🚀 go-pugleaf

In <badger.804132541@phylo> bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
Well, I thought I wouldn't let myself get into this, but it's becoming 
more abysmal, so I may as well join :)

>1) According to PC Week, IBM has stated that contrary to previous
>   reports, there will be no version of OS/2 that will support Win'95
>   apps -- ever! 
Shit. IBM disg it's grave and pushed itself in.
>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.
>   It will be only a matter of time before most new games are
>   Win'95 only, just as most new games today are CD-ROM only. People may
>   whine at first at having to purchase Win'95, just as people whined about
>   having to purchase a CD-ROM drive, but in the end they will relent. 
I don't want to buy Winever, period. Microshit produces crap, pure and 
simple. However, it's crap that's comptatble with itself, so it sells.

>It is irrelevant whether or not you think OS/2 is superior to
>Win'95. Without Win'95 support, OS/2 will rapidly become useless except for
>running old programs. And please don't tell me "there are hundreds of native
>OS/2 programs". Yes, for things like parakeet breeding management. But on
>the gaming front, there exists precisely one native OS/2 commercial game, with
>only two more planned. Clearly without Win'95 support, OS/2 is doomed as
>a gaming platform. 

True. However, as an OS, it isundeniable more stable and superior. After 
all, which has been around longer, OS/2 or Windoze9X ? 

>I am not pleased with this situation. But it is clear that IBM is no longer
>willing to seriously develop OS/2 if it refuses to add Win'95 support.

Not pleased? I'm downright pissed. I do not like microsoft. I find 
microsoft to produce non-quality products (IE: dos and windows 3.1). Dos 
is useable because it is designed as a single tasking OS. Windows is 
pathetic because it is slow, and pretends to multi-task (task swap is a 
better term). If what i've heard about win9X is true (it's packaged with 
memmaker), windows9X users are again buying an inferior product.
Personally, I prefer OS2. This is because it set up cleanly on MY system, 
and it runs smoothly in 8 meg ram. (Win9X in 8? i think not). However, if 
I were to go to a real system, no compatabily in mind, there can be only 
one: LINUX. However, I prefer some compatability.
Also, no win9X boosters: If all companies are preparing for the advent of 
95, what will happen to them if the public looks at it and says a 
collective "Ugh!"? What if windows95 bombs? From the sounds of it now, it 
is feasable. From what I've read in magazines, the opinion is a 50/50 
split. (I won't take my bias into that). It would be... funny to say the 
least :)
-- 
I will not be filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am not a 
number, I am a free man! - The Prisoner