🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

Which is completely false.  The DIVE API in OS/2 is doing what
WinG does since OS/2 v2.1. (i.e. for the last couple years)  Full
screen DIVE is planned to be release along with the upcoming
game developers' kit.

>fixed.) it simply hasn't been embraced by the development

This is quite true.  IBM seems unable to market what they have
effectively.  Things appear to be changing now that they are
making a games developers' kit, and you are seeing OS/2 ads
appearing since Warp.

[rest more suitable for advocacy groups deleted]

______
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+8mX3NBYa8g7KHRAQGBqAQApWympufLd7zPMc9K/WRQ8BGmQs0i5/l3
JXbvpFCvMjXWEcW3AOJOe3n9ZG345Ciej5yPaXbzHNUe//IngXySGF53PAOOr+wh
nKxdzrOD1jfTF1sg8uE7KsmAWa0fApncrvYAkAWtAVhpiynhLApJQ9VRcPYZR8vr
d+arIKfeaxY=
=dD/O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:

>>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

Not quite.  How "major" is iD before DOOM?  How "major" is 3D
Realms before (or even after) Terminal Velocity?  How "major" is
Origin before U4?  How "major" is Sierra before KQ?

Yet even with their (then) small company size, they released
great games like DOOM, U4, TV, KQ.

Big companies can make big games, but nothing prevent small ones
from making _good_ games.  And then there are many companies like
Microprose which are sticking with DOS.

>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.

This one I agree, but nothing prevents them to port it to OS/2
(or Mac) later.  IBM games that later appears for Mac or vice
versa are not uncommon.  And more so, they are still doing DOS
games.  DOS is _far_ from dead as a gaming platform.

OTOH, there are companies like SDS which are producing their
flagship product for OS/2 only.  (Just to balance the viewpoint)

What we are seeing now is a diversifying of game platform, I
doubt if we will see a dominant platform by mid/end of 96.  Game
companies may go either way or multi-platform, but the simple
fact game companies are competitors of each other means it's
better for them all to spread among platforms than to rush
headlong to a single platform.

>>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.

This is funny.  With the track record of IBM, which supported
OS/2 since 1.0 all the way to Warp now and Warp PPC soon, plus
the recent pledges of support, you are still not convinced that
OS/2 won't be dropped.

OTOH, with the track record of MS dropping OS/2 1.2, and probably
stop releasing new DOS, and last year even once said they will
stop supporting Win3.1 after shipping Win95, you are convinced
Win95 is the way to go.

Just by understand (partially) what role OS/2 played in IBM's
"solutions" to corporate clients like banks, telephone companies,
etc.  I am firmly convinced that OS/2 will be supported for years
to come.

>>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?

Wrong.  Prognosis (sp?) the makers of Lemmings are doing (done?)
a OS/2 version of Lemmings.  CCS, another game company, is the
one doing Avarice, to be published thru SDS.  Another (small)
game company just did a survey in c.o.os2.games and decided to do
an OS/2 only games.

OS/2 games support is growing, just that it's not visible to in
games groups dominated by DOS users.

Even those companies who are sticking to DOS are getting
concerned about OS/2 compatibility with their games.  e.g.
Terminal Velocity's readme requested OS/2 gamers who got the game
running in OS/2 to tell them how.  (I got TV to run in OS/2 and
send a email to them)

>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.

We'll see.

______
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/DIRnNBYa8g7KHRAQGE8wQAlrddlCt57/NlbR4G/XRt1CyAoc6wt6FA
94NgNFIx5qAnmlMLuaF73XBQ3+Z/1nsXZWNaxirpIZaFvJkDijU8MgQj+kc4Rc1z
o7hs85ibANQ70NJzU7hZwe5DN+tMSdiHBaQaiG59JihiqMD/e7YRa4c5BalNYnei
L2DAC7H1CxU=
=6R/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

sv...@oslonett.no (Sven Anders Robbestad) wrote:
>>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
[you wrongly attribute the quote to someone else, it from me]

>>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?

Windows 3.x also have been out on the market for quite some time,
game developers haven't been queueing up, have they?

IBM just simply haven't marketed OS/2 as a game platform before
Warp, SDS has said that some IBMers have even taken a hostile
view of GalCiv in the early stages too. ("What?!  A GAME for our
mission critical platform?!")

Things are changing now as IBM is releasing the Game Developer's
Kit and enhancing the DIVE interface (adding fullscreen
capability).  They have even silently released a joystick driver
for Warp too.

IBM is make OS/2 a better game platform, just that they do so
without the fanfare like MS did.

>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).

I have also heard about HOVER here, which is supposed to show off
how great Win95's game was, but turns out to be quite slow.

But does Win95 have any commercial games now?  OS/2 have quite a
bunch of shareware/freeware games too, but bringing them up
proves nothing.

______
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/GzAXNBYa8g7KHRAQE7AgP+N5T2Jf9GZQkTJIJrzS5b/MxBLvGpaBV5
FFVsPZkCQmRzAv8gyDwTNTW3tN6wdT0JEYXnvVTo0QotCH63wRsRE0fUDd0FQAfo
hE3PBmrQN3p6nPgrqOlRgg4LqSiLMfe7+diSo4z0xSJ53ui3LvVHGweYNfjqgHy4
5ooPox9jOx4=
=KELl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

[follow-ups to adovcacy groups, I don't see how this will be
going back to games]

rcb...@u.cc.utah.edu (cam burnham) wrote:
[delete]
>: 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 

I guess you better check up on your facts first.  The specs of
Win32 API is known for a long time, IBM don't need any source
codes from MS to put them into OS/2 _if they choose to do so_.

Ever heard of "reverse engineering"?  The specs are enough for
IBM to reproduce the entire Win32 API on OS/2.  The long delays
of Win95 gave them plenty of time to do so.

>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 

OS/2 sales picked up when it got decent DOS/Win compatibility so
users can run their _existing_ apps.  How many potential OS/2
users are runnig Win32 apps which OS/2 can't run?

BTW, OS/2 users don't have to IMAGINE 32bit multithreading apps,
we have already been using them for a long time now.

>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 

I also keep hearing about these wonderful Win32 apps, the only
problem is all these apps don't exist yet!

>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. 

You might have some spies planted in IBM which nobody else have,
how do you know they are unsuccessful in reverse engineering the
Win32 API?

The fact that IBM can identify which Win32 calls are similar to
OS/2 API and are planning to extend the OS/2 API to ease the
porting of Win32 apps show they are actually quite successful in
reverse engineering it.

______
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/tgS3NBYa8g7KHRAQECIQP9Fuwa7yIg1Xrrp1imf75ftufiOtiPbpah
jePBG5FVqYmgCc0ZjNHtLPEgbjCZyYrXIO8XioMvNZVe3YdyAUEHjzwUjpD/IKGx
zWGg6BDJ9dhbHOr3pdEP/b1BEb+GhkxdFBjQ7nV9bxjSV3RU9s40uhS1iXPygxwP
/8+uWYR01u0=
=OB8/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----