🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh, man - I usually avoid OS/2 vs. Win95 threads, but.....

bu...@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
>It would be best if you stuck to a subject you know something about.  If you claim

Sounds like advice *you* could use...

>that GalCiv is the only game for OS/2, then you obviously have never used OS/2
>or keep up with OS/2 gaming at all.  If you care, I am beta testing (as are many
>others) some revolutionary games that currently ONLY run in OS/2.  First, there is
>Avarice, which will kick the pants off any Windows or DOS adventure/RPG game
>that is or will exist.  It is the first game to use true color (24-bit) color at any
>resolution supported by your video card.  Also, in case you care, this would have
>been impossible without OS/2.  To keep it simple, Avarice loads the graphics while

Impossible without OS/2? I don't think so. Explain fully why you think
this is. 

>you are looking at other stuff, and when you change views, the graphics appear
>as fast as your video card can display them.  In addition, the NPCs are going to
>be very cool, with complex personalities and real interaction with you, the player.
>Of course, I am also beta testing Entrepreneur (a economic world domination game),

[snip]

>Finally, before you ask, yes I have used Windows 95.  I have the latest build.  I
>even have looked into developing for it.  I'll pass.  OS/2 is a much more capable
>gaming platform (especially with the new DIVE and MMOS2) for two reasons:1
>1) Better thread handling

Balls! I've had the latest builds, and I've got the release build, and
I *do* develop for it. OS/2 is not a bad OS, but it's not a better
gaming platform, for a lot of different reasons. Read on, if you're
not too bored already....

>2) No Resource Limit - Don't give me that crap about the resource limit being too
>high to matter - try programming a threaded game with high resolution graphics
>for it.  It is just one thing I don't want to have to worry about.  A game like
>Avarice or Galciv that has hundreds of threads will bring Win95 to its knees,
>because threading eats resources alive.  Even if they fix that, the things you can

"Threading eats resources alive"? Threads, in and of themselves, don't
suck up a lot of resources. A *properly designed* multithreaded app
should take resource usage into account and be designed to minimize
resource problems.

>do with threading (like better graphics and more complex situations) will end up
>eating the resources anyway.  Trust me, I've looked into it thoroughly.  

Uh...ok. How long ago was this?

[laughing too hard to respond to rest of blather]

>Finally, I AM NOT AN OS/2 ZEALOT!!!!  I WOULD USE WINDOWS 95, AND CAN USE IT;
>IT IS ON MY MACHINE!!; IT IS JUST NOT AS GOOD AS OS/2!!!  I DON'T CARE IF
>MICROSOFT IS A CRAPPY COMPANY, IF THEY MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT I WILL USE
>IT!!  UNTIL THEN I WILL USE OS/2!!  I JUST LOOK AT FACTS!!

Sounds to me like you're a typical OS/2 zealot. Here are some real
facts: 

- Microsoft has an incredible suite of tools available to game
publishers right now. It's a lot EASIER to develop games for Windows
95;

- Much better and broader driver support in Windows 95, plus Plug and
Play capability;

- The DirectDraw and the 3D graphics libraries scream;

- Many, if not most, of the major game publishers have committed to
developing for Win95 (you can't say that about OS/2). Maxis, Origin
(Wing Commander IV will be a Win95 app), Electronic Arts....many more.

- Almost all of my existing DOS-based games work directly from the
Windows Explorer without me having to do ANYTHING. This includes stuff
like Magic Carpt, Pacific Air War, Doom, Dark Forces, Arena, etc. The
other few required a little tweaking. This is a remarkable
accomplishment, and something you can't claim OS/2 can do.

>By the way, that makes the score:
>OS/2 Born Commercial Games - 7
>Win95 Born Commercial Games - 0

Man, are you in for a surprise when Windows 95 rolls out. And, by the
way - how many of these OS/2 games can I go down to my local Computer
City or Egghead today and buy? How about tomorrow? How about September
1st? Now, go pick up a Computer Gaming World or a PC Gamer or PC Games
Review. Count how many commercial OS/2 games are covered in the PC
gaming press. Get the picture?

The final argument that makes all of the technical aspects moot
points: IBM's basically conceded the desktop. As chairman Lou said,
it's "too late to go after the desktop...we have to go on to the next
thing". There will be little or NO support for OS/2 as a gaming
platform from IBM. This is not going to make a lot of commercial game
developers (i.e. people who make a LIVING writing games) want to go
after the relatively tiny OS/2 market. No commercial incentive means
few commercial games releases.

IBM had ample opportunity to step up and grab the desktop market while
Microsoft was working on the oft-delayed Win95, and IBM blew it. Go
ahead and use it, by all means. Ultimately, whatever works best for a
person is the "best" OS. But stop claiming OS/2 is a far better gaming
platform than Windows 95. All things considered, it's really not. 

Scott