🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ulr1e$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jmarc...@aol.com (JMarc39157) writes:
|> 
|> >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

|> 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

|> 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..)

|> 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)

 -Mike