🚀 go-pugleaf

In <vendettaD...@netcom.com> vend...@netcom.com (andrew gaul)
writes: 
>
>Alexander O. Norris (a...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Hey crack smoking friend, yeah, you in the giant BLUE overalls with
>: OS/2 painted all over your face:
>
>And are you the little snotty kid sitting in a sandbox with a Windows
95 
>tattoo on your arm?  :)
>
>: get a recent copy of the Win95 beta, ok?  OS/2 SUCKS!  plain and
simple.
>
>hmm...  that's funny 9 out of 10 techs I know (me included) use OS/2. 

>Those who don't use Linux.
>
>: how well does OS/2 handle multimdeia huh?
>
>great!  Considering the fact that I have run CD Player and two video 
>files at the sime time (486DX2/66)
>
>: how about sound cards, joysticks, etc?
>
>OS/2 supports all major sound boards.  what did you expect?
>
>: What, you didn't mention the LONG, TEDIOUS, configuration info you
need 
>: to setup for every DOS program you run?
>
>none.  OS/2 runs 95% of all applications out of box.  if you want to 
>improve the speed of a particular app, fiddle with the configuration. 

>That simple.  Much like tweaking the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT
files.
>
>: Too bad, Win95 does it AUTOMATICALLY. 
>
>And OS/2 doesn't?  Gee, what's that little Migrate Applications icon 
>sitting in my System Setup folder.  Let's go click on it...  Migrate
DOS, 
>Windows and OS/2 programs?  Sure.  What?  You found Doom,
Civilization, 
>and Word 6.0?  That's nice...
>
>: What can run DOS programs better than DOS 7.0 (win95)????
>
>are you saying that Windows 95 is running under DOS?  That's not good.
 
>'Coz Windows is supposed to be 32-bit and now it can't do that under
DOS, 
>right?  oh, wait, they re-wrote DOS to be 32-bit?  well, then it isn't

>DOS anymore is it?
>
>: 'Nuff said
>
>Yes, you cetainly have said enough.  Sorry I had to rip you up like
that, 
>but somebody's got to tell you.  To all you Windows 95 advocates: this
is 
>almost a carbon copy of the post i will be writing to you if you start

>lieing again...  <g>
>
>Vendetta

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.


Big_...@ix.netcom.com

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

Since the second part is remotely related to games, I won't stick
a followup header on this one.

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>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! 

What they are doing is adding some API to OS/2 which more
resembles Win32, making the porting from Win32 -> OS/2 much
easier.  I guess they finally realize that it's futile to make
OS/2 to be compatible with a moving API (see how MS "upgrades"
Win32s 1.15 to 1.2 just after Warp is released).

>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.

Your "Most major" games developers are less than 10 as far as I
have seen.  Origin, Sierra, SH, and couple others are the only
ones I have heard with actual products for Win95 in progress. 
And of those, I usually hear about only 1 or 2 products are for
Win95.

More so, I haven't heard _any_ game companies say "We are doing
Win95 from now on, no more DOS games from us."

Of course, if you know more, please tell us about it.

>   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

Most new games are both CD-ROM and floppy from what I have seen.
There are significant number of CD-ROM only games, but far from
majority.  Your "only a matter of time" translates to anything
from 2 years to forever.  And MS stated that Win95 only have a
life of 3-5 years, it will be all NT after that.

If, and by the time, Win95 games become the norm, you will be
told to upgrade to NT.

>   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 heard the same about NT 2 years ago, where is NT now?

>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

Can you name a application category (e.g. wordprocessor,
spreadsheet) where there are _no_ OS/2 native apps? (Of course,
Win95 shell enhancers, VFAT recovery apps, etc, don't count)  Are
you willing to bet $$ on the ones that you are going to list that
I will be unable to find native OS/2 apps?

>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. 

If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
only.  Can you name some game companies which has 1 Win95 game
available with 2 planned to release within 6 months?

>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.

"But it is clear that MS is no longer willing to seriously
develop Win95 if it refuses to add OS/2 support."

Since OS/2 has more apps and games available, my statement is
more true than yours.

______
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

iQCVAwUBL+8iCnNBYa8g7KHRAQE5MgQApN9f4FTS5nLTLuJ4Ar1yyhcBNXdyybHi
WnZofSyhVLzgLI7DbYH+vm9DlR46WwVJC4jusFakivcMogPqHVnt0FIgG5PzeMg2
PNsRb4RDh0vzD6pjTILVqdvnxlhluibw09iZsqPfGDdQRnOKafWXZ44ZvrOGNU1n
JR/2jsOQ0Mw=
=uvj6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <3sl0sj$t...@cuboulder.colorado.edu>,
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.

I would rather use toliet paper. 
-- 
Lumbering Ox  bpa...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca| I thought Rice Crispies  
B.A. Economics 1991  Can't write or spell   | were made from the souls
B.A. History 1994    Can't do math          | of the damned..Made from rice,
MBA Finance 1996     Can't think            | yeah right!

	The bottom line is, I'm writing this post and downloading two (that's right
two) files right now under OS/2. I don't have to be fanatical when talking to Windows
users, I just tell them what I can do under Warp.

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

[follow-up to comp.os.os2.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy]

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>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

As if MS won't do all they can to prevent IBM from doing that. 

Before OS/2 2.0 came out, MS stated publicly that it is
_impossible_ for IBM to make OS/2 run Windows.  Somehow IBM
managed that.

Soon after OS/2 v2.1 for Windows was released, we got this
Win3.11 "upgrade" from MS which just "happens" to break OS/2 for
Windows.  MS's patch (released months after Win3.11) just
"downgrade" your 3.11 back to 3.1.  IBM soon released a patch to
fix that without downgrading Windows.

After Warp was release last year, we got this Win32s 1.2
"upgrade" from MS which just "happens" to make Win32s 1.15
support in Warp outdated.

And even with Win95, if you install the preview on a OS/2 system
with Dual Boot, it just "happens" to break OS/2 completely
afterwards.

What makes you think the bug fixes MS planned to be release after
Win95 won't break OS/2's support if IBM made OS/2 run Win95?

>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 ridiculous.  Notes needs an OS to run, and "OS/2 is the
best platform for Notes" is the message from IBM.  Saying IBM
will concentrate on Notes and forget OS/2 is like saying "MS
allied with Softbank, they will concentrate on console games and
forget Win95".

______
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

iQCVAwUBL+8kcXNBYa8g7KHRAQGzbgP+JScIMxXLjniIAI/OUrNfYw5GUN8zxs8H
dbwcGAskE494ScV2NYfzfdqKszsp8FjBuJonJKgY7FtWYTKK+m8Fyx6If3vKa7cP
hNf3qBPyJhV8zIMAWJJ6u3k2PM2iJ1LxI9+1ks/uVXEohkuMpVItM38xl75HFPhR
tLd3V0mPNBI=
=W1xG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>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.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
                    __________    No matter where you go,
                   /  ______  \       there you are.
                  |  |      |  |        

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 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.

To: bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger)
Subject: Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming*

> 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...

This does not however mean that the developers will not port these games to OS/2.
Nor does it mean that they are not developing OS/2 only games.

There's a BIG difference between the phrases "developing Win'95 only games" and
"developing only Win'95 games".  Please read carefully before you make your
conclusions.  This is an example of how misinformation finds its way onto the
net.

Rob Vanden Heuvel

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:

[facts deleted]


: 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.

Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

-Dan

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

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
OS/2.


-- 
[][][] [][][]  []]  [] / Jon Reinberg
  []   []  []  [][] [] /    "What"
[][]   []  []  [] [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
 []    [][][]  []   [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html

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.

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

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>Since OS/2 has more apps and games available, my statement is
>more true than yours.

Yes, but then OS/2 have been out on the market for quite some time. Game 
developers haven't been queueing up, have they?

Oh, and Win95 games do exist now! I have a game called Gnell or something (sw) and
it will only run in W95 (but then I didn't download the W3.11 version).

		Sv...@Oslonett.no

khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.

