🚀 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

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

Tom Pearce <no...@nompear.demon.co.uk> writes:

>I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs
>can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers [...]

>[In] 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. You haven't been keeping up with the news in gaming magazines have
you? Future games such as Wing Commander IV, Warhammer, and Falcon 4
will be Win 95 native apps. DOS games (and indeed DOS itself) are in
their final days. There is a LOT of reasons why Win'95 is a better
gaming platform than DOS -- for one thing you don't have to worry if
your video or sound card is suppported by the game -- if Windows
supports it, the game supports it -- and you don't have to have eight or
ten differnt config.syses either!  And with the WinG graphics library,
it really isn't much slower than DOS.

While OS/2 offers many of the same benefits, (well, the current
graphics engine is dog slow in comparison to WinG, but this could be
fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development
community. You mention porting tools. Yes, but I doubt there will be
many Win95 games ported to OS/2 even if these porting tools do 100% of
the work (which they won't -- I've used similar tools for porting
Windows 3.1 applications to Motif, and still lots of effort is
required to get a working application). Developers simply don't see
OS/2 as a viable platform. Don't believe me? Try calling technical
support for any DOS game you having trouble running under OS/2. They
will invariably say "We don't support running our games under
OS/2". If they don't even bother to figure out the OS/2 settings for
their DOS programs, do you think they'd spend any time or effort
*porting* a program to OS/2?

I am neither an OS/2 or Win'95 zealot (and I've used both). But OS/2
users are deluding themselves if they think there will be more than a
handfull of native OS/2 games. OS/2's strength lies in its ability to
run DOS and Windows applications. But unless Win'95 support is added
(as was promised by IBM before they got Notes-happy, and which they
now say won't happen), the number of modern games that OS/2 will be
able to run in a year or two will be minimal.

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



: While OS/2 offers many of the same benefits, (well, the current
: graphics engine is dog slow in comparison to WinG, but this could be
: fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development

DIVE is at least as good as, if not superior to, WinG.

-Dan

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

>> Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass with 
>> OS/2 installation disks.

Look it is so easy:

if you like Win so use Win;
if you like OS/2 so use OS/2;
if you can only make such stupid comments so shut up!


Are you really from this planet?


Andreas/2

In article <3sl0sj$t...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) writes:
>>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.

Since you have admitted to never having SEEN os/2, please back up this 
claim that win is better.

In <matuseDA...@netcom.com> mat...@netcom.com (Matuse) writes: 
>
>In article <3sl0sj$t...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
jord...@benji.Colorado.EDU (JORDAN  SPENSER AARON) writes:
>>>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.
>


I have used OS/2 WARP in my computer class for a month and a-half.  And
it was a lot easer to use.  All most the same as Windows, but thing I
like the most of OS/2 was that it has true multitasking and it will not
lock up your system as much as Windows does.  

>Since you have admitted to never having SEEN os/2, please back up this

>claim that win is better.
>

You want me to back up my claim!!!  

Let all face it!  Win95 IS NOT out yet so who is the judge to say it is
better then OS/2 WARP.  Everyone is getting there claim from Magazines
not by using it.  I have heard of a Beta virsion of WIN95, but is it
the true Win95 Program!!!!  NO IT ISN'T!!!  So lets do the world a
favor and DROP THE ARUMENT that OS/2 is better the Win95 or the other
way around!!  When it comes out and you have tried it, not like that
lyer that says he did and didn't, then you can tell the world how
FUCKUP each one is compard to each other.

BIG BEAR 

big_...@ix.netcom.com (Big_Bear ) writes:

>I have heard of a Beta virsion of WIN95, but is it
>the true Win95 Program!!!!  NO IT ISN'T!!!  So lets do the world a
>favor and DROP THE ARUMENT that OS/2 is better the Win95 or the other
>way around!!  When it comes out and you have tried it, not like that
>lyer that says he did and didn't, then you can tell the world how
>FUCKUP each one is compard to each other.

Hmm. You're right. The so-called beta of Win'95 that we've all been
using isn't the real Win'95. It was actually created by the same bunch
bunch of German jokers who created the fake Amiga emulator. All it does 
is show PCX files of Win'95 screens -- it really isn't running any programs.
We've all just been too stupid to notice. I *knew* it couldn't be a real
Microsoft product -- it doesn't crash enough.

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> No. You haven't been keeping up with the news in gaming magazines have
> you? Future games such as Wing Commander IV, Warhammer, and Falcon 4
> will be Win 95 native apps. DOS games (and indeed DOS itself) are in
> their final days. There is a LOT of reasons why Win'95 is a better
> gaming platform than DOS -- for one thing you don't have to worry if
> your video or sound card is suppported by the game -- if Windows
> supports it, the game supports it -- and you don't have to have eight or
> ten differnt config.syses either!  And with the WinG graphics library,
> it really isn't much slower than DOS.

