I'm trying to drill this into my oldest son's head, but "just
because its printed in a newspaper, seen on TV, read
over the Internet (that's the important one here :) doesn't
mean its true".
  Now, with that statement, I refer you to:
http://software.ora.com/news/news_item_frame.cfm?ID_News=60
This was the source of my statement regarding NTW vs NTS and
was originally published back in Sep. 96.  I'm not saying that
the credentials of the researcher are 'unimpeachable', but
the research itself is interesting.

Regards,
Michael L Gueterman
Easy Does It Technologies
--


-----Original Message-----
From:   Denys Beauchemin [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 23, 1999 9:46 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: [HP3000-L] HP crackdown on resellers

X-no-Archive:yes
People can say whatever they want and it can either a), be incorrect or
overblown, b) be taken out of context, c) be quoted incorrectly or d) all
of the above.  I do not know for sure that NTW and NTS are equivalent in
speed on the desktop, but I have never seen it stated with unimpeachable
authority that they are not.  I am not really setup to either confirm or
infirm the theory, so I leave it as an exercise (in futility?) to someone
else.  I just find it difficult to believe that as a corporate strategy, MS
would slow down NTW vis-a-vis NTS.

<snip>