "why
>shouldn't it not work"...If only programs which are memory hogs (like gcc)
>and use the CPU at 100% are supposed to crash...then the fact that windoze
>doesn't crash on the same machine means that windoze code is very
>efficient and less resource consuming, doesn't it...

I'd be very interested to know just what this vacuous statement is
supposed to prove. The only time windoze doesn't crash on some machine
is when that machine isn't running windoze...


-- 
"No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM" -- Bill Gates, c. 1980
"This antitrust thing will blow over" -- Bill Gates, 1998