🚀 go-pugleaf

In <vendettaD...@netcom.com> vend...@netcom.com (andrew gaul)
writes: 
>
>Alexander O. Norris (a...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Hey crack smoking friend, yeah, you in the giant BLUE overalls with
>: OS/2 painted all over your face:
>
>And are you the little snotty kid sitting in a sandbox with a Windows
95 
>tattoo on your arm?  :)
>
>: get a recent copy of the Win95 beta, ok?  OS/2 SUCKS!  plain and
simple.
>
>hmm...  that's funny 9 out of 10 techs I know (me included) use OS/2. 

>Those who don't use Linux.
>
>: how well does OS/2 handle multimdeia huh?
>
>great!  Considering the fact that I have run CD Player and two video 
>files at the sime time (486DX2/66)
>
>: how about sound cards, joysticks, etc?
>
>OS/2 supports all major sound boards.  what did you expect?
>
>: What, you didn't mention the LONG, TEDIOUS, configuration info you
need 
>: to setup for every DOS program you run?
>
>none.  OS/2 runs 95% of all applications out of box.  if you want to 
>improve the speed of a particular app, fiddle with the configuration. 

>That simple.  Much like tweaking the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT
files.
>
>: Too bad, Win95 does it AUTOMATICALLY. 
>
>And OS/2 doesn't?  Gee, what's that little Migrate Applications icon 
>sitting in my System Setup folder.  Let's go click on it...  Migrate
DOS, 
>Windows and OS/2 programs?  Sure.  What?  You found Doom,
Civilization, 
>and Word 6.0?  That's nice...
>
>: What can run DOS programs better than DOS 7.0 (win95)????
>
>are you saying that Windows 95 is running under DOS?  That's not good.
 
>'Coz Windows is supposed to be 32-bit and now it can't do that under
DOS, 
>right?  oh, wait, they re-wrote DOS to be 32-bit?  well, then it isn't

>DOS anymore is it?
>
>: 'Nuff said
>
>Yes, you cetainly have said enough.  Sorry I had to rip you up like
that, 
>but somebody's got to tell you.  To all you Windows 95 advocates: this
is 
>almost a carbon copy of the post i will be writing to you if you start

>lieing again...  <g>
>
>Vendetta

I agree, that OS2/WARP can kick the shit out of Win95.  I tell you
this, there is a still a use for Win95, since OS2/WARP can only run 95%
of Windows programs. You will still need windows to run the other 5%
and you can use the disks to wipe the shit off your asshole when you
get done taking a shit.  Well unless you have the CD-ROM version, then
you have a good frizbee to though around the yard.


Big_...@ix.netcom.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
[delete]
>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

Which is completely false.  The DIVE API in OS/2 is doing what
WinG does since OS/2 v2.1. (i.e. for the last couple years)  Full
screen DIVE is planned to be release along with the upcoming
game developers' kit.

>fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development

This is quite true.  IBM seems unable to market what they have
effectively.  Things appear to be changing now that they are
making a games developers' kit, and you are seeing OS/2 ads
appearing since Warp.

[rest more suitable for advocacy groups deleted]

______
Oliver Chung
> My opinions are my own <                      >  Happy Warp user <
PGP Key fingerprint: 3E 86 59 AD 08 35 BE 54 DF 63 B9 F8 F7 8B 10 3B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBL+8mX3NBYa8g7KHRAQGBqAQApWympufLd7zPMc9K/WRQ8BGmQs0i5/l3
JXbvpFCvMjXWEcW3AOJOe3n9ZG345Ciej5yPaXbzHNUe//IngXySGF53PAOOr+wh
nKxdzrOD1jfTF1sg8uE7KsmAWa0fApncrvYAkAWtAVhpiynhLApJQ9VRcPYZR8vr
d+arIKfeaxY=
=dD/O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Since the second part is remotely related to games, I won't stick
a followup header on this one.

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:

>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! 

What they are doing is adding some API to OS/2 which more
resembles Win32, making the porting from Win32 -> OS/2 much
easier.  I guess they finally realize that it's futile to make
OS/2 to be compatible with a moving API (see how MS "upgrades"
Win32s 1.15 to 1.2 just after Warp is released).

>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.

Your "Most major" games developers are less than 10 as far as I
have seen.  Origin, Sierra, SH, and couple others are the only
ones I have heard with actual products for Win95 in progress. 
And of those, I usually hear about only 1 or 2 products are for
Win95.

More so, I haven't heard _any_ game companies say "We are doing
Win95 from now on, no more DOS games from us."

Of course, if you know more, please tell us about it.

>   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

Most new games are both CD-ROM and floppy from what I have seen.
There are significant number of CD-ROM only games, but far from
majority.  Your "only a matter of time" translates to anything
from 2 years to forever.  And MS stated that Win95 only have a
life of 3-5 years, it will be all NT after that.

If, and by the time, Win95 games become the norm, you will be
told to upgrade to NT.

>   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 heard the same about NT 2 years ago, where is NT now?

>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

Can you name a application category (e.g. wordprocessor,
spreadsheet) where there are _no_ OS/2 native apps? (Of course,
Win95 shell enhancers, VFAT recovery apps, etc, don't count)  Are
you willing to bet $$ on the ones that you are going to list that
I will be unable to find native OS/2 apps?

>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. 

If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
only.  Can you name some game companies which has 1 Win95 game
available with 2 planned to release within 6 months?

>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.

"But it is clear that MS is no longer willing to seriously
develop Win95 if it refuses to add OS/2 support."

Since OS/2 has more apps and games available, my statement is
more true than yours.

______
Oliver Chung
> My opinions are my own <                      >  Happy Warp user <
PGP Key fingerprint: 3E 86 59 AD 08 35 BE 54 DF 63 B9 F8 F7 8B 10 3B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBL+8iCnNBYa8g7KHRAQE5MgQApN9f4FTS5nLTLuJ4Ar1yyhcBNXdyybHi
WnZofSyhVLzgLI7DbYH+vm9DlR46WwVJC4jusFakivcMogPqHVnt0FIgG5PzeMg2
PNsRb4RDh0vzD6pjTILVqdvnxlhluibw09iZsqPfGDdQRnOKafWXZ44ZvrOGNU1n
JR/2jsOQ0Mw=
=uvj6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>I agree, that OS2/WARP can kick the shit out of Win95.  I tell you
>this, there is a still a use for Win95, since OS2/WARP can only run 95%
>of Windows programs. You will still need windows to run the other 5%
>and you can use the disks to wipe the shit off your asshole when you
>get done taking a shit.  Well unless you have the CD-ROM version, then
>you have a good frizbee to though around the yard.

Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass with 
OS/2 installation disks.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
                    __________    No matter where you go,
                   /  ______  \       there you are.
                  |  |      |  |        

In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:

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! 

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. 

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. 

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.

To: bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger)
Subject: Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming*

> 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...

This does not however mean that the developers will not port these games to OS/2.
Nor does it mean that they are not developing OS/2 only games.

There's a BIG difference between the phrases "developing Win'95 only games" and
"developing only Win'95 games".  Please read carefully before you make your
conclusions.  This is an example of how misinformation finds its way onto the
net.

Rob Vanden Heuvel

In article <badger.804132541@phylo>
           bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu "Jonathan Badger" writes:

> In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:
> 
> 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! 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs
can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers - there's no reason
why this shouldn't work fairly easily as Win9x is the simpler OS, mainly
on the threading thing as they are only available to OS calls rather than
software running on the OS in Win9x. If this bit of software doesn't turn
up, then it's still possible to use OS/2 as the 'work OS', and have a
seperate partition for Win9x for games. Why bother? Well, it's all personal
I suppose. I think that anyone who is used to DOS with Win3 running on it
finds Win9x thoroughly exciting, whereas anyone who is used to using OS/2
finds it rather old fashioned, slow, klunky etc. The desktop isn't even
object orientated, making OS/2 users find it rather hard to use. With
respect to 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...@nompear.demon.co.uk

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.

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:



: 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

DIVE is at least as good as, if not superior to, WinG.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

In article <804160...@nompear.demon.co.uk>, Tom Pearce <no...@nompear.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> In article <badger.804132541@phylo>
|>            bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu "Jonathan Badger" writes:
|> 
|> > In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:

[crunch...

1) No Win95 for OS/2 - ever

2) eventually only Win95 games

thus OS/2 no viable gaming platform]

|> > 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.

First off, just becuase there will not be a W95 compatibility doesn't mean
IBM is not willing to make serious improvments to OS/2. They do it so that
OS/2 gets more native SW instead of being forced to run Win95 SW.

|> I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs
|> can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers - there's no reason
|> why this shouldn't work fairly easily as Win9x is the simpler OS, mainly
|> on the threading thing as they are only available to OS calls rather than
|> software running on the OS in Win9x.

While this part is true, it doesn't help games as WinG is the games API
and it most likely is not part of the IBM approach, thus no additional game
support (besides Dive, the OS/2 equivalent of WinG)

|> If this bit of software doesn't turn
|> up, then it's still possible to use OS/2 as the 'work OS', and have a
|> seperate partition for Win9x for games. Why bother? Well, it's all personal
|> I suppose. I think that anyone who is used to DOS with Win3 running on it
|> finds Win9x thoroughly exciting, whereas anyone who is used to using OS/2
|> finds it rather old fashioned, slow, klunky etc. The desktop isn't even
|> object orientated, making OS/2 users find it rather hard to use. With
|> respect to 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).

The way it looks right now, IF you want many games, go for Win95. OS/2
is the better system, but MS got some game companies to develop for Win95
(or DOS) and unless they can't make enough money off their Win95 games,
they probably won't reconsider their position. OTOH it is quite possible
that Win95 backfires and that the game developers will reconsider..

 -Mike

deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:

>Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>: 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.

>Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
>support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

Actually no lawsuit would be possible if IBM simply allowed Win'95 to
run within OS/2, as no Microsoft code would be involved. But IBM isn't
willing to do even this. It has nothing to do with lawsuits -- Lou has simply
decided to put OS/2 on the back burner while concentrating on Notes, which
is bad news for gamers, unless you find Notes entertaining.

Dan Ehrig (deh...@mirac.unm.edu) wrote:
> : 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.

> Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
> support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

Actually, what you said is not true... Microsoft has said that they
will allow any company to include Win 95 support into their product
for the right price... And in fact, the point was made by the person
from MS (name escapes me) that this includes IBM... So in other words,
if IBM wanted to allow OS/2 to support Win 95 apps, they could do so,
but it would cost them... And rightfully so...

I don't particularly like the thought of Microsoft shutting IBM out of
the OS market (for small home computers that is)... Monopolies are bad
for me the consumer... And there is alot I don't like about Win 95, I
am using build 468 right now, but same applies to OS/2... Having tried
both products (albeit, Win 95 in Beta form which is not a fair way to
assess any product), I think my personal future holds Windows 95... I
feel safer in terms of third party support for the product... I use my
computer primarily as a glorified gaming platform with a word
processor built in... And everything I have read by the game companies
I like (Origin, EA and MicroProse), they all seem to think that the
WinG subset is something special and all the above mentioned companies
will be supporting it in the coming year... That virtually makes up my
mind for me... 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kaye
2nd Year Arts
Carleton University

Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
OS/2.


-- 
[][][] [][][]  []]  [] / Jon Reinberg
  []   []  []  [][] [] /    "What"
[][]   []  []  [] [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
 []    [][][]  []   [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:

[facts deleted]


: 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.

Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>Since OS/2 has more apps and games available, my statement is
>more true than yours.

Yes, but then OS/2 have been out on the market for quite some time. Game 
developers haven't been queueing up, have they?

Oh, and Win95 games do exist now! I have a game called Gnell or something (sw) and
it will only run in W95 (but then I didn't download the W3.11 version).

		Sv...@Oslonett.no

khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.

>Your "Most major" games developers are less than 10 as far as I
>have seen.  Origin, Sierra, SH, and couple others are the only
>ones I have heard with actual products for Win95 in progress. 
>And of those, I usually hear about only 1 or 2 products are for
>Win95.

Well, you pretty much hit them all (well, Maxis should be in there
too). But aren't most decent games from these companies? And aren't
the products that are going to "Win95 only" the flagship products of
these companies? Wing Commander IV and Falcon 4 are pretty much "must
buy" products if you are fans of space or flight simulators. It would
be different if all they were doing were producing cheap crud like
Windows Entertainment Packs that could easily (and wisely) be ignored.

>If, and by the time, Win95 games become the norm, you will be
>told to upgrade to NT.

Yes. But so what? This argument is pretty pointless. It's like saying
there's no point in buying a Pentium because in two years you'll have
to buy a Sexium.  At least I know there *will be* an upgrade path from
Win 95. I'm not convinced that Warp won't be the last version of OS/2
produced.

>>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. 

>If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
>"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
>only.  

Yes, I'm aware that SDS is the company in question. But are there ANY
other companies producing commercial OS/2 games? No. So what's your point?
 
I'm no fan of Microsoft -- I'm a happy Linux user -- but this doesn't
change the fact that there just doesn't seem to be a future, at least for
gamers, in OS/2.

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> 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.

Even todays Win3.1 have that feature - API based video support.
The result is not good: games like 'Myst' keep asking for '256 color'
mode force me to restart windows to switch mode.  Driver quality may
cause more compatibility problem than memory managers in DOS.  Windows
itself use a big chunk of ram plus any backgroud programs like fax, leaving
limited memory available hence force memory hungry games like Wing
Commander go to the disk more often.  Try run Descent in a 4M Ram
machine and you can see what happen.  I expect any big Win95 game
require 16M Ram minimum, and also ask for e.g. "Sound Blaster Driver
v1.24 or higher, WinG 3.3 or higher, 3D API 2.11 etc".  Hacking
CONFIG.SYS is easier than driver hunting.  BTW OS/2 also have these
problems.

Only the 3D API and support of 3D accelerator card sounds promising.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `

>
>This is quite true.  IBM seems unable to market what they have
>effectively.  Things appear to be changing now that they are
>making a games developers' kit, and you are seeing OS/2 ads
>appearing since Warp.
>
>[rest more suitable for advocacy groups deleted]
>
>______
>Oliver Chung
>> My opinions are my own <                      >  Happy Warp user <
>PGP Key fingerprint: 3E 86 59 AD 08 35 BE 54 DF 63 B9 F8 F7 8B 10 3B
>

I thought this was a strategy pc game group? Or am I way off base here....
-- 
-abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu  -Billy Joe Abner  -GO BROWNS!
-The preceeding post is pure fact--believe it pal!
-"What makes men hate women the most is their constant conversation." _Mr.
Horner _The Country Wife. (1775)

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

: Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
: developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
: OS/2.

Maybe with quicktime for windows.  I'm talking about Video for windows, 
which runs .avi files.  Apple successful sued Microsoft, which is why the 
newest video for windows had to be totally rewritten.

Pay attention to what I say, idiot.

: -- 
: [][][] [][][]  []]  [] / Jon Reinberg
:   []   []  []  [][] [] /    "What"
: [][]   []  []  [] [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
:  []    [][][]  []   [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html



--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: >Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
: >for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

: Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
: developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
: OS/2.
Where does one get quicktime for OS/2? I've been looking for quicktime to 
run with the OS/2 Webexplorer.

Doug Johnson
djoh...@vnet.net

deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) wrote:

>Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>[facts deleted]


>: 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.

>Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
>support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

That's just aprt of business...everybody steals what they can from the
competition.. they ALL do that
                            ^^^

>-Dan

>--
>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Aurora (aur...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:

: That's just aprt of business...everybody steals what they can from the
: competition.. they ALL do that

Are you defending this?  And no, they don't "all" do that.  Only MS.  In 
fact, MS is the only one accused of stealing code from another company in 
the last 10 years.  And the quicktime case is not the only one.

So please, use your head before posting.

-Dan

--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

deh...@enzu.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) wrote:

>Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:



>: 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

>DIVE is at least as good as, if not superior to, WinG.

I think the main benefit of any direct-to-hardware access in a GUI is
SUPPORT.

I'd have to say Win G wins out here.

What's the point of even comparing? The fact is, developers are
announcing Win '95 games, not OS/2.  I realize OS/2 is a superior OS
on a technical level.  Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter- but I'll
take actual games over "possible" ones anytime.

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: 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 [...]

<snip>
: 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.

Whoopss -

Win95 still uses your config.sys. They just hide it
behind that neat picture with the little blips at
the bottom (looks like a mini startrek).

If you don't believe me just go in there and move it.
I mean you really don't need it - Right.

If you do some stuff may not start and
a blank config.sys will be created.

The autoexec.bat must cantain that stupid
net start command or no net.

Of course since ms claims it isn't used ....

-Terry

Ps the dos underneat is still dos6 + upgrades ... Hmmmm
   (if it was a 32bit dos the command.com, and related files
	would have had to be updated ...)

In article <3sppcn$6...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@capella.unm.edu> wrote:
>Aurora (aur...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
>
>: That's just aprt of business...everybody steals what they can from the
>: competition.. they ALL do that
>
>Are you defending this?  And no, they don't "all" do that.  Only MS.  In 
>fact, MS is the only one accused of stealing code from another company in 
>the last 10 years.  And the quicktime case is not the only one.
>
>So please, use your head before posting.
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Doublespace comes to mind as well, which is (was) Stacker Lite without
Stac's permission.  It was also horrendously inferior in features and
was prone to crashing hard disks.  The newer versions of it did
fix some of the bugs though.

I find it hard to believe any one would DEFEND a company of stealing
code.  That's ludicrous.  

Steven

sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld) wrote:

>In article <3sppcn$6...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@capella.unm.edu> wrote:
>>Aurora (aur...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
>>
>>: That's just aprt of business...everybody steals what they can from the
>>: competition.. they ALL do that
>>
>>Are you defending this?  And no, they don't "all" do that.  Only MS.  In 
>>fact, MS is the only one accused of stealing code from another company in 

Other companies did it...it's just that MS is such a big (and rich)
target it's actually worth officially accusing.......

>>the last 10 years.  And the quicktime case is not the only one.
>>
>>So please, use your head before posting.
>>

just beside the point.....I didn't get this reply yet.......(was
included in another reply...lousy newsserver, I guess ;))

>>-Dan
>>
>>--
>>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

>Doublespace comes to mind as well, which is (was) Stacker Lite without
>Stac's permission.  It was also horrendously inferior in features and
>was prone to crashing hard disks.  The newer versions of it did
>fix some of the bugs though.

>I find it hard to believe any one would DEFEND a company of stealing
>code.  That's ludicrous.  

I'm not defending them.....just stating what it's at...


>Steven

Sean Kaye <sk...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Dan Ehrig (deh...@mirac.unm.edu) wrote:
>
>> Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
>> support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

>Actually, what you said is not true... Microsoft has said that they
>will allow any company to include Win 95 support into their product
>for the right price... And in fact, the point was made by the person
>from MS (name escapes me) that this includes IBM... So in other words,
>if IBM wanted to allow OS/2 to support Win 95 apps, they could do so,
>but it would cost them... And rightfully so...

