From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows does not multitask (repost)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:00:51 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <thomasg.490@epx.hscs.umn.edu> thomasg@epx.hscs.umn.edu (Thomas Gasser) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.150739.10450@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

>>In article <!6wj-!q.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>>>Windows ain't Multi-tasking, dudes and dudettes!

>>>I work for a company that creates Windows software, and therefore
>>>have no choice but to use Windows (I've ordered OS/2 for my home
>>>machine, though).  Windows works GREAT if you want to switch between

>>You should convince your company that OS/2 is the ultimate development platform
>>for Windows, for the reasons you detailed in your excellent post!

>>John W. Linville

>Gary says it right in his post.  To make money TODAY you must be writing 
>Windows programs and not OS/2.  If he was able to convince his bosses to 
>stop Windows development Gary would be out looking for a new job.  Because 
>of marketing, past mistakes in OS/2, and other IBM mistakes OS/2 2.0 is not 
>the operating system/operating envirnment of choice.
I agree with you the time isn't right for OS/2 2.0 development for small
companies right now (LOTUS, BORLAND, WordPerfect and another 800 companies
dont agree with me but I first want to wat a few months).
I am not sure your marketing statement is right. ALthought not all things
IBM does succeed the money involved and handled by IBM is almost
unbleievable. They are still one of the largest companies in the world.
Microsoft for example is much smaller.
And don't forget in the two weeks OS/2 2.0 is out now about 2,000,000 orders
have been taken (mostly ex Windows 3.0 users BTW).


>If IBM has developed a GREAT operating system that does what they claim it 
>does, ships it nearly bug free, markets it well and supports the problems 
>that do crop up then they have a chance it make OS/2 work.  But only a 
>chance.  The Unix crowd for years have claimed (sometimes rightly) that 
>Unix is a much better operating system then DOS. Only time will tell which 
>way things are going to shake out.  The winner my be someone we have not 
>heard of yet.  This is a very young industry.
The main problem with UNIX is that it is not DOS compatible. Somehow
all atempts to sell something which is not fully DOS compatible
on large scale failed (e.g. OS/2 1.3, Windows 2.0). The moment a product
is capable of running (or coexisting in the Win3.0 case) with MS-DOS
it succeeds (e.g. DR-DOS). 
OS/2 can even run most Windows software today.

But like you I wait and see. But I am prepared for OS/2 to be a huge
success maybe even bigger than IBM expected (they ran out of floppy
diskettes already).

> 
> 
>Thomas Gasser                                          
>(612) 624-4427
>Dept of Neurosurgery     
>University of MN      
>THOMASG@EPX.HSCS.UMN.EDU


Nico de Vries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  (very new) 
VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming)
MAIL  : Hortensialaan 45, 3702VE, Zeist, The Netherlands 

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.