🚀 go-pugleaf

da...@pic.net wrote:

>>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

>    I purchased GalCiv at CompUSA in Arlington Texas.  I've seen it at
>other CompUSA's around the D/FW area as well.  In fact, suprisingly enough,
>I've seen it at more computer stores than I've seen OS/2 Productivity -- 
>which is both funny and annoying.

OK, there's ONE....

>   I think it is you who will be suprised in the future.  I don't doubt that 

I doubt it. The market, as always, will tell.

>Windows 95 will be very popular, to say anything but would be ignorant.  I
>don't even think it is that bad of an O.S. for novices -- its a heck of a lot
>better than Win3.x.   (By the way, If there was any war that could be waged
>on technical merits, it would be NT vs OS/2, not 95 vs OS/2.  NT and OS/2
>are two different, but pretty damn close, operating systems).   But OS/2

Well, this has always been a movable feast with OS/2ers and IBM -
compare OS/2 against NT or Windows 3.11 or Windows 95 - whichever
supports their point better. OS/2 is a good OS, but it's NOT all
things to all people, and it's foolish to try to position it that way.

>is not going to die out like so many 95ers will hope.  The only thing that

Get this straight: I don't "hope" that OS/2 "dies out". The
competition is GOOD for Microsoft. Believe me, OS/2 was looked at in
Redmond, and pushed Microsoft to make Windows 95 (and NT) better
products. Consumers benefit from this.

HOWEVER - IBM has completely BLOWN any chance that OS/2 will grab any
significant share of the marketplace. Gerstner's already conceded the
desktop, although the IBM spin doctors have tried to back off from
that. I've heard that there's growing sentiment to drop OS/2 within
IBM as well. We'll have to see.

>might happen is that it gets a sales jump from bad 95 installs (if you don't
>think there will be bad 95 install stories, you're really very naive).  Apparently,

I'm far from naive, and I never claimed that there WOULDN'T be any bad
installs. This is an inevitability with the rollout of any OS. I've
heard my fair share of OS/2 horror stories, too.

If *you* think that OS/2 is suddenly going to become a big seller
because of bad Windows 95 installs, *you're* being naive. Again, IBM's
completely blown any head start they had with OS/2.

>both Stardock and Maxis have shown that OS/2 can make money on a GAMING
>market -- both have released software for it, and both now plan a much 
>broader line of software -- which means they made some money else they
>wouldn't be doing it.  

How do you know they made any money on OS/2? Did you catch a look at
their books?

Scott