Not quite.  When IBM and Microsoft officially annulled their marriage
over OS/2, IBM brought a slew of patents with them to the negotiation
table.  If I recall correctly, as part of the agreement, IBM has full
access to Windows 3.1 source code and is free to sell licensed copies
of Windows 3.1 in perpetuity.  And they can implement Win32 in
perpetuity.  (They don't have rights to Win 95 code, but they can
support the Win32 API wherever they want.)  They already have the
right to implement Windows 95 support; the question is will they.
 _________________________________________________________________   
|\ ________________________________________________________________\ 
| |                                                                 |
| | John H. Kim             "I have become One with my computer.    |
| | jo...@mit.edu            I have reached . . . Nerdvana."        |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu          - Dilbert, by Scott Adams           |
 \|_________________________________________________________________|

khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>>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. 
>
>If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
>"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
>only.  Can you name some game companies which has 1 Win95 game
>available with 2 planned to release within 6 months?

There is also SimCity Classic from DUX, and currently in development are 
SimCity 2000 (Maxis) and Tensor (AIMs).

Matt

Tom Pearce (no...@nompear.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <badger.804132541@phylo>
:            bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu "Jonathan Badger" writes:

: > In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:
: > 
: > 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! 
: > 
: > 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. 
: > 
: > 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. 
: > 
: > 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.
: > 
: > 

: I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs
: can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers - there's no reason
: why this shouldn't work fairly easily as Win9x is the simpler OS, mainly
: on the threading thing as they are only available to OS calls rather than
: software running on the OS in Win9x. If this bit of software doesn't turn
: up, then it's still possible to use OS/2 as the 'work OS', and have a
: seperate partition for Win9x for games. Why bother? Well, it's all personal
: I suppose. I think that anyone who is used to DOS with Win3 running on it
: finds Win9x thoroughly exciting, whereas anyone who is used to using OS/2
: finds it rather old fashioned, slow, klunky etc. The desktop isn't even
: object orientated, making OS/2 users find it rather hard to use. With
: respect to 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).
There is already games out for OS/2. There is glactic civilization,
doom, sim city. Most games in Dos will run in OS/2 as long as you have
enought ram. You don't have to worry about the amount of low memory
avaliabnle. As for Windows games, they are not much better then Dos
games. As for Aplications, OS/2 comes with IBM Works, which has a WOrd
Processer, Spreadsheet, Charting, a Database, Report Writer, and a
Persional Information Manager. There is Model and Fax softwaRE
incliuded. There is alot of Multimedia software inculded. You also can
use the Internet Connection software which allows you to IBM's Server
or another Internet Provider. There also is better OS/2 applications
then Windows applications.

As for the future software for Win9x, it will only be out, only be out
if Win9x is an instant sucess. If Win9x doesn't recive good support
Win9x software will be canceled and OS/2 version released instead. 

The game Ultima 8 was to have an add on but Ultima 8 floped , add on
cancled.
If you want to use you PC for more then just playing games get OS/2.

You get a superiour operating system, fullo dos suport, alowing any
dos application or games to be run. You get the Windows patch to fix
Windows and make it run faster. And widnows support, for Windows
applicatiopns. 

Colin Dawson
SAtwt ktima W gdipmndcmawehIndowe int ork mnglfunddNosli
: -- 
: ______________
: no...@nompear.demon.co.uk

Cerebus the Aardvark (cer...@bmt.cent.com) wrote:
: In <badger.804173455@phylo>, bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
: >deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
: >
: >>Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >
: >>: 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.
: >
: >>Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
: >>support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.
: >
: >Actually no lawsuit would be possible if IBM simply allowed Win'95 to
: >run within OS/2, as no Microsoft code would be involved. But IBM isn't
: >willing to do even this. It has nothing to do with lawsuits -- Lou has simply
: >decided to put OS/2 on the back burner while concentrating on Notes, which
: >is bad news for gamers, unless you find Notes entertaining.

: This is not entirely true.  I somehow find it difficult to believe that a
: company the size of IBM can only focus on one piece of software at a time.
: By what I've heard from tech reps at IBM, there is going to be either
: another version or at least a major public upgrade to OS/2 Warp;  however,
: he admitted he didn't know what the upgrade was going to accomplish...
Likely 2-3 month after the release of Windows 95.
Colin
 if 
: OS/2 is not on the backburner, but because it is an OS, and not just an
: application or game, it won't have new releases every few months.  I do with
: Gerstner would get off his ass and do something *FOR* OS/2 rather than
: *TO* it.  I do hope they don't bother to add Win9x support, because that
: would effectively kill OS/2.  They need to get developers working in OS/2
: rather than Win9x (in fact, I found it rather funny to hear that a major
: application company uses OS/2 as a development shell when working on
: Win3.x software - although they don't produce a native OS/2 version)...

: Cerebus/2 :: cer...@bmt.cent.com

Colin Dawson (yu10...@rufous.yorku.ca) wrote:

: : > In an attempt to inject some facts into this flame war:
: : > 
: : > 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! 

The reason why is because they have no rights to it at all!

: : > 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. 
: : > 
: : > 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. 
: : > 
: : > 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.

The keyword is not WILLING but CAN'T as they have to reverse engineer it 
which appears to have been a problem for IBM!

: There is already games out for OS/2. There is glactic civilization,
: doom, sim city. Most games in Dos will run in OS/2 as long as you have
: enought ram. You don't have to worry about the amount of low memory
: avaliabnle. As for Windows games, they are not much better then Dos
: games. As for Aplications, OS/2 comes with IBM Works, which has a WOrd
: Processer, Spreadsheet, Charting, a Database, Report Writer, and a
: Persional Information Manager. There is Model and Fax softwaRE
: incliuded. There is alot of Multimedia software inculded. You also can
: use the Internet Connection software which allows you to IBM's Server
: or another Internet Provider. There also is better OS/2 applications
: then Windows applications.

: As for the future software for Win9x, it will only be out, only be out
: if Win9x is an instant sucess. If Win9x doesn't recive good support
: Win9x software will be canceled and OS/2 version released instead. 

I've got sad news for you the fact is there is already a whole boatload 
of complete Win95 software complete and packaged waiting to be and will 
be released.

: The game 
:Ultima 8 was to have an add on but Ultima 8 floped , add on : cancled.

There is a difference in planning on developing and already developed.

: If you want to use you PC for more then just playing games get OS/2.
: You get a superiour operating system, fullo dos suport, alowing any
: dos application or games to be run. You get the Windows patch to fix
: Windows and make it run faster. And widnows support, for Windows
: applicatiopns. 

The only problem is you will be only running old Win 31 and below 
programs not new and improve Win95 apps or games. Or the fact that 
Windows runs windows better than OS/2 despite your false claims. Also 
your fooling yourself if you think OS/2 will be able to run any WIN95
product whether under a DOS format or otherwise.

Everyone interested in the "OS Wars" will surely be interested in this!

The most recent PC Week had this to say about Intel's P6 chip:
----clip----

When Intel Corp.'s next-generation P6 processor arrives in systems late this
year, it will offer only meager performance gains when running Windows 95, 
leading many PC makers -- and corporate buyers -- to bypass the new operating
system in favor of Windows NT or OS/2 Warp. 

Testing of the preproduction Intel microprocessor shows that Windows 95 runs 
only about 10 percent faster on P6 than on a high-speed Pentium processor 
because of the significant amount of 16-bit code in the operating system,
according to leading PC makers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 

Since the P6 is optimized for native 32-bit unsegmented code, running 16-bit 
code results in continued switching of memory segments, and thus, slower
performance, according to sources close to Intel. 

An official at another top 10 PC company concurred. "The only operating systems
appropriate for P6 platforms are those that are true 32-bit, such as NT or OS/2
Warp," said the executive. "We will test for Windows 95 compatibility and
certification but will not ship it with our P6 [systems]." 

Meanwhile, Microsoft officials say they have no immediate plans to optimize
Windows 95 for the P6. 

---clip---


   Other articles spoke of the P6's performance stating that 32-bit applications
will run as much as twice on a P6 than on a Pentium at the same clock speed
due to the P6 being optimized for 32-bit code.  That's quite a bit better than
the measly 10 percent increase for Windows 95 users!  By the end of 1995, the
mighty Windows 95 will be crippling the performance of all your precious 32-bit
Windows apps that you just spent so much money on!  Windows 95 is a dead end
not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
OS/2!

   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
future.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
any sense!


Rob Vanden Heuvel

The facts speak for themselves, I just reiterate them.

This may be the case.  In fact, I would prefer using NT or Warp to Win95, but
many games will be developed to work with Win95 and its APIs.  They could
be moved to NT I suppose.


-- 
Fred Mah  ---  fm...@widget.ecn.purdue.edu

In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:

>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.

Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
right!!!!    OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day.   NT, with 
'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

> Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!

Yeah, and the world will end tomorrow!   Explain why OS/2 isn't shipping with 
the PowerPC and NT is.    Hah, hah, thanks I needed a good laugh.   ;) 

>Rob (in dreamland) Vanden Heuvel



----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Speichts
Beaverbank Nova Scotia

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca>,
Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
>
>>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>>system) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>>future.
>
>Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
>right!!!!  

Yes.  I did this on a 486/50 w/ 4 megs. when the very first beta of Warp
came out.  There are certainly more pleasant things to try, but this was
surprisingly fast with little swapping.  Such a feat would be even more
unpleasant on Win95, and a flat out impossibility on Win NT.

