Nina DiBoy wrote:
>
>
> I agree with your last paragraph Bruce, which again begs the question
> since Windows 3.0 worked that way also, why is it not an OS?
>
That, you'd have to ask Microsoft, as, in this case, it's *their*
definition we're discussing, not my technical opinion.
For some obscure reason, Microsoft draw a line between the two Windows
versions. If I had to guess, I'd tend to speculate that Microsoft had
considered Windows to be something of an experiment up till then, and
only decided to tighten the licensing after they saw that they had a
potential big seller on their hands. They are a business, after all, so
profits will always be a prime consideration and motivation.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell