🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3mvrda$q...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, jmw...@is2.nyu.edu   (Jeff Williams) writes:
> In <3mudgi$i...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Lee Woodall) writes:
> 
> >Bullshit.  OS/2 sucks for games, period.  I have tried Warp, and DOS 
> >games do not want to run.  So OK, OS/2 HAS been doing it, buy nowhere 
> >near as well as Windows 95.  Using your "warped" logic, windows 3.1 has 
> >also been doing the same thing.  
> 
> Windows 3.1 can run about 0.1% of the DOS games OS/2 can.  The only reason
[snip]

Agreed.  I was quite pleased how easy it was to set up games to run under
OS/2.

> 
> By the way, here are the games I play under Warp, with no problems
> whatsoever caused by Warp itself (other than the overhead, which is inherent
> in any 32 bit OS):  Aces Over Europe, Dark Forces, Flight Simulator 5.0,

[snipped list]

...System Shock, Battle Isle 2, Descent, Frontier, Tie Fighter and many more.
(Just to add some of my own.)


> >OS/2 does not allow you to actually sit down and write a seprate 
> >Config.sys and autoexec.bat for each DOS program.
> 
> Ooooooh yes it does.  In fact, it lets you specify whatever files you want

Yep.  You can give different memory settings, or if your program's REALLY
picky, you can give it a boot disc or a "virtual" boot disc file.

> >OS/2 is dead, I have seen the future.  It is Win95 (yes, I am using it 
> >right now).  Its even about 5 times faster than OS/2 as well.
> 
> I don't disagree, actually, that Windows 95 is the future, and that OS/2 may
> be dead due to nothing but industry standards.  But as a wise man once said,
> "being in the majority only means most others agree with you; it does not
> mean you are right."  OS/2 is technically a better OS than any Windows
> product; always has been and still is (Windows 95 does NOT multitask 16
> bit programs, for instance, nor does it run them in their own separate VDM's).
> If Windows 95 takes over the world, as I, just like you, expect it to, it
> has nothing to do with the stability, power, or features of the OS.  It has
> to do with simple brainwashing, nothing more.

[snip]

I've got my Archimedes at home.  In 1987 when it can out it had a 32-bit
multitasking OS.  It could outrun any PC at the time, and had built-in
support for high-resolution monitors (1152x878 I think), and an 8-bit stereo
sound system.  Nobody bought them.  Why?  "Cos it's not industry standard."
Industry standard's a bullshit term for people in procurement who don't want
to think for a living.  If people were to take systems and OSs on their
relative merits then we'd see good, innovative systems emerging (like
the Archimedes) and actually being used by people.  As it is, Microcack have
the world brainwashed into thinking you can't use a computer unless you have
Winbollocks, which sudddenly makes things so easy, the computer does
everything itself; and Inblob have people thinking that if you don't have
one of their CPU's inside it's not going to work with any software, but if
you do, your 'puter's going to take on a life of it's own and be really
interesting and lifelike.  Crap.  They just have a bigger marketing budget
than everyone else.

If you made it this far, well done.  Now can you tell me how to get
the Strike Commander/Privateer CD to work under OS/2.  It's the only game
I've tried that's failed.

Bye,

Martin.