🚀 go-pugleaf

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

Look it is so easy:

if you like Win so use Win;
if you like OS/2 so use OS/2;
if you can only make such stupid comments so shut up!


Are you really from this planet?


Andreas/2

JORDAN  SPENSER AARON (jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

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

Will you ever stop making these pointless and unsupported statements?  Idiot.
: -- 
: _____________________________________________________________________________
:                     __________    No matter where you go,
:                    /  ______  \       there you are.
:                   |  |      |  |        

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

Alexander O. Norris (a...@ix.netcom.com) wrote in alt.fan.warlord:
>In <3sldui$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes: 
>>
>>JORDAN  SPENSER AARON (jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass
>with 
>>: OS/2 installation disks.
>>
>>Will you ever stop making these pointless and unsupported statements? 
>Idiot.

>-----------Uh-hum (clearing my throat here).  True, the comment about
>Win95 being better than OS/2 was a bit crass, BUT who are you Dan, to
>complain about unsupported statements?????  Dan, Mr.
>I-think-I'll-Use-the-Notation-"WinXX"-All-the-Time.  Excuse me, get a
>copy of the latest Win95 beta release and then you'll see that Win95,
>yes, i said NINETY-FIVE, will come out on time.  

>How about that $10 or $20 bet?  right online for EVERYONE to see.  I
>say Win95 will be out by the latest mid-September, if not Aug. 24.

>Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
>Awwww.....come on.  

Keep this crap out of alt.fan.warlord.

In article <3sl0sj$t...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) writes:
>>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.

Since you have admitted to never having SEEN os/2, please back up this 
claim that win is better.

In <3sldui$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes: 
>
>JORDAN  SPENSER AARON (jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>
>: Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass
with 
>: OS/2 installation disks.
>
>Will you ever stop making these pointless and unsupported statements? 
Idiot.

-----------Uh-hum (clearing my throat here).  True, the comment about
Win95 being better than OS/2 was a bit crass, BUT who are you Dan, to
complain about unsupported statements?????  Dan, Mr.
I-think-I'll-Use-the-Notation-"WinXX"-All-the-Time.  Excuse me, get a
copy of the latest Win95 beta release and then you'll see that Win95,
yes, i said NINETY-FIVE, will come out on time.  

How about that $10 or $20 bet?  right online for EVERYONE to see.  I
say Win95 will be out by the latest mid-September, if not Aug. 24.

Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
Awwww.....come on.  

In article <3snrsh$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Alexander O. Norris  <a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
><I bet 10 or 20 bucks that Windows 95 will come out in 95> (sic)
>
>Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
>Awwww.....come on.  

Why should they?  Their operating system is already out.  

And working.

                     -Joel

In <3snrsh$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) writes:
>In <3sldui$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes: 
>>
>>JORDAN  SPENSER AARON (jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass
>with 
>>: OS/2 installation disks.
>>
>>Will you ever stop making these pointless and unsupported statements? 
>Idiot.
>
>-----------Uh-hum (clearing my throat here).  True, the comment about
>Win95 being better than OS/2 was a bit crass, BUT who are you Dan, to
>complain about unsupported statements?????  Dan, Mr.
>I-think-I'll-Use-the-Notation-"WinXX"-All-the-Time.  Excuse me, get a
>copy of the latest Win95 beta release and then you'll see that Win95,
>yes, i said NINETY-FIVE, will come out on time.  
>
>How about that $10 or $20 bet?  right online for EVERYONE to see.  I
>say Win95 will be out by the latest mid-September, if not Aug. 24.
>
>Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
>Awwww.....come on.  

I'm not an OS/2 zealot but I find your posts are usually fact free so
I decided it to take you up on this bet. It was originally do in the 1Q94
so at best it is going to be 1.5 yrs. late. You owe me $20. 

Glenn Davies

All i have to say about win 95 is that it's still a shell....


win 32/16????  What a load of crap...


Stay AS FAR away as u can from the ultimate "big-brother"  Bill Gates...


Spader,
Abraham K. Song, the Doctor

deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) 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.

Yes they do (hey cool.......we could keep the argument going for a
long time this way ;))

sure....only MS does that.....dream on....


>So please, use your head before posting.

>-Dan

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

In <3sp5b4$n...@Isis.MsState.Edu> jk...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Joseph K
Mcallister) writes: 
>
>In article <3snrsh$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Alexander O. Norris  <a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>><I bet 10 or 20 bucks that Windows 95 will come out in 95> (sic)
>>
>>Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
>>Awwww.....come on.  
>
>Why should they?  Their operating system is already out.  
>
>And working.
>
>                     -Joel
--------Joel, I'm betting OS/2 zealots this because I'm sick and tired
of hearing and seeing Win96, Win97, Win98, Win9x, to imply that Win95
will not be out on time.  IT WILL BE, and to throw in a bit of
excitement, I'm willing to bet $20.  Anytakers?

The following games are still available.  All are in original boxes
with all manuals and docs.  Shipping included in price.

    Gabriel Knight (no box)     CD      23.00
    Hell                        CD      23.00
    Leisure Suit Larry 6        CD      23.00
    Nomad                       CD      13.00
    Dark Sun, Wake of Ravager   CD      18.00
    Iron Helix                  CD      18.00
    Shadow of the Comet         CD      18.00
    AlQuadim                    CD      18.00
    DeathGate                   CD      28.00
    Ravenloft 1                 CD      18.00
    Warriors of Legend          3.5     13.00
    Shadow Sorcerer             3.5     13.00
    Spellcraft                  3.5     13.00
    Goblins 3                   3.5     18.00
    Innocent Until Caught       3.5     13.00
    Legacy Realms of Terror     3.5     13.00
    Legends of Valor            3.5     13.00
    Eye of Beholder III         3.5     13.00
    Dungeon Hack                3.5     18.00
    Quest for Glory III         3.5     18.00
    Quest for Glory IV          3.5     23.00
    Fantasy Empires             3.5     13.00
    Heimdall                    3.5     13.00
    Dune                        3.5     13.00
    
    Respond if interested by E-mail.

    Alan

In article <3sqgbv$7...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Alexander O. Norris  <a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3sp5b4$n...@Isis.MsState.Edu> jk...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Joseph K
>Mcallister) writes: 
>>
>>In article <3snrsh$3...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Alexander O. Norris  <a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>><I bet 10 or 20 bucks that Windows 95 will come out in 95> (sic)
>>>
>>>Any other OS/2 zealots out there that's willing to take this offer?\
>>>Awwww.....come on.  
>>
>>Why should they?  Their operating system is already out.  
>>
>>And working.
>>
>>                     -Joel
>--------Joel, I'm betting OS/2 zealots this because I'm sick and tired
>of hearing and seeing Win96, Win97, Win98, Win9x, to imply that Win95
>will not be out on time.  IT WILL BE, and to throw in a bit of
>excitement, I'm willing to bet $20.  Anytakers?

You lose.  Windows 95 original release date has passed.  :-)


Not that allowing them enough time to iron out the major and minor
bugs is a bad thing at all.  I am willing to wait as long as it
takes to get as bug-free a program as possible (even '96).

How many times has Microsoft changed the release date?

Steven

Steven Gershenfeld (sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: You lose.  Windows 95 original release date has passed.  :-)

: Not that allowing them enough time to iron out the major and minor
: bugs is a bad thing at all.  I am willing to wait as long as it
: takes to get as bug-free a program as possible (even '96).

: How many times has Microsoft changed the release date?

I remember it being 1st Quater of 1994...   =)  CHICAGO!

Vendetta

In <3sler4$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
>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.

I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.
-- 
I will not be filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am not a 
number, I am a free man! - The Prisoner

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

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. 

	Don't forget Lemmings for OS/2 due 6-30-95!

-- 
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM
3316 West Clark Avenue
Burbank, CA 91505-2903

alan...@ix.netcom.com (Alan Dion) writes:

>The following games are still available.  All are in original boxes
>with all manuals and docs.  Shipping included in price.

>    Gabriel Knight (no box)     CD      23.00
>[...more deleted...]

DM? $? Swedish crowns? Italian Lira? Apples? Cows? Llamas? Gold Coins?
Guilders? Filari? Monetari? Copper crowns? Gems? Gold bars? Nuggets?
...

-Efchen
-- 
   /~\   |  Martin Friedrich                      IRC/MUD: Efchen 
  C oo   |  Postfach 1602      Solace       TAPPMud: 141.65.40.11 6510
  _( ^)  |  91006 Erlangen     Dragon         m...@surprise.pro.ufz.de
   ~\    |  GERMANY          -=(UDIC)=-   email:...@solace.franken.de

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

: >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.

: Yes they do (hey cool.......we could keep the argument going for a
: long time this way ;))

Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
that your neanderthaller brain is hardly capable of signalling your finger 
to reach your nostrils...

-Dan


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

Dan Ehrig (deh...@capella.unm.edu) wrote:
: Aurora (aur...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:

: : >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.

: Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
: another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
: that your neanderthaller brain is hardly capable of signalling your finger 
: to reach your nostrils...

Are you serious?  Dan must be new to the computer industry.  Well, I'll
do my duty and name another: Stac.  MS stole Stac's code to make DoubleSpace
leading to the DOS 6.2, 6.21, 6.22 debacle in which MS had to ditch 
DoubleSpace for their clean room DriveSpace.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl                           | 
da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James A. Dahl (da...@aero.und.nodak.edu) wrote:
: Dan Ehrig (deh...@capella.unm.edu) wrote:


: : Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
								^^^^^^^^^
: : another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


: Are you serious?  Dan must be new to the computer industry.  Well, I'll
: do my duty and name another: Stac.  MS stole Stac's code to make DoubleSpace
: leading to the DOS 6.2, 6.21, 6.22 debacle in which MS had to ditch 
: DoubleSpace for their clean room DriveSpace.


Look at the parts I have underlined.  I wasn't questioning whether or not 
MS steals code.  In fact, I was the first to mention the Quicktime case, 
and I'm well aware of MS's other trangressions.  I was asking the other 
twit to name another company which has done so.  Apparently you don't 
know which side of this debate I'm on.


-Dan

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

>Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
>another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
>that your neanderthaller brain is hardly capable of signalling your finger 
>to reach your nostrils...

I've tried.....I can.....with ease....sorry, that made your statement
somewhat inaccurate.

Aurora

Aurora (aur...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
: >Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
: >another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
: >that your neanderthaller brain is hardly capable of signalling your finger 
: >to reach your nostrils...

: I've tried.....I can.....with ease....sorry, that made your statement
: somewhat inaccurate.

Again, avoiding the challenge.  What is wrong with you?  Are you saying 
that you can't think of another case?  Well,  I'll give you 2 days to 
research it and get back to me.  Otherwise, kindly go back to Zifnet 
where you belong.

-Dan

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

In article <3sppcn$6...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
>From: deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig)
>Subject: Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming*
>Date: 27 Jun 1995 20:23:51 GMT

>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

Also, not everyone gets away with stealing, even M$!!  Remember how they 
lost the case against Stacker?  At least Stacker got about 85 million bucks 
as part of the settlement...

Lord Raven (umul...@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
: In <3sler4$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
: >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.

: I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
: Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
: I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
: code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
: may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

IBM has the complete right to use the Win API until the end of the time.
Their rights to the Windows source code expired in Sept. of 92? (maybe 93,
I forget).  If IBM wanted to clone the Win32 API, they could.  In fact,
the Developers Extensions for OS/2 is actually just a bunch of the most
commonly used APIs from Win32 made native to OS/2, making porting simpler.
They could do the whole set if they wanted to, but they want native OS/2
software, not an OS that people use to run Windows (as is too often
the case now).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl                           | 
da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess what?  As you might be able to see from the extremely poor 
participation in this discussion, WHO GIVES A SHIT!  The groups you and 
your boring little playmates have listed are not the place for this drivel.
If you must prattle on endlessly about something that you have absolutely
no control over, do it somewhere else.

Dan

In article <3sud42$s...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
           umul...@ccu.umanitoba.ca "Lord Raven" writes:

> True. However, as an OS, it isundeniable more stable and superior. After 
> all, which has been around longer, OS/2 or Windoze9X ? 
>
 
Well going by that arguement DOS is the most stable and superior.
*=:)


-- 
Mark Rogers. VFF.
    +:+:+ Procrastinate now and avoid the rush +:+:+
     +:+:+  Bad Spellers of the World untie ! +:+:+

Dan Ehrig (deh...@auriga.unm.edu) wrote:
: James A. Dahl (da...@aero.und.nodak.edu) wrote:
: : Dan Ehrig (deh...@capella.unm.edu) wrote:
: : : Again, an unsupported statement.  Can you name another case involving 
: 								^^^^^^^^^
: : : another company?  What?  No?  Why am I not surprised, knowing full well 
:     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Look at the parts I have underlined.  I wasn't questioning whether or not 
: MS steals code.  In fact, I was the first to mention the Quicktime case, 
: and I'm well aware of MS's other trangressions.  I was asking the other 
: twit to name another company which has done so.  Apparently you don't 
: know which side of this debate I'm on.

Sorry about that Dan... I thought you were trying to claim that Quicktime
was the only time MS stole code.  I apologize for misestimating your 
knowledge, as it would have been quite foolish to claim that Quicktime was
the only MS stolen code.  Sometimes jumping in the middle of a thread 
leaves me a little confused (and sheepish).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl                           | 
da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3t1lt4$r...@heart.cas.und.nodak.edu>,
   da...@aero.und.nodak.edu (James A. Dahl) wrote:

>Are you serious?  Dan must be new to the computer industry.  Well, I'll
>do my duty and name another: Stac.  MS stole Stac's code to make DoubleSpace
>leading to the DOS 6.2, 6.21, 6.22 debacle in which MS had to ditch 
>DoubleSpace for their clean room DriveSpace.

Ahh, but Stac stole the pre-load code from MS...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.         From the keyboard, off the modem, around the SLIP
                        server, through the router, nothing but NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

: : I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
: : Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
: : I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
: : code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
: : may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

Wrong!

: IBM has the complete right to use the Win API until the end of the time.
: Their rights to the Windows source code expired in Sept. of 92? (maybe 93,
: I forget).  If IBM wanted to clone the Win32 API, they could.  In fact,
: the Developers Extensions for OS/2 is actually just a bunch of the most
: commonly used APIs from Win32 made native to OS/2, making porting simpler.
: They could do the whole set if they wanted to, but they want native OS/2
: software, not an OS that people use to run Windows (as is too often
: the case now).

You better check up on your facts son. IBM does not have any legal rights 
what so ever to to WIN32 API's or Win 95. That little fact spells 
deathbells for OS/2. OS/2 sales only picked up once they incorporated 
Windows into the program and that's a fact. Imagine all the wonderful new 
software coming out for Win95 and OS/2 will be left floating in use to be 
Win 3.1 land.We keep hearing about all this port over nonsense, the only 
problem is all the companies seem not interested in doing so! They can only 
clone Win 31 and down which explains why they've been trying unsuccessfully 
to reverse engineer Win32 API for some time now. You people ought to try 
reality for a change. 

In article <3tbnso$b...@news.cc.utah.edu>,

>You better check up on your facts son. IBM does not have any legal rights 
>what so ever to to WIN32 API's or Win 95. That little fact spells 
>deathbells for OS/2. OS/2 sales only picked up once they incorporated 
>Windows into the program and that's a fact. Imagine all the wonderful new 
>software coming out for Win95 and OS/2 will be left floating in use to be 
>Win 3.1 land.We keep hearing about all this port over nonsense, the only 
>problem is all the companies seem not interested in doing so! They can only 
>clone Win 31 and down which explains why they've been trying unsuccessfully 
>to reverse engineer Win32 API for some time now. You people ought to try 
>reality for a change. 

IBM has announced some time ago that OS/2 will have "links" to Win95.

While you are correct that they no longer have access to code, they can still 
provide the links they need since MS has release the Win32 spec. list.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.         From the keyboard, off the modem, around the SLIP
                        server, through the router, nothing but NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

a...@ix.netcom.com (Alexander O. Norris ) wrote:

>Any OS/2 users have the brains/balls to refute what this post states? 
>i think this post has a fairly decent amount of intelligence in it, not
>to mention reasonable logic about MS's marketing.

>Come on OS/2 zealots, flame away at this one, IF YOU CAN.

I am not involved in a OS/2 vs. 95 war, so please don't try and drag
me into it.  I was simply providing my own experience when I also
inquired about the problem with P6's and 95.  As I said, we'll _have
to see_.  The P6 may indeed crawl with '95, the Intel rep stated this
wasn't so with 32 bit apps, but I've heard contradictory statements
from several company reps on a multitude of topics at times.

As for OS/2, it's a fine OS, and certainly more robust than 95 on a
technical basis.  I do think however, that 95 is simply better suited
for the average user, and mostly due to the fact it has the developer
support and will get the apps.  That's all that matters.

You seem to contradict yourself.  Given the facts (as you wrote), you
state that only a "very" powerful system will be adequate for NT.
Your commentary is about the P6 chip!!!!  I think that this system would
be considerred somethink more that "base line".  
As far as Win 95 being a "lame duck", If you decide to upgrade to
OS/2 (along with all the dedicated software) than I can only wish you good
luck.  Most of the periodicals (and myself included) believe that
OS/2 will be even less of a MicroSoft competitor, in the very near future.

				Regards....
  

Logi flaw alert!!!

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

>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. 

>   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!

...But only if you are using a P6, and consider "crippled" to mean "not twice
as fast as a Pentium."  Also, when Win95 is running 32 bit code in a 32 bit
application, it is not running 16 bit code in the compatiblity modules.  If
you switch to 32 bit applications, and 32 bit device drivers, you will not
be running very much 16 bit code.  I find the "only 10%" figure to be
specious.

>Windows 95 is a dead end
>not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
>OS/2!

[...and later...]

>   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) 

If you have a P6, isn't that a "massively powerful system?"  If you don't have
a P6, does this issue matter?

>and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.

As it has been all along, availability of applications users want to run
determines whether a OS is successful, not performance.  It's never been the
other way around, I don't see why it would change in the next 10 years.

If performance was the key factor in the success and acceptance of an
operating system, we'd all be using Linux, and OS/2 and NT would be bad
memories.
-- 
%%%%%%% Mike Batchelor %%%%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/www/ %%%%%%%%
  "The avalanche has already begun.  It is too late for the pebbles to vote." 

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Kevin Speichts) writes:

   Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
   right!!!!

I don't see why not?  I doubt it would be fast enough to actually play, though.
NT doesn't even boot with 4M.

Anssi

Please choose a more appropriate group for this discussion.

check comp.sys.ibm.pc.os.os2.games.....and u say os2 won't be competition. 
I'll say IBM does not know how to market OS/2.  Although its a far better 
system, it won't take full advantage of its potential for two reasons.  1) 
Microsloth's monopolistic ways.  2) IBM's un-monopolistic ways.  It will 
however be good competition.

               -Ack the Strange

>I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
>correct.
 
Accually, it was Intel themselves that released this statement.

>I will look for these wonderful articles that you deliver to us like they are pages from 
>the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with portions of GDI and USER 
>in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the transistors?  I am 
>know expert but that seems to go against the grain that has been demonstrated through X86 
>compatable Intel upgrades in the last few years.  Anyway, IBM OS/whatever may have the 
>same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will dominate for 
>sometime.

	Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a large 
amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is being designed to 
optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp and NT (or any other 32-bit
OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems that 95 will.

In article <3tbnso$b...@news.cc.utah.edu>, rcb...@u.cc.utah.edu says...
I don't know what the previous articles had to do with the message 
title, but here's some info about gaming on Win 95.  I just read a large 
article in Multimedia World mag about 10-15 new games being released in 
the next 6 months SPECIFICALLY for Win 95.  Almost all are action 
oriented like Mortal Kombat or Doom, and even a LucasArts kids game that 
uses a new Rebel Assault engine for Win 95.  Unfortunately for OS/2 
people, this probably means games will never be big on OS/2, cause Win 
95 has already garnered great support.  More importantly, here's why 
it'll be nice.