Even todays Win3.1 have that feature - API based video support.
The result is not good: games like 'Myst' keep asking for '256 color'
mode force me to restart windows to switch mode.  Driver quality may
cause more compatibility problem than memory managers in DOS.  Windows
itself use a big chunk of ram plus any backgroud programs like fax, leaving
limited memory available hence force memory hungry games like Wing
Commander go to the disk more often.  Try run Descent in a 4M Ram
machine and you can see what happen.  I expect any big Win95 game
require 16M Ram minimum, and also ask for e.g. "Sound Blaster Driver
v1.24 or higher, WinG 3.3 or higher, 3D API 2.11 etc".  Hacking
CONFIG.SYS is easier than driver hunting.  BTW OS/2 also have these
problems.

Only the 3D API and support of 3D accelerator card sounds promising.

           |  _  |                      Ka On Lee
           |_(0)_|			
 ------==<[\-(.)-/]>==------            ko...@chat.carleton.ca
        ^ \#/o o\#/ ^                   al...@freenet.carleton.ca
           '     `

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

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



>: While OS/2 offers many of the same benefits, (well, the current
>: graphics engine is dog slow in comparison to WinG, but this could be
>: fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development

>DIVE is at least as good as, if not superior to, WinG.

I think the main benefit of any direct-to-hardware access in a GUI is
SUPPORT.

I'd have to say Win G wins out here.

What's the point of even comparing? The fact is, developers are
announcing Win '95 games, not OS/2.  I realize OS/2 is a superior OS
on a technical level.  Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter- but I'll
take actual games over "possible" ones anytime.

Jonathan Badger (bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Tom Pearce <no...@nompear.demon.co.uk> writes:

: >I have read recently that IBM is writing an API so that Win9x programs
: >can easily be recompiled for OS/2 by the programmers [...]

<snip>
: No. You haven't been keeping up with the news in gaming magazines have
: you? Future games such as Wing Commander IV, Warhammer, and Falcon 4
: will be Win 95 native apps. DOS games (and indeed DOS itself) are in
: their final days. There is a LOT of reasons why Win'95 is a better
: gaming platform than DOS -- for one thing you don't have to worry if
: your video or sound card is suppported by the game -- if Windows
: supports it, the game supports it -- and you don't have to have eight or
: ten differnt config.syses either!  And with the WinG graphics library,
: it really isn't much slower than DOS.

Whoopss -

Win95 still uses your config.sys. They just hide it
behind that neat picture with the little blips at
the bottom (looks like a mini startrek).

If you don't believe me just go in there and move it.
I mean you really don't need it - Right.

If you do some stuff may not start and
a blank config.sys will be created.

The autoexec.bat must cantain that stupid
net start command or no net.

Of course since ms claims it isn't used ....

-Terry

Ps the dos underneat is still dos6 + upgrades ... Hmmmm
   (if it was a 32bit dos the command.com, and related files
	would have had to be updated ...)

>Since you have admitted to never having SEEN os/2, please back up this 
>claim that win is better.
>
Had it on my system for 4 months.

Doom needed a patch, Quicken needed a patch. It seemed that every second 
program I put on needed a patch. OS2 does not run Windows programs better 
than windows. It is also very slow, especially at booting up. I would love 
for some competition to exist against an arrogant Microsoft but OS2 just 
doesn't measure up. Without native apps an operating system is nothing.

In <3sler4$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
>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.

I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

>Amazing, from the company that blatantly stole Apple's quicktime code 
>for their (vastly inferior) video for windows.
-- 
I will not be filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am not a 
number, I am a free man! - The Prisoner

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. 

	Don't forget Lemmings for OS/2 due 6-30-95!

-- 
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM
3316 West Clark Avenue
Burbank, CA 91505-2903

In <badger.804132541@phylo> bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
Well, I thought I wouldn't let myself get into this, but it's becoming 
more abysmal, so I may as well join :)

>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! 
Shit. IBM disg it's grave and pushed itself in.
>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. 
I don't want to buy Winever, period. Microshit produces crap, pure and 
simple. However, it's crap that's comptatble with itself, so it sells.

>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. 

True. However, as an OS, it isundeniable more stable and superior. After 
all, which has been around longer, OS/2 or Windoze9X ? 

>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.

Not pleased? I'm downright pissed. I do not like microsoft. I find 
microsoft to produce non-quality products (IE: dos and windows 3.1). Dos 
is useable because it is designed as a single tasking OS. Windows is 
pathetic because it is slow, and pretends to multi-task (task swap is a 
better term). If what i've heard about win9X is true (it's packaged with 
memmaker), windows9X users are again buying an inferior product.
Personally, I prefer OS2. This is because it set up cleanly on MY system, 
and it runs smoothly in 8 meg ram. (Win9X in 8? i think not). However, if 
I were to go to a real system, no compatabily in mind, there can be only 
one: LINUX. However, I prefer some compatability.
Also, no win9X boosters: If all companies are preparing for the advent of 
95, what will happen to them if the public looks at it and says a 
collective "Ugh!"? What if windows95 bombs? From the sounds of it now, it 
is feasable. From what I've read in magazines, the opinion is a 50/50 
split. (I won't take my bias into that). It would be... funny to say the 
least :)
-- 
I will not be filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am not a 
number, I am a free man! - The Prisoner

In article <3sppcn$6...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
>From: deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig)
>Subject: Re: OS/2..Win 95 -- Some actual facts that will affect *gaming*
>Date: 27 Jun 1995 20:23:51 GMT

>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

Also, not everyone gets away with stealing, even M$!!  Remember how they 
lost the case against Stacker?  At least Stacker got about 85 million bucks 
as part of the settlement...

Lord Raven (umul...@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
: In <3sler4$9...@lynx.unm.edu> deh...@mirac.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) writes:
: >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.

: I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
: Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
: I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
: code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
: may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

IBM has the complete right to use the Win API until the end of the time.
Their rights to the Windows source code expired in Sept. of 92? (maybe 93,
I forget).  If IBM wanted to clone the Win32 API, they could.  In fact,
the Developers Extensions for OS/2 is actually just a bunch of the most
commonly used APIs from Win32 made native to OS/2, making porting simpler.
They could do the whole set if they wanted to, but they want native OS/2
software, not an OS that people use to run Windows (as is too often
the case now).

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

>Windows 95 kicks the shit out of OS/2.  And I prefer to wipe my ass with 
>OS/2 installation disks.

JORDAN SPENSER AARON seems to have some sort of anal fixation.  Could be the
reason he spends so much time posting his infantile messages, no women wants
to get near him!  :-)
	Jay

In article <3sud42$s...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
           umul...@ccu.umanitoba.ca "Lord Raven" writes:

> True. However, as an OS, it isundeniable more stable and superior. After 
> all, which has been around longer, OS/2 or Windoze9X ? 
>
 
Well going by that arguement DOS is the most stable and superior.
*=:)


-- 
Mark Rogers. VFF.
    +:+:+ Procrastinate now and avoid the rush +:+:+
     +:+:+  Bad Spellers of the World untie ! +:+:+

Tom Pearce (no...@nompear.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: 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).
There is already games out for OS/2. There is glactic civilization,
doom, sim city. Most games in Dos will run in OS/2 as long as you have
enought ram. You don't have to worry about the amount of low memory
avaliabnle. As for Windows games, they are not much better then Dos
games. As for Aplications, OS/2 comes with IBM Works, which has a WOrd
Processer, Spreadsheet, Charting, a Database, Report Writer, and a
Persional Information Manager. There is Model and Fax softwaRE
incliuded. There is alot of Multimedia software inculded. You also can
use the Internet Connection software which allows you to IBM's Server
or another Internet Provider. There also is better OS/2 applications
then Windows applications.

As for the future software for Win9x, it will only be out, only be out
if Win9x is an instant sucess. If Win9x doesn't recive good support
Win9x software will be canceled and OS/2 version released instead. 

The game Ultima 8 was to have an add on but Ultima 8 floped , add on
cancled.
If you want to use you PC for more then just playing games get OS/2.

You get a superiour operating system, fullo dos suport, alowing any
dos application or games to be run. You get the Windows patch to fix
Windows and make it run faster. And widnows support, for Windows
applicatiopns. 

Colin Dawson
SAtwt ktima W gdipmndcmawehIndowe int ork mnglfunddNosli
: -- 
: ______________
: no...@nompear.demon.co.uk

: : I belive that IBM has the right: they were involved in the original 
: : Windows, and have some rights to the code. (Hence win31 support in os/2)
: : I may be wrong, but I belive that they still have some rights to the 
: : code, they just decided not to support win95. Why? Who knows. However, it 
: : may have something to do with the fact that big blue took over lotus :)

Wrong!

: IBM has the complete right to use the Win API until the end of the time.
: Their rights to the Windows source code expired in Sept. of 92? (maybe 93,
: I forget).  If IBM wanted to clone the Win32 API, they could.  In fact,
: the Developers Extensions for OS/2 is actually just a bunch of the most
: commonly used APIs from Win32 made native to OS/2, making porting simpler.
: They could do the whole set if they wanted to, but they want native OS/2
: software, not an OS that people use to run Windows (as is too often
: the case now).

You better check up on your facts son. IBM does not have any legal rights 
what so ever to to WIN32 API's or Win 95. That little fact spells 
deathbells for OS/2. OS/2 sales only picked up once they incorporated 
Windows into the program and that's a fact. Imagine all the wonderful new 
software coming out for Win95 and OS/2 will be left floating in use to be 
Win 3.1 land.We keep hearing about all this port over nonsense, the only 
problem is all the companies seem not interested in doing so! They can only 
clone Win 31 and down which explains why they've been trying unsuccessfully 
to reverse engineer Win32 API for some time now. You people ought to try 
reality for a change. 

Colin Dawson (yu10...@rufous.yorku.ca) 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! 

The reason why is because they have no rights to it at all!

: : > 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.

The keyword is not WILLING but CAN'T as they have to reverse engineer it 
which appears to have been a problem for IBM!

: There is already games out for OS/2. There is glactic civilization,
: doom, sim city. Most games in Dos will run in OS/2 as long as you have
: enought ram. You don't have to worry about the amount of low memory
: avaliabnle. As for Windows games, they are not much better then Dos
: games. As for Aplications, OS/2 comes with IBM Works, which has a WOrd
: Processer, Spreadsheet, Charting, a Database, Report Writer, and a
: Persional Information Manager. There is Model and Fax softwaRE
: incliuded. There is alot of Multimedia software inculded. You also can
: use the Internet Connection software which allows you to IBM's Server
: or another Internet Provider. There also is better OS/2 applications
: then Windows applications.

: As for the future software for Win9x, it will only be out, only be out
: if Win9x is an instant sucess. If Win9x doesn't recive good support
: Win9x software will be canceled and OS/2 version released instead. 

I've got sad news for you the fact is there is already a whole boatload 
of complete Win95 software complete and packaged waiting to be and will 
be released.

: The game 
:Ultima 8 was to have an add on but Ultima 8 floped , add on : cancled.

There is a difference in planning on developing and already developed.

: If you want to use you PC for more then just playing games get OS/2.
: You get a superiour operating system, fullo dos suport, alowing any
: dos application or games to be run. You get the Windows patch to fix
: Windows and make it run faster. And widnows support, for Windows
: applicatiopns. 

The only problem is you will be only running old Win 31 and below 
programs not new and improve Win95 apps or games. Or the fact that 
Windows runs windows better than OS/2 despite your false claims. Also 
your fooling yourself if you think OS/2 will be able to run any WIN95
product whether under a DOS format or otherwise.

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

<pc week comments re: win95 & the p6 deleted>

>   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!

Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a
rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

I'd suspect that many early purchasers of the P6 will be people who
are already running OS/2 or NT.  I couldn't care less how a P6 runs
ANYTHING, as I won't be purcashing one until at least 1997 or later,
by which time Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp will both have been replaced
(in theory) by newer versions...

-Steve

 Davis, California
 email: boo...@sna.com 
 www:  http://www.sna.com/boojum/

In article <3tbnso$b...@news.cc.utah.edu>,

>You better check up on your facts son. IBM does not have any legal rights 
>what so ever to to WIN32 API's or Win 95. That little fact spells 
>deathbells for OS/2. OS/2 sales only picked up once they incorporated 
>Windows into the program and that's a fact. Imagine all the wonderful new 
>software coming out for Win95 and OS/2 will be left floating in use to be 
>Win 3.1 land.We keep hearing about all this port over nonsense, the only 
>problem is all the companies seem not interested in doing so! They can only 
>clone Win 31 and down which explains why they've been trying unsuccessfully 
>to reverse engineer Win32 API for some time now. You people ought to try 
>reality for a change. 

IBM has announced some time ago that OS/2 will have "links" to Win95.

While you are correct that they no longer have access to code, they can still 
provide the links they need since MS has release the Win32 spec. list.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Cooper                                  EMail:  jco...@socketis.net
ToastWare, Inc.         From the keyboard, off the modem, around the SLIP
                        server, through the router, nothing but NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

: Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
: of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a

Agreed

: rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
: P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
: cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
: a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

No, it will happen when they role out their mid-to-high range Mhz 
machines, much as it did for 486's with the '66 and the Pentium with the 
'90's.  I'd predict around 6 months after first shipping the early P6's, 
though that's just my opinion.  (Based largely on the fact that Intel is 
scrambling like hell to compete with the insanely powerful and becoming 
more so 600 series)

: I'd suspect that many early purchasers of the P6 will be people who
: are already running OS/2 or NT.  I couldn't care less how a P6 runs
: ANYTHING, as I won't be purcashing one until at least 1997 or later,
: by which time Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp will both have been replaced
: (in theory) by newer versions...

Perhaps.  If the trend goes as it did with the Pentium (ie: many games 
already requiring P5's to run in hi-rez mode), I have a feeling I'm going 
to get a P6 as soon as the second generation ones come out.

If I have the money that is.

-Dan

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

You seem to contradict yourself.  Given the facts (as you wrote), you
state that only a "very" powerful system will be adequate for NT.
Your commentary is about the P6 chip!!!!  I think that this system would
be considerred somethink more that "base line".  
As far as Win 95 being a "lame duck", If you decide to upgrade to
OS/2 (along with all the dedicated software) than I can only wish you good
luck.  Most of the periodicals (and myself included) believe that
OS/2 will be even less of a MicroSoft competitor, in the very near future.

				Regards....
  

Logi flaw alert!!!

In <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:

>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. 

>   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!

...But only if you are using a P6, and consider "crippled" to mean "not twice
as fast as a Pentium."  Also, when Win95 is running 32 bit code in a 32 bit
application, it is not running 16 bit code in the compatiblity modules.  If
you switch to 32 bit applications, and 32 bit device drivers, you will not
be running very much 16 bit code.  I find the "only 10%" figure to be
specious.

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

[...and later...]

>   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) 

If you have a P6, isn't that a "massively powerful system?"  If you don't have
a P6, does this issue matter?

>and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.

As it has been all along, availability of applications users want to run
determines whether a OS is successful, not performance.  It's never been the
other way around, I don't see why it would change in the next 10 years.

If performance was the key factor in the success and acceptance of an
operating system, we'd all be using Linux, and OS/2 and NT would be bad
memories.
-- 
%%%%%%% Mike Batchelor %%%%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/www/ %%%%%%%%
  "The avalanche has already begun.  It is too late for the pebbles to vote." 

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.

I don't trust your "facts." How can you (or your "facts") say that the
P6 will only be 10% faster than the Pentiums of today
(P75/90/100/120/133)? That's ridiculous. If it's true, then nobody
will buy the P6, and Intel will be out of business. I don't think
Intel is that stupid.

Furthermore, the reason that people aren't using OS/2 Warp or
especially Windows 3.5 NT en masse is because they are not as
compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1x programs as Windows 95.

I used to be sympathetic to people like you (people who "promote"
OS/2) but people like you have just overdone it. I DO want Microsoft
to have competition; Microsoft should have 50% of the market and IBM
should have the other 50% of the market. Your post is "HUGE NEWS" only
to people who want Windows 95 to fail, no matter what!

gior...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: I don't trust your "facts." How can you (or your "facts") say that the
: P6 will only be 10% faster than the Pentiums of today
: (P75/90/100/120/133)? That's ridiculous. If it's true, then nobody
: will buy the P6, and Intel will be out of business. I don't think
: Intel is that stupid.

They will only be 10% faster using OS's with a significant amout of 16 
bit code in them, like Win'95 and 3.1 (I have a feeling DOS wouldnt slow 
it down, when using a DOS extender like DOS4GW, but I'm not really sure)

: Furthermore, the reason that people aren't using OS/2 Warp or 
: especially Windows 3.5 NT en masse is because they are not as
: compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1x programs as Windows 95.

I agree on the NT side, but I've had few problems with compatibility on 
the OS/2 side.

: I used to be sympathetic to people like you (people who "promote"
: OS/2) but people like you have just overdone it. I DO want Microsoft
: to have competition; Microsoft should have 50% of the market and IBM
: should have the other 50% of the market. Your post is "HUGE NEWS" only
: to people who want Windows 95 to fail, no matter what!

I'd say it was "huge news" if I bought a 80 Mhz P6 (for example) and was 
running Win'95, only to find that it ran apps slower than a P590 (which 
it will, if using Win'95)

What actually suprises me is that PC Magazine printed this.  Lord knows 
PC mag has been historically anti-OS/2.  (Although I suppose this isnt so 
much pro OS/2 as anti-Win'95)

Could they actually just be printing the facts this time, or is another 
clever MS ruse, this time aimed at selling more copies of NT at $300 a pop?

-Dan

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

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

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

1)    Intel's P6 will not figure into the major PC marketplace for
another one to two years.  Intel is more than happy to ride the
Pentium for all the profit it can get, following their time proven
strategy that's given them one of the highest profit ratios of any
company even after having one of the highest R&D ratios.

2)    By the time the P6 becomes commonplace, Win95 will be thoroughly
finished as an OS alternative.  Microsoft has made no secret that
Win95 is considered a stopgap solution with the major support resting
behind Windows NT.  WinNT is a major competitor to Win95 already and
that competition will become stronger as time goes on.  NT 3.51 is
smaller, faster, and has a alpha Win95 interface available right now.
Don't be surprised when Win95 is released and the reviews show WinNT
as a faster, more stable, and better alternative.

3)    Cairo, NT 4.0, will go beta in February 1996 according to
current estimates.  Chances are very good that Cairo will ship before
the P6 ships in volume (aka Dell and Gateway sell P6's in more than
their highest end box.)  MS's plans are not to upgrade Win95, but to
blend the two lines together when Cairo ships, officially abandoning
Win95 just as the P6 enters the ring around the end of 96, beginning
of 97.

4)    Claims that we should all jump onto OS/2 are fallacious.  I
don't know where you people are born or manufactured, but I've seen
about the same absolute factless nonsense being posted by OS/2
advocates as was once posted by Amiga advocates.  Look at where it got
them.  NT does, indeed, want 16 MB RAM.  NT does, indeed, not allow
Dos programs to access soundcards.  Other than that, pretty much every
claim is baseless.  NT runs extremely well in 16 MB RAM and on a
486/25 CPU -- I know, I did it for years.  NT's backwards
compatibility for Dos and Win16 programs is excellent, sometimes doing
better than Win95.  I've personally seen large Win16 programs run
better under NT than under WFWG or Win95.  I've had less trouble
getting my Dos games to run under WinNT than I have had under Win95 or
Dos excepting sound support.

5)    Any game written for Win95 will have no problems running on NT.
Granted, the direct video access afforded games under Windows 95 using
the WinG libraries will allow better bitmapped speed than NT will, but
there are advantages to NT as well.  Take a look at the strength of
the OS, OpenGL 3-D graphics libraries, incredible network support, the
ability to act as a network game server, etc.  Coming out now are
inexpensive graphics cards that can handle 3-D bitmapped polygon
graphics at incredible speeds -- what will those cards work with best?
NT and it's OpenGL API.

---

In summary, Win95 is an obvious stepping stone to WinNT.  Win95 is
kind of like a marketing exercise used to draw people in to the
Windows APIs.  Game manufacturers have been incredibly slow to move
past Dos and into the real world of accelerated video, high
resolution, networking, device independance, etc.  CAD manufacturers,
the only other major software industry with strong ties to fast video
and intensive CPU, made the jump years ago and saw better and faster
products because of it.  Microsoft is drawing games manufacturers in
by adding direly wanted features in WinG and AutoRun.  But a funny
thing happened on the way to Win95 -- all these features are also
available for NT.

 - jcb

In article <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Kevin Speichts) writes:

   Hah! hah, hah!.   What a joke, OS/2 runs doom in a DOS box with 4Mb of RAM, 
   right!!!!

I don't see why not?  I doubt it would be fast enough to actually play, though.
NT doesn't even boot with 4M.

Anssi

On Sat, 8 Jul 1995, Steve McCready wrote:

> Do you really think that the P6 is going to sell that well right out
> of the gate?  There are still a ton of 486 machines out there, and a
> rapidly growing number of pentiums.  The only people who will buy the
> P6 when it comes out will be those who feel the need to be 'on the
> cutting edge' at any cost.  How long was it before the Pentium gained
> a solid foothold in the PC industry?  It didn't happen overnight.

You make it sound like it HAS a solid foothold. Walk into any electronics 
store and see what they're pushing on "average folk" who are finally 
giving in and buying a PC.... 486/66's on average. Usually with only 4 
meg ram too, but with CD ROM of course.

I'd give it another year.

Please choose a more appropriate group for this discussion.

check comp.sys.ibm.pc.os.os2.games.....and u say os2 won't be competition. 
I'll say IBM does not know how to market OS/2.  Although its a far better 
system, it won't take full advantage of its potential for two reasons.  1) 
Microsloth's monopolistic ways.  2) IBM's un-monopolistic ways.  It will 
however be good competition.

               -Ack the Strange

>They will only be 10% faster using OS's with a significant amout of 16 
>bit code in them, like Win'95 and 3.1 (I have a feeling DOS wouldnt slow 
>it down, when using a DOS extender like DOS4GW, but I'm not really sure)

	Even with extenders like 4gw, they still have to switch back to 
16-bit real mode whenever they access the disk, or any real-mode device
driver that is not hardwired into it. (which is why early copies of Wolf and Doom
sometimes ate mouse drivers).

On 13 Jul 1995 Ceng...@Concept.com wrote:

> 	Even with extenders like 4gw, they still have to switch back to 
> 16-bit real mode whenever they access the disk, or any real-mode device
> driver that is not hardwired into it. (which is why early copies of Wolf 
> and Doom sometimes ate mouse drivers).

What???  What is your source for this info?  Are you a 32bit dos-extender 
programmer yourself?  If DOS Interrupt services are not used, then why 
switch back to virtual 86 mode?  Are you speaking of 16-bit thunks?  
Sound cards, are they 16-bit (addresswise)?

In article <3tbnso$b...@news.cc.utah.edu>, rcb...@u.cc.utah.edu says...
I don't know what the previous articles had to do with the message 
title, but here's some info about gaming on Win 95.  I just read a large 
article in Multimedia World mag about 10-15 new games being released in 
the next 6 months SPECIFICALLY for Win 95.  Almost all are action 
oriented like Mortal Kombat or Doom, and even a LucasArts kids game that 
uses a new Rebel Assault engine for Win 95.  Unfortunately for OS/2 
people, this probably means games will never be big on OS/2, cause Win 
95 has already garnered great support.  More importantly, here's why 
it'll be nice.

- Won't have to fiddle with MS-DOS settings to get games to run.
- Full support of your hardware, no matter what it is, as long as Win 95
  supports it.  So for all of you with 16-bit no-name sound cards who 
  can never get SB16 support in your games...as long as Win 95 has 
  drivers for your card...the game will use it.
- DirectDraw API for high speed graphics direct to video memory.
- Many of the games tout full screen video, and smooth gaming through
  multi-threading (remains to be seen how games will multi-task)

Anyways, if the HOVER game that came with the June beta release of Win 
95 is any indication of games to come, I think we'll be in pretty good 
shape.  For those of you who don't have the beta, HOVER is a Doom-esqe 
car environment.  Cheesy game, but the graphics and sound are great and 
prove the speed of 3-D type games under 95.

Greg Bronzert
Computer Engineer
Virginia Tech

In article <3u1g73$d...@crow.cybercomm.net>,
   Barry Krakauer <A...@cybercom.com> wrote:
-check comp.sys.ibm.pc.os.os2.games.....and u say os2 won't be competition. 
-I'll say IBM does not know how to market OS/2.  Although its a far better 
-system, it won't take full advantage of its potential for two reasons.  1) 
-Microsloth's monopolistic ways.  2) IBM's un-monopolistic ways.  It will 
-however be good competition.
-
-               -Ack the Strange
-
really.

*=====================================================*
* Joseph Robertson        | "Nothing ruins the truth  *
* da...@jax.jaxnet.com     |  like stretching it"      *
*                         |                           *
*=====================================================*

DAMN!!!!!!!

I'm tired of this stupid war. As fast as I create kill files up pops a 
new subject under which the war continues. Maybe they should have a 
newsgroup just for that... comp.sys.ibm.wars or something. Come on. Lets 
at least try to keep things game related shall we?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses.    -- Victor Hugo 
                                                        bea...@andrews.edu

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

Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>On 9 Jul 1995, Aaron Bilger wrote:
>> Kevin Speichts <kspe...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>> >In article <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:
>> >
>> >>   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.
>> >
>Speaking if NT not being a viable choice, unless you have a massively 
>powerful system... isn't that what the P6 is supposed to be???  Win95 
>products are REQUIRED to work with NT.  When people get around to moving 
>to the more powerful systems, and more powerful os (the majority of 
>people), their Win95 Apps and games will work fine.

The apps might work fine, but not the games (this is the games
group after all).

The Win95 games API (or whatever it's called) which allowed games
direct hardware access (something a lot of games wanted for
speed) is a big no-no in NT.  And so are VxDs in Win95.

So, if the game uses any direct hardware access, chances are it
will not run in NT.  If it uses any VxD, it's a certainty it
won't run in NT.

>Just a side note... IBM announced that OS/2
>will not be made to support Win95 software.  Of course as usual IBM also 
>said that they reserve the right to change their mind at any time.

Meanwhile, IBM is working on an extension on the OS/2 API to make
porting from Win32 to OS/2 much easier.  It's effectiveness
remain to be seen, but common-base cross-platform apps are
appearing (e.g. HyperAccess, the comm app bundled with both Win95
and Warp.  Describe Voyager CD, contains both Win32 and OS/2
version).

>Perhaps this means nothing to you, since many have already decided 
>whether they will go for Os/2 or W95, to me however it means if I choose 

I disagree.  It seems most game companies are still sticking with
DOS.  The most reasonable route is to stick with the EXISTING
BIGGEST base - DOS.  They will probably decide _when_ the outcome
is clear.  And since DOS games (properly written) will run on
DOS, OS/2, and Win95, it's the safest choice unless you need
something special that can't be done in DOS.

[snip]
______
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

iQCVAwUBMAhls3NBYa8g7KHRAQFj8wQAlcB9vfqhe8jXd9czwblCEAv/sIRiwc6b
eng6NwEjRZDXNnXBPaJVuuWc5NF1HnEMJlpFXNvulBfBwRajuuSsj0hoTmxT2Rk3
/QivPnaUmtHJkHybju6wxClIlfKR04w6gcT6IR6HV3lvet/hweO+LnUgikP1T9ee
/2/EkjjbCyw=
=fiN+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:

>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

What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
Windows 95 not at all.  

--
  / // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// /////////////////
                         red...@silcom.com
  /////////////////// /////////////////////// / // /// ///// ///////

Rick (red...@silcom.com) wrote:

: What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
: upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
: Windows 95 not at all.  

You can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

-Dan

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

In article <kremeDB...@netcom.com>,
kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:
> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
> 
> Heck, there never has been.
> 
> 
> Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
> machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
> 
> I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
> know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

I'm sorry, you're not being realistic. If you say OS/2 is superior in
multitasking, I agree. If you say superior in stability, I agree in certain
cases. But windows 95 is superior in ease of use, ease of installation
plug and play, networking and support by software venders. Also it is most
compatible and has the most hardware support.
All in all OS/2 might be the better product for you, but it is certainly
not superior.



Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl)      | Generals are in the nice white tent
                                      | on the hill, sipping sancerre
                                      | directing the battle; They are
 http://www.xs4all.nl/~wverveen/      | men of honour             Rimmer

kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:


>I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
>know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

They will not have to "pay" for bug updates.  They will be free.  And
OS/2 Warp never had bugs?  ROTFL!

I hope you don't mean the Plus Pack- it is _not_ a bug fix.

kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:

>>>I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
>>>know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

Windows 95, even in beta stage, is almost bug-free. It IS bug-free for
me. Windows 95 itself is NOT buggy, but some bugs might appear when
some applications are used (they can be either exotic or common). When
Windows 95 is released on August 24, it won't be a version 1.0
product. Instead, it will be more like a version 1.1 product. The
reason: over 1/2 million people are using Windows 95 right now and a
number of them (but not all) have "assisted" Microsoft in debugging
Widnows 95. TO EVERYONE: when you Windows 95 comes out, don't expect
it to be full of bugs BUT don't expect it to be TOTALLY bug-free.
Encountering or not encountering the bugs is an individual experience.

In article <3uairn$n...@lynx.unm.edu>, deh...@capella.unm.edu (Dan Ehrig) says:

>Rick (red...@silcom.com) wrote:

>: What wonderful news!  What is basically means is that we won't have to
>: upgrade to the P6.  This will negatively affect P6 sales but affect
>: Windows 95 not at all.  

>You can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

>-Dan

Why not?  It seems to work for you.  Tell me?  What does this conversation 
have to do with the use of these OSs for gaming?  Stick to the subject,
gentlemen.

Wim Verveen (wver...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: In article <kremeDB...@netcom.com>,
: kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) wrote:
: > Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
: > >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  Compatability, 
: > >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
: > 
: > I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the entire
: > DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
: > stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
: > 
: > Heck, there never has been.
: > 
Actually, the reason why MS-DOS was the product of choice is because 
EVERY system (with few exceptions) with a 80x86 chip at the heart of it 
CAME with it.  Same is true of Windows.  Because of the way MS structured 
its contracts, so that the manufacturers paid them whether or not they 
used DOS or Windows.  So, when a superior OS came along, i.e. Geoworks, 
no one would bundle their systems with it, no one would make software for 
it, so it died quickly.  Same is true of OS/2.  Very few systems are 
bundled with it.  Little software is available for it.  IBM did make 
quite a few mistakes with Warp, which is superior to Win 95 in many ways, 
which is why I don't use it.  If they 1) debugged it a bit more, 
ESPECIALLY the various drivers and 2) had some 3rd party companies wi 
with OS/2 specific software ready to go, it would be competitive.


: > 
: > Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish propoganda
: > machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
: > 
: > I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when they
: > know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.

: I'm sorry, you're not being realistic. If you say OS/2 is superior in
: multitasking, I agree. If you say superior in stability, I agree in certain
: cases. But windows 95 is superior in ease of use, ease of installation
: plug and play, networking and support by software venders. Also it is most
: compatible and has the most hardware support.
: All in all OS/2 might be the better product for you, but it is certainly
: not superior.

...OS/2 is superior in stability in that if a particular process crashes, 
the rest will keep running.  It is not in the fact that the drivers are 
very buggy.  Win 95 will win this battle because 1) every sytem will come 
with this in short order, 2) it has been thouroughly tested and is 
relatively bug-free (it is the beta testing and tweaking that made it 
came out this late in the game), 3) it already has the apps...which will 
all be out next month.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, WHO, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, Win95, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, REALLY, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, OS/2, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, GIVES, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, Win95, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, A, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, HOT, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, OS/2, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, DAMN, 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

> 
> Re: *** HUGE NEWS ABOUT WINDOWS 
> 95 ***
> 
> kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark)
> Mon, 17 Jul 1995 05:37:37 GMT
> Nyx, the spirit of the Night (telent nyx.cs.du.edu)
> 
> Newsgroups:
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc
> References:
> <vendettaD...@netcom.com> <3squjd$f...@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
> <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> 
> <kspeicht.2...@fox.nstn.ns.ca> <3tp4ls$a...@carbon.concom.com> 
> <Pine.OSF.3.91a.95071...@christa.unh.edu>
> 
> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  
Compatability, 
> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the 
entire
> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.
> Heck, there never has been.
> Os/2 is the superior product, but Bill Gates and the Microsquish 
propoganda
> machine has been spreading enough cash to get their lies out.
> I'm shocked that people are actually considering purchasing Win95 when 
they
> know for a fact they willl have to purchase a bug update in a month.
> -- 
And I suppose that IBM Os/2 is bug free.  

Well you know what they say about opinions, everyone has one!!  |

dlap...@modicon.com (David LaPointe) wrote:

>> Joshua Cyr <jm...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
>> >again).  This is what most home users are looking for.  
>Compatability, 
>> >ease of use, stability in the future (OS/2 has always looked shaky, 
>> I'm sorry, but this is obviously untrue; if it were the case, the 
>entire
>> DOS platform would have imploded about 12 years ago.  There is nothing
>> stable, compatible, or easy about MS-DOS.

>And I suppose that IBM Os/2 is bug free.  

I think the point he was making was that OS/2 is much LESS bug-free
than either Windows or DOS. I would have to wholeheartedly agree with
that. Of course, there are other factors (compatibility, speed, ease
of installation, price, etc.), but it seems to me pretty obvious that
OS/2 is less buggy than Windows and DOS.

So, the result is that the "OS/2 will die because it's unstable" is
not a great argument. That's not to say that the others aren't...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willer <wil...@io.org>              This space reserved.
Team OS/2