Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Article #1982Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming*
From: bad... Jonathan Badger
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00:00
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00:00
46 lines
3374 bytes
3374 bytes
Tom Pearce <no...@nompear.demon.co.uk> writes: >I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs >can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers [...] >[In] games, the user interface doesn't matter much. So why not just >use plain old DOS instead? Games will run faster in DOS than in any >multitasking system as it only has the one job to do, and anyway, I thought >one of the 'great' things about win9x was that you could start up a DOS >machine that completely gets rid of Win9x (good idea)...(for games, that is) >so that they could run at their best/fastest! I'm sure that is what the >developers are saying they will use (if they indeed are - I haven't heard >of any). No. You haven't been keeping up with the news in gaming magazines have you? Future games such as Wing Commander IV, Warhammer, and Falcon 4 will be Win 95 native apps. DOS games (and indeed DOS itself) are in their final days. There is a LOT of reasons why Win'95 is a better gaming platform than DOS -- for one thing you don't have to worry if your video or sound card is suppported by the game -- if Windows supports it, the game supports it -- and you don't have to have eight or ten differnt config.syses either! And with the WinG graphics library, it really isn't much slower than DOS. While OS/2 offers many of the same benefits, (well, the current graphics engine is dog slow in comparison to WinG, but this could be fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development community. You mention porting tools. Yes, but I doubt there will be many Win95 games ported to OS/2 even if these porting tools do 100% of the work (which they won't -- I've used similar tools for porting Windows 3.1 applications to Motif, and still lots of effort is required to get a working application). Developers simply don't see OS/2 as a viable platform. Don't believe me? Try calling technical support for any DOS game you having trouble running under OS/2. They will invariably say "We don't support running our games under OS/2". If they don't even bother to figure out the OS/2 settings for their DOS programs, do you think they'd spend any time or effort *porting* a program to OS/2? I am neither an OS/2 or Win'95 zealot (and I've used both). But OS/2 users are deluding themselves if they think there will be more than a handfull of native OS/2 games. OS/2's strength lies in its ability to run DOS and Windows applications. But unless Win'95 support is added (as was promised by IBM before they got Notes-happy, and which they now say won't happen), the number of modern games that OS/2 will be able to run in a year or two will be minimal.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<badger.804170273@phylo>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<vendettaDApDvy.L0C@netcom.com> <3sisen$aqs@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <3sl0sj$tkc@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <badger.804132541@phylo> <804160544snz@nompear.demon.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) Subject: Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming* Date: 1995/06/26 Message-ID: <badger.804170273@phylo> X-Deja-AN: 105124325 references: <vendettaDApDvy.L0C@netcom.com> <3sisen$aqs@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <3sl0sj$tkc@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <badger.804132541@phylo> <804160544snz@nompear.demon.co.uk> organization: University of Illinois at Urbana newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit