🚀 go-pugleaf

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