From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:33:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct9.013333.19999
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <1992Oct08.184014.29255@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>
>>Consider the following little table:
>>
>>                             Target Environment
>>Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
>>-------           --------------------------------------------
>>DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2

>     Windows NT should get a Yes in the DOS row.  I'm not sure why you
>have it as 1/2.

Because of the limited compatibility.  Same reason I put 1/2 under OS/2
1.x.  Actually, it could easily be argued that this row should have
yesses across the board.  I wouldn't have a problem with that.

>>Win                 -      Yes     -          Yes       Yes
>>OS/2 1.x text       -       -     Yes         Yes       Yes
>>OS/2 1.x PM         -       -     Yes         Yes        -
>>OS/2 2.0 PM         -       -      -          Yes        -
>>Win NT              -       -      -           -        Yes

>     Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a Win NT app.

Ah, ok, I was hoping for a clarification on that.

>Win32s		-	Yes	-	-	Yes
>Win32		-	-	-	-	Yes

Excellent, thanks.

>    There are rumors that OS/2 2.0 may also support Win32s, but
>no official announcement from IBM that I am aware of.

No idea.  I think that GUIs are for feebs and moroons, so I really
don't know or care.  <deliberate flamebait>  :-)

>>From this, it should be apparant that OS/2 1.x text-mode apps are
>>supported on as many different platforms as Win apps are.  For apps that
>>don't require graphics, (especially vertical market apps, where the
>>users don't really care what OS is being used), OS/2 1.x looks like an
>>excellent target to write for.  Not to mention family mode apps...

>     The number of platforms an app will run on is relatively
>unimportant - the overriding factor is the number of installations
>it will run on.  

Unless you're talking vertical market and dedicated workstations, in
which case, you can write the app for anything in the world, as long as
you can supply the hardware to go with the beast.

The advantage of OS/2 1.x is that it gives you good multitasking, breaks
the 640k limit, and can run on 286es (for those dedicated workstations)
or on OS/2 2.0 and NT systems (for the people who want to run other
apps, e.g. a Winapp or something, on one of the workstations).

Currently, if you want to sell a text mode app,
>it is in your best interest to write it for DOS, assuming it doesn't
>need anything that DOS can't provide.  MS-DOS is on lots more 
>machines that even Windows is.  OS/2 1.x sold very few copies.

You'll get no arguments from me on this point.  Hell, we have more
customers than I'd like to admit who still use XT's!!  But I'd still
like to write OS/2 1.x apps for those cases when DOS *isn't* adequate. 
For example, my company's flagship product has just about reached the
640k limit, even with overlays, EMS support, and all that.  The recent
release of the OS/2 hosted C7 was wonderful, and fills 97% of my needs
right now, but I'd still like to be able to create OS/2 1.x programs,
both for my own use, and possibly for future development.

Since the object format is the same for DOS and OS/2 1.x, I'm going to
try using C7 with the C6 OS/2 libraries, but if that doesn't work, I'll
be back to pester MS some more.  :-)

Anyway, for that matter, a family-mode app should be able to break the
640k barrier under OS/2 x.x or NT, while still running just fine in 640k
under DOS on an XT.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!