🚀 go-pugleaf

bak...@ihug.co.nz (Brian King) wrote:
>In message <3vehpb$3...@seymour.sfu.ca> - b...@sfu.ca (Jeremy Bee) writes:
>
>Lot's deleted...
>
>:>>
>:>>   And don't try to tell me there is a difference in SAM and Duel Boot.  
>:>You'd
>:>>be right if you did though, ...
>:>
>:>OK, I won't try to tell you there is a difference because you seem to have 
>:>your mind made up. 

(deletion)

> > Also Win95 can itself 
>:>load Dos drivers globaly if you want to which is one of the major reasons for 
>:>*some* games not to run under OS/2, (not *all*, some).  Win95 can run games 
>:>that require this no problem, while OS/2 cannot.  There are also lots of post 
>:>I have sen already about games that users were never able to run under OS/2 
>:>that will run under Win95 and neither of these two points require SAM mode at 
>:>all.  Name a game that Win95 can't run at all, I haven't heard anything yet, 
>:>while OS/2's list is pretty long.
>:>
>:>Jeremy
>
>OK...Jeremy,
>
>Win95 will run more DOS games than OS/2 because Win95 is a Super extended DOS 
>Shell. 

Wrong.  It's ahrdly worth arguing if you are going to start off with ribald nonsense like 
that...

>As such it's backward compatibilities are more true than OS/2 
>BUT...New games are going to be written with 32bit, multitasking in mind and 
>will have a much better chance of running under OS/2. 

How so? Why would anyone write new games for a 32 bit OS that has just been announced 
as being a corporatfirst and a "home" system second, (maybe not at all), when Win95 is 
aimed and marketed directly at the home user.  Also why develop for an OS that has a 
diminishing market hsare vs., one that has the largest market share in the world?  

>DOS versions are going 
>to be written for some time to come and so will run on OS/2.

Well, you missed the point of what I was saying above then.  The point is that *more* dos 
based games will run on Win95 than they will on Os/2 right now.  This can only improve in 
the future.  Sim City 2000 for dos for instance, is a fairly intensive Dos-based game that 
runs on Win95 without even booting ino SAM mode and with no config.sys or autoexec.bat  
under Win95.  There are many, many games that fail to run in a Win95dos box for some 
minor glitch, so they have to be run in SAM mode.  They still run however, whereas with 
OS/2 you may be up the creek.  With only a minor patch or two, all these games will also 
run under Win95's dos box, matching all those that already do.  This is not to even mention 
the hundreds of Win95 games in development now designed specifically for the OS, not for 
dos boxes or SAM modes at all. 

>
>OS/2 and NT are comparable...so what games run on NT that don't run on 
>OS/2???????????

I don't know where you got this from, but the answer is that any game developed for 
Windows 95 will run on NT.  There are some problems right now but this is the goal and it 
will be done either before Christmas or just after.  You can argue about it if you want but 
that won't change it from happening.

OS/2 has a platry amount of games even compared to Windows 3.1 although most OS/2 
games are better.  the best games are all Dos, and Win95 can run more of them than OS/2 
period.  Win95 is also the next platform for games development after Dos, and a great deal 
of the games industry is already in the process of migrating to it.  Check the magazines, this 
is already happening.  OS/2 just never had the market share to make developing games for it 
anything other than a big gamble.  

Jeremy

>
>Brian
>
>bak...@ihug.co.nz
>