>OS/2 needs as much hardware behind it as NT any day. 

The above statement is a lie; there is no point trying to excuse something
so ludicrously incorrect as even ignorance.

1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
  8 megs. will allow NT to boot, but it will swap for almost a minute just
  to login.  Don't even think about running _any_ applications on NT with
  such a system.

>NT, with 
>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
to information on joining it.



Farewell-


Aaron

In article <3tp4ls$a...@carbon.concom.com> syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) writes:
>>NT, with 
>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>to information on joining it.

Me a liar ... no, not me!   ;)

Nit picking tisk tisk.  Alpha, Beta, same thing in my books.  It's out 
in ALPHA.   Free download for COMPUSERVE members.  Not sure of the forum.
It's been discussed a bit in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.setup, the forum is 
mentioned in one thread.   Contact MS for info. on joining any MS Beta.    

How this effects games, in my book not.   For the moment, you still can't beat 
plain old DOS for that, hense I multiboot for games.


----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Speichts
Beaverbank Nova Scotia

syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:



>1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.

While we're speaking of lies...

OS/2 will LOAD in 4 megs.  You cannot do anything productive with it
in that configuration.  You'll have a hard time trying to convince
someone who's actually used the product in 4 of that.

>2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.

"Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.


>>NT, with 
>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.

>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>to information on joining it.

You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
will be released _very_ early in '96.

In article <3tq6bb$4...@steel.interlog.com>,
Dave Glue <dav...@interlog.com> wrote:
>syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>>1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
>
>While we're speaking of lies...
>
>OS/2 will LOAD in 4 megs.  You cannot do anything productive with it
>in that configuration.  You'll have a hard time trying to convince
>someone who's actually used the product in 4 of that.

I did not claim 4 megs made OS/2 a dream machine.  No lie exists in the
statement 'You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.'  In another post, I've mentioned
that NT can even run in 8 megs, although it will make that OS/2 in 4 seem
like a dream machine. :-)  'Running' and 'operating' are not terms which
necessitate tremendous performance.  Do not claim my truthful statements about
operation to be lies.

>>2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
>
>"Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
>NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.

'Pleasantly' is admittedly more subjective, which is why I also added the
qualifier 'for several apps.'  Both NT in 16 and OS/2 in 8 are sufficient
to do say, a word processor, background download, music player and several
pointless apps like screen savers without much pain.

>>>NT, with 
>>>'95's shell, it's out in beta, will kick OS/2's butt.   Period.
>
>>Again, a simple lie.  There is no Cairo beta.  Were there such a beta program,
>>I'm certain one of the pro-Microsoft posters would be happy to direct us
>>to information on joining it.
>
>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.

I have been used to people making the incorrect equation of NT w/95 shell ==
Cairo, and responded in kind.  Since I have encountered someone who realizes
there is in fact a distinct difference, I apologize.  I do not know the
status of the shell; I doubt it would be a tremendous task, however.  Early
96 seems reasonable for such a release for existing NT.  Whether a new major
rev. of NT accompanies the shell is a bigger question.


Farewell-


Aaron

dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:

>syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:

>>2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.

>"Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
>NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.

   Actually, NT runs rather nice with 16 megs. Although you'd need 24 megs
to do programming. It's not fast but it's certainly not doggy with 16 megs.

>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.
   
   Nope, they haven't even finished coding yet. I believe they hope to have
an alpha version by early '96(or even end of this year) and hopefully ship
by '97

>  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.

   It won't be 4.0. I think 4.0 will be cairo. They are testing the interface
and it will go on top of 3.51. I'm guessing it will be called 3.6. Should
ship late 95 or early '96.

>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.

   Actually, it's still designated as alpha(last time I checked at least), and
it is pretty buggy. It could be called early beta since Microsoft had been
testing it internally for a while now.

   BTW how did this discussion come up in the comp.*.games.* group?

P.J. Kim

In <3tq6bb$4...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>
>You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
>provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
>And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>will be released _very_ early in '96.
>
This is pointless discussion about an operating system that needs 16MB
RAM to run, and 32MB to run well, costs over $200, and is so complex 
to install that the average game player will revert to messing with
DOS' config.sys and autoexec.bat rather than try to understand it. How
many users need the robustness and security features of NT to play
games and are willing to shell out that sort of money for it?

Nigel J. Clarke
NASA Tracking Station BDA
Office (809) 293-1142 x 203	Fax (809) 293-6955
EMail:	ncl...@bda-hp.bda.nasa.gov
Any views expressed are those of the author.

ncl...@sysadm.bda.nasa.gov wrote:


>This is pointless discussion about an operating system that needs 16MB
>RAM to run, and 32MB to run well, costs over $200, and is so complex 
>to install that the average game player will revert to messing with
>DOS' config.sys and autoexec.bat rather than try to understand it. How
>many users need the robustness and security features of NT to play
>games and are willing to shell out that sort of money for it?