- Won't have to fiddle with MS-DOS settings to get games to run.
- Full support of your hardware, no matter what it is, as long as Win 95
  supports it.  So for all of you with 16-bit no-name sound cards who 
  can never get SB16 support in your games...as long as Win 95 has 
  drivers for your card...the game will use it.
- DirectDraw API for high speed graphics direct to video memory.
- Many of the games tout full screen video, and smooth gaming through
  multi-threading (remains to be seen how games will multi-task)

Anyways, if the HOVER game that came with the June beta release of Win 
95 is any indication of games to come, I think we'll be in pretty good 
shape.  For those of you who don't have the beta, HOVER is a Doom-esqe 
car environment.  Cheesy game, but the graphics and sound are great and 
prove the speed of 3-D type games under 95.

Greg Bronzert
Computer Engineer
Virginia Tech

In article <3u3m8p$j...@cainews.concept.com>, Ceng...@Concept.com says:
snipped
>        Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a large 
>amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is being designed to 
>optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp and NT (or any other 32-bit
>OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems that 95 will.


I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
I go about checking it to see if it actually does have these problems?  It
would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
environment rather soon.

<snipped>
<    Accually, the reason that Intel said that was becuase '95 contains a 
<large amount of 16-bit code itself (i.e. the core components). The P6 is
<being designed to optimize 32-bit code only. And According to Intel, Warp
<and NT (or any other 32-bit OS like Linux) do not suffer from the problems
<that 95 will.

I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
I go about checking it so see if it actually does have these problems?  It
would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
environment rather soon.

In article <3u1g73$d...@crow.cybercomm.net>,
   Barry Krakauer <A...@cybercom.com> wrote:
-check comp.sys.ibm.pc.os.os2.games.....and u say os2 won't be competition. 
-I'll say IBM does not know how to market OS/2.  Although its a far better 
-system, it won't take full advantage of its potential for two reasons.  1) 
-Microsloth's monopolistic ways.  2) IBM's un-monopolistic ways.  It will 
-however be good competition.
-
-               -Ack the Strange
-
really.

*=====================================================*
* Joseph Robertson        | "Nothing ruins the truth  *
* da...@jax.jaxnet.com     |  like stretching it"      *
*                         |                           *
*=====================================================*

DAMN!!!!!!!

I'm tired of this stupid war. As fast as I create kill files up pops a 
new subject under which the war continues. Maybe they should have a 
newsgroup just for that... comp.sys.ibm.wars or something. Come on. Lets 
at least try to keep things game related shall we?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses.    -- Victor Hugo 
                                                        bea...@andrews.edu

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

Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>On 9 Jul 1995, Aaron Bilger wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>Speaking if NT not being a viable choice, unless you have a massively 
>powerful system... isn't that what the P6 is supposed to be???  Win95 
>products are REQUIRED to work with NT.  When people get around to moving 
>to the more powerful systems, and more powerful os (the majority of 
>people), their Win95 Apps and games will work fine.

The apps might work fine, but not the games (this is the games
group after all).

The Win95 games API (or whatever it's called) which allowed games
direct hardware access (something a lot of games wanted for
speed) is a big no-no in NT.  And so are VxDs in Win95.

So, if the game uses any direct hardware access, chances are it
will not run in NT.  If it uses any VxD, it's a certainty it
won't run in NT.

>Just a side note... IBM announced that OS/2
>will not be made to support Win95 software.  Of course as usual IBM also 
>said that they reserve the right to change their mind at any time.

Meanwhile, IBM is working on an extension on the OS/2 API to make
porting from Win32 to OS/2 much easier.  It's effectiveness
remain to be seen, but common-base cross-platform apps are
appearing (e.g. HyperAccess, the comm app bundled with both Win95
and Warp.  Describe Voyager CD, contains both Win32 and OS/2
version).

>Perhaps this means nothing to you, since many have already decided 
>whether they will go for Os/2 or W95, to me however it means if I choose 

I disagree.  It seems most game companies are still sticking with
DOS.  The most reasonable route is to stick with the EXISTING
BIGGEST base - DOS.  They will probably decide _when_ the outcome
is clear.  And since DOS games (properly written) will run on
DOS, OS/2, and Win95, it's the safest choice unless you need
something special that can't be done in DOS.

