From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: List of DOS applications that work on OS2
Date: 3 Oct 92 08:36:31 GMT
Distribution: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.225909.13045@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>>Seems to me like it would make a *whole* lot more sense to have a list
>>>of DOS apps that *don't* run under OS/2.  It'll be a *much* shorter list

>>A list of DOS apps that don't work doesn't really help you that
>>much.  The best it can do is tell you that the software you want
>>to get doesn't work.  If the app you're interested in isn't on
>>that list, there's no way for you to know if it actually does
>>work, or if it just hasn't been tested yet.

>The same thing is true if the software you are interested in isn't on
>the the list of apps that DO work.  So this point is irrelevant.
>There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of DOS apps.  Of those,
>probably 99.99% work just fine under OS/2.  So, we can build a list with
>tens of thousands of entries (and more coming every day), or we can
>build a list with a few hundred entries.  You tell me which makes more
>sense.

Well, if you've got $1000 in your hand to buy software with, what
would you want in your other hand?  A list of software that does
work, or a list of software that doesn't work?  The point is that
with a list of software that does work, you can walk into that store
and buy something, confident that it will run under OS/2.  With a list
of software that doesn't work, you're no better off than if you didn't
have the list.  Sure, you know which titles to avoid, but you have no
guarantees anything else in the store will work under OS/2.  (obviously
you wouldn't want to hold in your hand a list of apps that do run -
you'd just use it at home to narrow down your selections to software
you know will run under OS/2)

>Or better yet, if someone really want to start a list of DOS apps that
>work under OS/2, let me know.  I'm sure I can send 'em a list of a
>couple of thousand just to get started.  :-)

Why not?  If you're using OS/2, you've got to have a large hard drive
with probably a couple megs free.  As we OS/2ers seem to be fond of
saying, memory is cheap.

>>  The only way this
>>list is going to be useful is if it is of DOS apps that DO work
>>under OS/2.

>The only way that THIS list would be useful is if it listed *every* DOS
>app that works.

You've got this backwards.  A list of stuff that works under OS/2 is
useful even if it is incomplete because you can make purchasing decisions
based on it.  A list of stuff that doesn't work under OS/2 is useful
*only* if it lists *every* DOS app that doesn't work.  If it is incomplete,
you can make only purchase-avoidance decisions based on it - it still
can't tell you which software you *can* get.

>  This is clearly an impossible task, as new DOS apps are
>released on a daily basis.

I agree, which is why we need a list of DOS apps that DO work under OS/2.

The only other case I can see is if you want to use the list to judge
whether or not it's safe for you to move your system from DOS to OS/2
(you've got a primary DOS app with no OS/2 equivalent, and you need to
be sure it works under OS/2).  With a list of stuff that does work, either
you know can upgrade, or you have to test it yourself under OS/2.  With
a list of stuff that doesn't work, either you know you can't upgrade,
or you have to test it yourself under OS/2.  A list of stuff that does
work is still better in this case because it is a longer list - software
that's on the list need not go to the "test it yourself under OS/2" phase,
so fewer people will have to test the software themselves, meaning that
more people will have their questions answered by the list.

If someone cares to take up this task (my account quota prohibits it,
and you can't ftp in anyway), I suggest the app's name, manufacturer,
maybe DOS box settings, and the number of people that have confirmed
that it works (so you can gague confidence).
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)