>Your "Most major" games developers are less than 10 as far as I
>have seen.  Origin, Sierra, SH, and couple others are the only
>ones I have heard with actual products for Win95 in progress. 
>And of those, I usually hear about only 1 or 2 products are for
>Win95.

Well, you pretty much hit them all (well, Maxis should be in there
too). But aren't most decent games from these companies? And aren't
the products that are going to "Win95 only" the flagship products of
these companies? Wing Commander IV and Falcon 4 are pretty much "must
buy" products if you are fans of space or flight simulators. It would
be different if all they were doing were producing cheap crud like
Windows Entertainment Packs that could easily (and wisely) be ignored.

>If, and by the time, Win95 games become the norm, you will be
>told to upgrade to NT.

Yes. But so what? This argument is pretty pointless. It's like saying
there's no point in buying a Pentium because in two years you'll have
to buy a Sexium.  At least I know there *will be* an upgrade path from
Win 95. I'm not convinced that Warp won't be the last version of OS/2
produced.

>>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. 

>If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
>"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
>only.  

Yes, I'm aware that SDS is the company in question. But are there ANY
other companies producing commercial OS/2 games? No. So what's your point?
 
I'm no fan of Microsoft -- I'm a happy Linux user -- but this doesn't
change the fact that there just doesn't seem to be a future, at least for
gamers, in OS/2.

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

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: >Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
: >for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

: Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
: developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
: OS/2.
Where does one get quicktime for OS/2? I've been looking for quicktime to 
run with the OS/2 Webexplorer.

Doug Johnson
djoh...@vnet.net

Jon (rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

: Ah, so they stole it now?  Thats why everytime I run a movie, it says 
: developed by APPLE COMPUTER. And thats exactly why you see quictime for 
: OS/2.

Maybe with quicktime for windows.  I'm talking about Video for windows, 
which runs .avi files.  Apple successful sued Microsoft, which is why the 
newest video for windows had to be totally rewritten.

Pay attention to what I say, idiot.

: -- 
: [][][] [][][]  []]  [] / Jon Reinberg
:   []   []  []  [][] [] /    "What"
: [][]   []  []  [] [][] / rein...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
:  []    [][][]  []   [] / http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m447/reinb001/jon.html



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

deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) wrote:

>Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>[facts deleted]


>: 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.

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.

That's just aprt of business...everybody steals what they can from the
competition.. they ALL do that
                            ^^^

>-Dan

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

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

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

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 article <3sppcn$6...@lynx.unm.edu>, Dan Ehrig <deh...@capella.unm.edu> 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.
>
>So please, use your head before posting.
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>http://www.unm.edu/~dehrig/dan3.html

Doublespace comes to mind as well, which is (was) Stacker Lite without
Stac's permission.  It was also horrendously inferior in features and
was prone to crashing hard disks.  The newer versions of it did
fix some of the bugs though.

I find it hard to believe any one would DEFEND a company of stealing
code.  That's ludicrous.  

Steven

chuck@netropolis.net@mercury.netropolis.net wrote:
: 	The bottom line is, I'm writing this post and downloading two (that's right
: two) files right now under OS/2. I don't have to be fanatical when talking to Windows
: users, I just tell them what I can do under Warp.

That doesn't impress me.  I do the same thing with win3.11

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

Sean Kaye <sk...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Dan Ehrig (deh...@mirac.unm.edu) wrote:
>
>> 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...

Not quite.  When IBM and Microsoft officially annulled their marriage
over OS/2, IBM brought a slew of patents with them to the negotiation
table.  If I recall correctly, as part of the agreement, IBM has full
access to Windows 3.1 source code and is free to sell licensed copies
of Windows 3.1 in perpetuity.  And they can implement Win32 in
perpetuity.  (They don't have rights to Win 95 code, but they can
support the Win32 API wherever they want.)  They already have the
right to implement Windows 95 support; the question is will they.
 _________________________________________________________________   
|\ ________________________________________________________________\ 
| |                                                                 |
| | John H. Kim             "I have become One with my computer.    |
| | jo...@mit.edu            I have reached . . . Nerdvana."        |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu          - Dilbert, by Scott Adams           |
 \|_________________________________________________________________|

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

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

>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

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

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

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!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone interested in the "OS Wars" will surely be interested in this!

The most recent PC Week had this to say about Intel's P6 chip:
----clip----

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. 

Since the P6 is optimized for native 32-bit unsegmented code, running 16-bit 
code results in continued switching of memory segments, and thus, slower
performance, according to sources close to Intel. 

An official at another top 10 PC company concurred. "The only operating systems
appropriate for P6 platforms are those that are true 32-bit, such as NT or OS/2
Warp," said the executive. "We will test for Windows 95 compatibility and
certification but will not ship it with our P6 [systems]." 

Meanwhile, Microsoft officials say they have no immediate plans to optimize
Windows 95 for the P6. 

---clip---


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

   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.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
any sense!


Rob Vanden Heuvel

The facts speak for themselves, I just reiterate them.

This may be the case.  In fact, I would prefer using NT or Warp to Win95, but
many games will be developed to work with Win95 and its APIs.  They could
be moved to NT I suppose.


-- 
Fred Mah  ---  fm...@widget.ecn.purdue.edu

Interesting stuff.  Do you work for IBM or something, you certainly fly a blue flag over 
you house.

On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
the 30 billion range.

I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
correct.  Sure MS may have some problems with P6 performance, but don't doubt that Bill 
Buddy could lull Big Blue to sleep again, and slip out Cairo.  WIN NT with Object Oriented 
interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.  MS is also looking at the 
market of 75 million PC's with a WIN3.X product that are not P6's.   And don't think that 
Bill buddy doesn't have the best marketing analyists working for him - because he does.  
Bill is going to grab a major chunk of cash with this forward and backward WIN95 OS by 
serving it up to the home market, and then tweek-up NT for the next generation of chips.

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.  Touchdown!  Back to reality, most users are not geeks that need the latest and 
greatest performance, most of the 75 million WIN users are comfortable with their apps and 
don't want them changed.  I know my Office suite works performs fine for me under WIN95.  
I don't lose valuable minutes anymore with my P90, but then maybe that will change in a 
couple a years, and yes maybe I will have a preview edition of Cairo then.....so don't 
count Bill dead before he even tried the salmon mouse - Pathetic Python homage.

SYL,

SMD

/NEP ;-)





rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:
>Everyone interested in the "OS Wars" will surely be interested in this!
>
>The most recent PC Week had this to say about Intel's P6 chip:
>----clip----
>
>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. 
>
>Since the P6 is optimized for native 32-bit unsegmented code, running 16-bit 
>code results in continued switching of memory segments, and thus, slower
>performance, according to sources close to Intel. 
>
>An official at another top 10 PC company concurred. "The only operating systems
>appropriate for P6 platforms are those that are true 32-bit, such as NT or OS/2
>Warp," said the executive. "We will test for Windows 95 compatibility and
>certification but will not ship it with our P6 [systems]." 
>
>Meanwhile, Microsoft officials say they have no immediate plans to optimize
>Windows 95 for the P6. 
>
>---clip---
>
>
>   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!  Windows 95 is a dead end
>not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
>OS/2!
>
>   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.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!
>
>
>Rob Vanden Heuvel
>
>The facts speak for themselves, I just reiterate them.

In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.

If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 


Farewell-


Aaron

Hank Leukart (ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu) wrote:
: In article <3tmaqs$i...@carbon.concom.com>,
:    syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
: >In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
: >King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
: >>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
: >>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.
: >
: >If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
: >individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
: >questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 

: 	The Windows 95 interface for Windows NT 3.1 is currently in ALPHA 
: testing.  It's release is scheduled within two months after 95's release 
: (which will be August 24th).

Err... what does that have to do with Cairo?  If you're trying to claim
the Win95 interface is object based you should check again before making
a fool of yourself.  Cairo is most certainly AT LEAST 1.5-2 years from
shipping.  Win95 3.5x (not 3.1) with a 95 interface is due in '96, not
in October.  Cairo is NOT in beta testing, in fact a lot of Cairo developers
were pulled from Cairo earlier this year to try to force Win95 out the
door in '95.  Are you having a bad fact day?

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

In article <3tpnbn$16...@heart.cas.und.nodak.edu>, da...@aero.und.nodak.edu 
says...
>
>Hank Leukart (ap...@cleveland.freenet.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3tmaqs$i...@carbon.concom.com>,
>:    syse...@carbon.concom.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>: >In article <3tl62p$s...@news.globalx.net>,
>: >King Neptune  <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
>: >>WIN NT with Object Oriented 
>: >>interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.
>: >
>: >If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What 
companies or
>: >individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
>: >questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 
>
>:       The Windows 95 interface for Windows NT 3.1 is currently in 
ALPHA 
>: testing.  It's release is scheduled within two months after 95's 
release 
>: (which will be August 24th).
>
>Err... what does that have to do with Cairo?  If you're trying to claim
>the Win95 interface is object based you should check again before making
>a fool of yourself.  Cairo is most certainly AT LEAST 1.5-2 years from
>shipping.  Win95 3.5x (not 3.1) with a 95 interface is due in '96, not
>in October.  Cairo is NOT in beta testing, in fact a lot of Cairo 
developers
>were pulled from Cairo earlier this year to try to force Win95 out the
>door in '95.  Are you having a bad fact day?
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Dahl                           | 
>da...@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu     | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh...? I was just reading through here (I rarely come to these groups, 
but I was posting my for sale message and blah blah blah...) and I'm 
wondering now, what the HELL is Cairo? What does it have to do with 
Win95? And in terms of how fast Win95 will run, be it on a P5 or a P6, 
how can anyone but Microsoft be QUITE sure how fast it will be if it 
isn't even released yet? And what's the deal with the Windows NT 
compatibility with Win95? I thought Windows NT was for a LAN or a 
server...? It seems like a better version of Win3.1, from what I'm 
hearing though.  Anyone who can help me out, thanks in advance!

		-- Psyc!

In article <3tr9ct$1...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Psychoboy <mcr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[munch]

>Eh...? I was just reading through here (I rarely come to these groups, 
>but I was posting my for sale message and blah blah blah...) and I'm 
>wondering now, what the HELL is Cairo?

It's the rumored next Microsoft addition to the Windows family.  Details
are very sketchy, as it is about as real now as Win95 was three years ago
(and I wouldn't be surprised if the wait is similar).  Cairo is to be
a 32 bit protected OS (as NT, OS/2, UNIXes) with an object-oriented
interface (as OS/2).  Rumors have circulated that it is to be just NT
with a Win95 interface, but that doesn't fit the central description;
Win95's interface is not object oriented, though perhaps prettier than older
Windows.  How much Cairo should theoretically resemble other Windows or
OS/2 or other GUIs is not known.  Theorizing about it is really about as
productive as theorizing about the P8.  Only very, very basic premises
are available.

>What does it have to do with 
>Win95?

Except for the fact that they are both currently non-existent Microsoft
products, very little.

>And in terms of how fast Win95 will run, be it on a P5 or a P6, 
>how can anyone but Microsoft be QUITE sure how fast it will be if it 
>isn't even released yet?

Many beta and prerelease copies have been released, sold, or leaked.  
Thousands outside of Microsoft have certainly seen it.

>And what's the deal with the Windows NT 
>compatibility with Win95?

It is admittedly a good idea.  If the same binaries run on both OSes, it
makes migration from Win95 to the more advanced, stable, and resource hungry
NT.  It would also allow those who can afford and prefer the more advanced
and larger OS now to use a possible flood of apps. for the low-end OS.  I
grant Microsoft is making a wise marketing move by pushing for compatibility
between the apps.


Farewell-


Aaron

>If so, please tell how we can get in the beta program.  What companies or
>individuals are eligible?  Whom must they contact?  If none of these
>questions are answerable, it is because Cairo is _not_ in beta. 

NT 3.5+ is already out in production and has been for some time. Cairo was
orginally supposed to be the 3.5 release. MS Excluded the OO interface for
various reasons, but that is now in beta also. From what I've heard, the look is 
there, but the brains are'nt. Most people are saying, if you use it, don't put it on
a production system...