On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, at 6:02pm, Jerry Feldman wrote: > In this case, that's part of the problem. But, what incentive was there for > Win16 developers to go to Win32.
Win95 did a much poorer job of running Win16 applications than OS/2 did. Not that Win95 did any better running Win32 applications. Microsoft just told developers that Win16 was the problem. So developers promptly ran out and bought all the new Win95 development tools. Which, of course, do a poor job of supporting older environments, forcing users to upgrade to Win95. Repeat for Win98. Repeat for Win2000. Repeat for WinXP. > Certainly Win16 apps lack certain features in OS/2 ... Actually, OS/2's Win16 subsystem was amazing complete and stable. True, a Win16 application did not make use of everything OS/2 could do, but it ran very well. > For OS/2, I think that the benefits of OS/2 did not provide an incentive > for people to start buying OS/2 on their desktops. I tried to imply that OS/2 failed for more than one reason. IBM's poor marketing, and their bizarre business relationship with Microsoft, also contributed. As did the lack of development tools. As did Microsoft's well-documented anti-competitive practices regarding OEMs. Talk about your loosing battles. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
