From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: List of DOS applications that work on OS2
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: comp.os.os2.misc
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:23:23 GMT

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct3.083631.24996@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>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?

>A list of software that works, OC.  I'm not questioning the utility of
>such a list, I'm questioning the feasability of creating/maintaining
>such a list.  Wuarchive alone has a 9 meg ls -lR listing.  And that's
>just shareware/freeware which has made it to the net.  Are you
>volunteering to test all of those programs, and all of the commercial
>programs out there?

Well I was thinking only commercial software.  If it's shareware or
freeware, just download a copy and test it yourself.  The whole point
of shareware is that you can try it before you buy it.  It's the commercial
stuff that requires a financial investment before you can test it.

The way this subject started trapped me into unknowningly assuming
we could only have one list.  We can have both lists.  Start listing
the apps that don't work, and start listing the major apps (the ones
most people would be interested in) that do work.

>many of them, and I don't want to spend several hours on this.  And even
>if I did it, the list maintainer (the poor sucker) would have to spend
>weeks, or perhaps months weeding out duplicates between various people's
>lists.

Just require all submissions be in alphabetical order, by product name,
then by company name.  Heck, if you make the format specific enough,
you could probably automate adding new stuff to the list (hopefully
people won't abuse this by submitting false info many times).  Duplicates
are helpful - they mean more people have verified the program works,
meaning the info in the list is even more reliable.  I say keep tab
of how many people have verified each item (up to a point).

>Unless a program: 1. uses VCPI, 2. requires direct disk access, or 3.
>uses a proprietary memory manager, chances are about 99.9% that it will
>work.  Those odds are good enough for me.  Especially since most
>software vendors will give you your money back if the thing simply
>doesn't work.

Which vendors are these?  Most of the mail order and retail places I
see still say it's your responsibility to make sure the software is
compatible with your system.

>A point.  However, the stuff that's *least* likely to be on the list is
>new software--new releases.  Thus you might end up buying some old
>clunker program, simply because the new zip-bam-boom software was just
>released, and hasn't been "certified" by the net yet.  Even though
>zip-bam-boom runs under OS/2 just fine, and solves your problems 10x as
>well as the old clunker.

A list of stuff that doesn't work is no better in this case.  HOWEVER,
if we make both lists, then the reader KNOWS that if it is on neither
list, it hasn't been tested yet.

I think we'd better start by finding someone willing to maintain a list
(either or both lists).
-- 
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)