[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: OS/2 Porting



Doug Wing <doug_wing@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:

>If you add up the total Linux users and Nextstep users they still total
less  
>than OS/2 users.  Win95 still runs on top of DOS, so a Win95 does not
seem 
>as critical as an OS/2 port.  E/D runs on DOS as does Win95.  There is
only
>one DOS/Win program I run and that is Executor.  I had to turn DOS
support >on to run E/D and will be glad to turn support off as soon as I
can.

I don't agree that there are less Linux users than OS/2 People. Due to the
freeware nature of Linux, it's probably impossible to know exactly how
many systems are running Linux out there. I do agree that there are less
NEXT systems out there though...

(It would be interesting to hear ARDI post the relative number of
registered users of each version: i.e. Executor/DOS, Executor/Linux,
Executor/Next)

Also, if I were only considering whether any version of Executor can run
on a box, I'd agree. But I believe a Win 95 port of Executor is much more
important than an OS/2 port only because it would be higher profile and
likely to bring in more money, more quickly.

I actually hope that ARDI brings out an OS/2 port. It would be good for
both ARDI AND IBM.

>>Unfortunately my take on situation is IBM is not willing to do the right
>>job in getting OS/2 out there, and are likely to cut their losses and
drop
>>support of the system altogether.

>OS/2 Merlin is currently in testing and nears completion.  This is a
major  
>upgrade to Warp and should carry a 4.0 badge.  Does this appear to be
dropping 
>support?  OS/2 for the PPC seems near death, but OS/2 for x86 continues
to  
>evolve.

What causes me to have this opinion is all the press that says IBM is
about to kill OS/2. The premature death of OS/2 Warp for the PPC, they
transfer and loss of OS/2 programmers, and IBM's past track record of
shrewd business decisions. I hope Merlin gets released. OS/2 gets better
and better with each release.

>>IF IBM were to somehow give ARDI some financial incentive to develop an
>>Executor/2, I think that would be great.

>How much money does Bill Gates give Ardi to devolpe E/D, E/NT and
E/Win95?
>How much money does Steve Jobs give Ardi to devolpe E/NS?
>How much money does Linux Whatshisname give Ardi to develope E/Linux?
>I am sure IBM matches their total contributrion dollar for dollar.

Huh? A Windows of version of any useful program is much more likely to be
a winner than just about any other platform. Even if 1 - 2% of the
installed base buys it to check it out, thats many thousands of copies.
Microsoft doesn't have to pay people to write Windows software. So many
companies ARE writing so much mediocre Windows software that Microsoft
keeps raising the price and difficulty of getting development materials
and Windows certification.

IBM on the other hand would be much better served in assisting small
development companies with limited resources in developing some killer
OS/2 native apps. MS-DOS was an also-ran (compared to CP/M-86 & USCD-P
System) until virtually unknown companies on a show-string budget
developed Visi-Calc, Lotus 1-2-3 and ported WordStar to it. MS-DOS was
developed in a garage as a quick and dirty port of CP/M to the 8086
processor until Microsoft licensed it and used IBM funding to develop it
further.

>>And I do indeed agree that OS/2 would be a much more stable platform for
a
>>native port of Executor than Win 95, except that there are much less
>>people using OS/2 than there are Windows, Windows NT and Windows 95.
It's
>>unfortunate but true...

>See my first comment.

Although IBM sold One Million copies of Warp to Microsoft's 300,000 or so
copies of Windows 95, there is a LARGE (8 Million plus?) installed base of
Windows 3.1/MS-DOS out there. A killer Win 95 app like Executor would
cause many people on the edge to jump, just like a native OS/2 port would
as well.

However, ARDI's main concern is NOT to champion any one platform (other
than the MAC-OS platform in it's Executor incarnation) over any other, but
to make a quality product and sell as many as possible, as SOON as
possible.

There are a lot of reasons why an OS/2 port is desireable. But many more
for why it should be delayed for a time when more resources are available.

>The only reason I made the purchase of E/D (Dec 95), was that Cliff told
me  
>that they hoped to have an OS/2 port out around April.  In Feb, Melissa
told me  
>that they hoped to have the OS/2 port out before summer.  I know that 2.0
is  
>the priority, but I have no intentsion of holding out for the OS/2 port  
>indefinetly.

>Regards,
>Doug

I too heard that same assertion. I know that people are infallible,
programmers get sick or leave the company. Unplanned bugs (like the floppy
bug) sneak up on you and bite you in the butt...

I have no problem running the DOS version until a Win 95 or OS/2 port
comes out. I already have all of the applications I need on a Wintel
platform. I just LOVE to tinker with cutting edge stuff, and I love making
hardware do something it's designers never planned.

I may be different than you in these respects...

If ARDI doesn't come out with the OS/2 port soon, what will you do? Is
there another Mac Emulator I don't know about? (there used to be a board
called the HYDRA, but it only ran under DOS/Windows... Anyway, I think the
company went under...)

Your best bet is to grin and bear it, and have fun playing with the
bleeding edge releases. I'm sure that ARDI will release the OS/2 port as
soon as they can (perhaps sooner than they believe based on past
experience with Sound support and NT support...)

I would not be at all surprised if there were a prototype OS/2 port in
their labs somewhere, but just not ready for "Alpha-Time" (what DO you
call a pre-Alpha application anyway?)

I really want you and all other OS/2'ers to know that I have no desire for
ARDI to delay any port of Executor more than absolutely necessary, but it
must bug them to hear OS/2'ers beg for a version (and offer lots of info
about how "trivial" it would be) and know that it just ain't possible at
this time...

- Al Hartman, Computer Expressions -


References: