🚀 go-pugleaf

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------