🚀 go-pugleaf

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