🚀 go-pugleaf

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