🚀 go-pugleaf

 |> >How on earth can anyone even consider running the useless piece of
**** 
|> >known as Win9x when there is a product of such merit as OS/2 to
compete? 
|> 
|> >The answer is simple - ignorance. 
|> 
|> The answer is even simpler... SUPPORT.

>the answer actually is perceived demand (by the developers), if Win95
>doesn't sell like hotcakes, they will support OS/2 as well

I am willing to say that Win 95 has already backordered as many copies
as OS/2 has in the marketplace today.  MS doesn't even need to do ads
for their product when most of the stores (in my area at least) are
advertising
that their computers have free upgrades for Win 95 or are at least taking
orders for it.  

|> There are very few companies who support OS/2.  And those which do are
|> usually small.  

>what's wrong with being small, new comapnies usually start out small and 
>then grow

Just that most of the products that people really want or need come from
large
corporations like Lotus, Novell, MS... etc.  If a company is small and
grows, that
is great, but most mainstream recommendable apps come from large
companies.

|> When I see Origin or Electronic Arts produce OS/2 native apps,
|> then maybe OS/2 will look good but not now!

>Neither Origin nor EA will determine the success of Win95 or OS/2,
>Novell,Lotus, MS and the like will (you get the picture, the ones
>that write apps, not games), although EA etc. can help Win95 to
>find a place where it is comfortable in (who would want to multitask
>games..)

My point was just that there are SOME decent apps for OS/2 like the ones
that
Lotus will be bringing out.  However, with OS/2 not having more than a
handful
of NATIVE games for it, there is no advantage for the average gamer to get
involved
with it when so many companies will get on the Win 95 bandwagon.

|> BTW, you claim that WinNT isn't good for most people because of the 
|> steep hardware reqs...  OS/2 requires just about the same amount... 
|> I wouldn't dare run it on under 16 Megs of RAM.  

>in which case you should say the same about Win95, OS/2's and Win95's 
>requirements are about equal (NT OTOH needs somewhat more)

Win95 will run reliably with 8 Megs.  OS/2 cannot claim that it will.  For
instance,
multimedia applications require at least 8MB of RAM.  We all know how good
requirements are at saying what will run reliably.  OS/2 will only perform
well
with 16 MB (and maybe 12).  NT is great with 16 Megs (although 8 are
required).
It is sort of in the same boat as OS/2.

John