A user posted about the OS "Cairo", which doesn't exist in any
pre-form (alpha or beta) yet, and confused it with NT 4.0.  So I
corrected him.  I certainly have no desire to "discuss" NT.  

But 32 megs to run well?  "Complex" to install?  Most reviews I've
read stated it runs well in 16 megs, and it's "one button"
installation was actually quite easier than OS/2's.

In article <3ts388$f...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave
Glue) wrote:

> A user posted about the OS "Cairo", which doesn't exist in any
> pre-form (alpha or beta) yet, and confused it with NT 4.0.  

What makes you think Cairo is not NT 4.0?

-- 
Regards, Gary

Gary E. Bloom                      POB 219
SoftWorlds for Children       Edmonds, WA 98020
g...@halcyon.com                 Voice/Fax: 206.672.2107

Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:

: You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
: provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
: And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
: will be released _very_ early in '96.

Damn, I wish this was an "official" MS release date, so we could all 
happily know the real release date (ie: _very_ early in '97) is.

(g)

-Dan


--
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

deh...@indus.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:

>Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:

>: You're right, there is no Cairo beta.  However, the description
>: provided above is not of Cairo, it is NT 4.0 with the 95 interface.
>: And it most certainly is in beta, has been for some time, and likely
>: will be released _very_ early in '96.

>Damn, I wish this was an "official" MS release date, so we could all 
>happily know the real release date (ie: _very_ early in '97) is.

   Actually, you can believe the date on this one. They've been testing it
internally for quite a while before they sent out alpha version of the 
interface. They didn't sent out alpha till now because they didn't want to 
release the NT version too close to the release date of WIN 95. Of course,
they might again delay the release date of WIN 95.

P.J.

>> 1. You can operate OS/2 on 4 megs.  You _cannot_ operate Win NT on this.
> While we're speaking of lies...
> OS/2 will LOAD in 4 megs.  You cannot do anything productive with it
> in that configuration.  You'll have a hard time trying to convince
> someone who's actually used the product in 4 of that.

That was no lie.  OS/2 works fine in 4 megs.  I know, I do it.  I used to run
it in 8 megs but I sold 4 to help finance my forthcoming upgrade so I speak
from experience.  Certainly it was a fair bit faster in 8 megs but I still
don't have any problems with it in 4.  All my apps run as stable as ever.
Even at 4 megs, FX Fighter plays better under OS/2 than under DOS.  I have
no complaints but will defintely be happy when I'm back to 8...and when I
can afford 16!

>> 2. You can operate OS/2 pleasantly for several applications on 8 megs.
> "Pleasantly" made by an exaggeration.  However, you are correct that
> NT will need 16 megs to run "pleasantly" as well.

No exaggeration, again from experience.

Rob Vanden Heuvel

In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  

Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
a happy camper.

Paul Hanlin, jr.
Pau...@ix.netcom.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=======================================================================
"This is your brain.  This is your brain in the street. Any questions?"
        Beavis, of course!
=======================================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <3u68d0$o...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Hanlin, Jr. says...
>
>In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
>Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
>need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
>booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
>or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  
>

Actually, I was just told today by a Microsoft Rep that the Plus Pack will 
ship with the CD-ROM edition of W'95.

-rich


>Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
>scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
>a happy camper.
>
>Paul Hanlin, jr.
>Pau...@ix.netcom.com
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>=======================================================================
>"This is your brain.  This is your brain in the street. Any questions?"
>        Beavis, of course!
>=======================================================================
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

Paul Hanlin, Jr. (pau...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In stores now is a free little ditty called World of Windows 95 Demo. 
: Apparently in order to get MSN (microsoft network) up and running, you
: need to also buy the Microsoft Plus package (add-on?).  Page 3 of the
: booklet is where you'll find this info.  Which is no doubt another $60
: or so on top of the $95-100 you'll pay for Win95.  

: Sorry, Chairman Bill, not me.  If it looks like a scam and talks like a
: scam, then it probably is a scam.  Give me my Geoworks 2.01 and I'll be
: a happy camper.

W R O N G ! ! !
===============

Don't start a flame of Microsoft or any other company when
you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

What's contained in the Plus Pack?

DLRapp (dan....@stpete.honeywell.com) writes:
> What's contained in the Plus Pack?

Well its pretty much IMHO a rip off. I got all my Win docs yesterday on
this migration CD. It said MS PLus will have a WWW broswer , 7 sheets of
wallpaper with sounds, a pinball game and something like better disk
compression.  

(I hope I get my Win 95 beta tonight)

Johny

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|      Johny or Spunky can be reached at: bs...@Freenet.carleton.ca       |
|                          I am quoteless. Sorry.                         |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~