🚀 go-pugleaf

Terje A. Bergesen (ter...@vestnett.no) wrote:
: > Microsoft, on the other hand, has done a very good job evangelizing the
: > Win32 API, and there will be more new Win32 apps available in the next 3-6
: > months than there ever were for OS/2. 

: And none of these will be taking advantage of the Win32 API to
: any degree. Most of the will take advantage og 32 bitedness, which
: is not too important, and long filenames.

Says you. Threading (and most of the other cool features of 95/NT) are 
EASY to implement with tools like Visual C++ and the MFC. This issue 
isn't that big a deal for new apps. And a lot of major version upgrades 
are enough of a redesign that the impact for implementing features like 
threading are, relatively speaking, not THAT big a deal.

As far as 32 "bitedness" being not too important, well, you haven't coded
much, have you? Ever had to write a Windows app with C and the SDK? Ever
had to write a DLL for Windows 3.x (or earlier)? Dealing with a segmented
memory model is no picnic. Besides the flat memory model, there are many
other features of writing for Windows 95 that make it well worth the
effort. 

: You see - it is A LOT easier to port multithreaded apps from OS/2
: to Windows 95 than to rewrite a Win 3 app as a multithreaded app.

Well, no kidding. How does this support your argument at all? 

And I'm sure this will be happening in droves as people ditch OS/2 like
the sinking ship it is and move up to Windows 95 or Windows NT. 

: ISV's will have to sit down at a table, rething the whole app, and
: start from scratch. Most of what they have can't be used.

Not necessarily true. I will concede, though, that good multithreaded apps
are DESIGNED to be multithreaded; it's not something you can easily go
back and tack on, although if the app was designed right in the first 
place, it doesn't have to be a total rewrite. 

[snip]
: > : OS/2 runs more apps (without emulation) than any other operating system.
: > : That's what I call a good selection.
: > 
: > This is complete bullshit. Can you tell me where you pulled these figures 
: > from? Your ass, I suspect.

: Polite aren't we?

I have been thus far, believe me.

: Well, you probably wouldn't know an app from where you think he
: pulled the numbers from.

Oooh! Did you write that one yourself? Good one, Beavis!

As far as whether or not I "know an app" from my ass, well, I'd be more 
than happy to compare credentials with you.

: OS/2 runs close to all Windows apps. OS/2 runs most DOS apps. OS/2

"Close to all", huh? "Most" DOS apps? You're being mighty vague.

: is the only operating system that runs a lot of DOS apps in a
: protected environment. Windows 95 doesn't run them in a protected
: environment, NT doesn't run a lot og them. The latter is true for

NT runs most well behaved DOS apps that don't attempt to write directly 
to hardware. Windows 95 runs a vast majority of existing DOS apps, as 
well as Win16 apps. 

: most other DOS emulators as well. So, by covering most DOS and
: Windows apps, and adding OS/2 apps, you come to a number that is
: beyond any number that Windows NT / Windows 95 can do. This is -

You OS/2 teamsters really have NO grip on reality, you know? 

Listen, OS/2 is not a bad OS - but there's NO WAY you can claim it has
ANYWHERE NEAR the applications support that Windows 95 has. 

: ofcourse - only true until the number of Win32 apps is greater
: than the number of OS/2 apps. Currently that is not the case.

Currently you still haven't pulled any solid numbers out to support your 
claims. 

If you want informal support for my claim that Windows 95/NT has more
applications support, go to your local software retailer and count how
many Windows & Windows 95 apps are on the shelf, and then count the OS/2
apps. Do the math.

: _______________________________________________________________________
: Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data
: "No users  of microcomputers wants multitasking,  nor would they be
:  able to use it. All they would ever do with it would be background
:  printing, and you can do that under DOS."  --- Bill Gates.

OK, genius - what YEAR was that quote from? You can pull quotes from that 
time period from just about ANYBODY in the business and make 'em look 
like idiots. Maybe we should go back and try to dig up some similar 
quotes from some IBM execs? 

Scott Butler (MCSD)