From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules is obsolete--Upgrade!
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:44:25 GMT

In article <79005@ut-emx.uucp> drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann) writes:
.
.  Bunch of rambling deleted pointing out (correctly) that HGC is old
.  technology
.
>As the proud ex-owner of a Timex/Sinclair 1000, an Atari 800XL, and an Amiga
>2000, I have come to realize one thing: computers are lousy investments.  Even-
>tually old technologies (including Hercules) have to be left behind, and you're
>stuck with obsolescence.  Deal with it.
>

Sounds like you've been batting a thousand.  Maybe you've made ANOTHER mistake
with your choice of OS/2?

>IBM decided that it wasn't worth their effort fiscally to support Hercules.
>Why?  Because the number of people that actually believe that Hercules is suf-
>ficient for a (mostly) 32-bit OS with a GUI and who would be horrically upset
>if it weren't supported doesn't even constitute a pimple of the face of market
>share.  I don't even think that they were that wild about supporting CGA or
>EGA, and judging from reports about a buggy CGA driver in 2.0, it shows.
>However, do you see a great hue and cry from the marketplace? NO.  If anything,
>quite the opposite, that 2.0's SVGA support is not quite there yet.

Quite right.  I understand that it's a company's right to decide whether or
not they should support SOMEBODY ELSE's standard.  They do try to support
their own obsolete standards (CGA and EGA) but they don't need to support
any standard made by other companies--it's their choice.

Likewise, Microsoft is justified for not writing apps for an operating
system they don't want to support.

The mustard cuts both ways.  So let us ALL stop arguing about those two
points, eh?

>IMHO, VGA is the MINIMUM video standard that should be bothered with in an OS
>like 2.0.  And I'll bet you one thing: when NT comes out, it sure as hell isn't
>going to be trumpeted as supporting EGA or CGA.  I'd be surprised if VGA
>weren't the minimum required video for NT.  And frankly, I wouldn't blame MS
>one damn bit.

We'll see.  Microsoft has been rather good about trying to support as many
devices as possible (no, I'm not forgetting about BASICA--but their Apps
have (more or less) supported HGC; Microsoft Chart, Word for DOS, Multiplan...
nd WINDOWS!)

It isn't hard to write a device driver for video.  I've done it myself on
several occasions.  AS LONG AS THE SPECS ARE WELL LAID OUT.  Whether or not
HGC (or hell, even VGA) is useful on a REAL system is another matter
entirely.

>The computer industry is about progress, and to hell with 10-year-old mono-
>chrome video standards.  But then, that's why Bill Gates is worth several bil-
>lion.  He is more concerned with 1995 than 1985, and so should you.


But it may be marketing genius to support older technology at first.  Look at
Windows 3.0 which ran on an 8088, for chrissake... and I knew VERY few people
who ever tried to run it on an XT--let alone use it on an XT.  But it gave
people a WARM and FUZZY that they could upgrade in increments.

OS/2 simply just doesn't do that for my clients.  It's come to: "Look, in order
to upgrade to it, ya gotta replace your AT's, your network operating system,
your monochrome monitors... we have to rethink your OLE's..."

It isn't an upgrade.  It's a NEW investment... and many customers are seeing
it as an iffy investment (with NT looming over the hill, FUD does work
y'know).  I personally think it would have been worth a few man-months
to write non-IBM video drivers... especially something to soothe those
slow upgraders--like HGC.  But this is just an opinion.
>
>Sheesh.

Heesh  <--- let's not be sexist.  :)