[snip]
______
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

iQCVAwUBMAhls3NBYa8g7KHRAQFj8wQAlcB9vfqhe8jXd9czwblCEAv/sIRiwc6b
eng6NwEjRZDXNnXBPaJVuuWc5NF1HnEMJlpFXNvulBfBwRajuuSsj0hoTmxT2Rk3
/QivPnaUmtHJkHybju6wxClIlfKR04w6gcT6IR6HV3lvet/hweO+LnUgikP1T9ee
/2/EkjjbCyw=
=fiN+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

dan....@stpete.honeywell.com (DLRapp) wrote:

>I'm curious.  I have access to some systems beta testing Win95.  How would
>I go about checking it to see if it actually does have these problems?  It
>would be useful to find out as I may be using that OS in a business
>environment rather soon.

I'm curious to see if you have systems that have Windows 95 _and_ a P6
chip, as that is the combination of which we are discussing.

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

>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

What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
Windows 95 not at all.  

--
  / // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// /////////////////
                         red...@silcom.com
  /////////////////// /////////////////////// / // /// ///// ///////

Rick (red...@silcom.com) wrote:

: What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
: upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
: Windows 95 not at all.  

You can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

-Dan

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

In article <kremeDB...@netcom.com>,
kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:
> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
> 
> Heck, there never has been.
> 
> 
> Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
> machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
> 
> I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
> know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

I'm sorry, you're not being realistic. If you say OS/2 is superior in
multitasking, I agree. If you say superior in stability, I agree in certain
cases. But windows 95 is superior in ease of use, ease of installation
plug and play, networking and support by software venders. Also it is most
compatible and has the most hardware support.
All in all OS/2 might be the better product for you, but it is certainly
not superior.



Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl)      | Generals are in the nice white tent
                                      | on the hill, sipping sancerre
                                      | directing the battle; They are
 http://www.xs4all.nl/~wverveen/      | men of honour             Rimmer

In article <3uairn$n...@lynx.unm.edu>, deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) says:

>Rick (red...@silcom.com) wrote:

>: What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
>: upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
>: Windows 95 not at all.  

>You can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

>-Dan

Why not?  It seems to work for you.  Tell me?  What does this conversation 
have to do with the use of these OSs for gaming?  Stick to the subject,
gentlemen.

Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: In article <kremeDB...@netcom.com>,
: kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:
: > Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
: > >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
: > >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
: > 
: > I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
: > DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
: > stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
: > 
: > Heck, there never has been.
: > 
Actually, the reason why MS-DOS was the product of choice is because 
EVERY system (with few exceptions) with a 80x86 chip at the heart of it 
CAME with it.  Same is true of Windows.  Because of the way MS structured 
its contracts, so that the manufacturers paid them whether or not they 
used DOS or Windows.  So, when a superior OS came along, i.e. Geoworks, 
no one would bundle their systems with it, no one would make software for 
it, so it died quickly.  Same is true of OS/2.  Very few systems are 
bundled with it.  Little software is available for it.  IBM did make 
quite a few mistakes with Warp, which is superior to Win 95 in many ways, 
which is why I don't use it.  If they 1) debugged it a bit more, 
ESPECIALLY the various drivers and 2) had some 3rd party companies wi 
with OS/2 specific software ready to go, it would be competitive.


: > 
: > Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
: > machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
: > 
: > I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
: > know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

: I'm sorry, you're not being realistic. If you say OS/2 is superior in
: multitasking, I agree. If you say superior in stability, I agree in certain
: cases. But windows 95 is superior in ease of use, ease of installation
: plug and play, networking and support by software venders. Also it is most
: compatible and has the most hardware support.
: All in all OS/2 might be the better product for you, but it is certainly
: not superior.

...OS/2 is superior in stability in that if a particular process crashes, 
the rest will keep running.  It is not in the fact that the drivers are 
very buggy.  Win 95 will win this battle because 1) every sytem will come 
with this in short order, 2) it has been thouroughly tested and is 
relatively bug-free (it is the beta testing and tweaking that made it 
came out this late in the game), 3) it already has the apps...which will 
all be out next month.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, WHO, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, Win95, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, REALLY, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, OS/2, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, GIVES, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, Win95, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, A, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, HOT, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, OS/2, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, DAMN, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,