Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.95/text4332.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-03-31 | 3.6 KB

Received: by gold.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:21:43 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:21:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeffrey A Halverson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Win95, and Why...?
To: [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 29 Aug 1995 [e-mail] wrote:

> I run Exec199o5 under Win95 by simply using the 'run under MS_DOS' mode.
> Go to shutdown and just pick this option and then start Executor making sure
> you
> load your mouse first. I found one program worked this way *much* better than
> under DOS (ie pre-Win95)!  Also just openning a DOS window (ie C:>) and
> typing Executor
>  it again worked for me, expanding to a normal window, the only problem being
>  memory settings - check under the preferences option for  the Executor
> folder and adjust
> it according to your computer and your needs.(Right mouse button). I have a
> Pentium
> 60mhz 8mb RAM.
>
> I will say I get excited when I find one more program that works under Exec,
> but like most I get frustrated when I get a string of them that don't. But my
> main concern about the ultimate success  of Executor  is not files but it's
> price ie, what you get for the price.
> Up until Exec199m it was a curiosity, a toy-and exciting; barely worth $99.
> But if Exec2.00 is little different from Exec199o5 it will be a hard sell at
> $249 to the public,
> but not to institutional/educational organizations  *if*  it fully supports
> at least one popular Mac word-proccessor/DTP and those programs they use the
> most. Even then...
> But as for the public (ie me included), without sound, Quicktime, and
> modem(serial)
> support I would suggest they would think $249 gives you very little in todays
>  world of CD-ROMs(gaming and videos), Faxing, and  the Internet.
>
> But if I may ask, *with time/money in such short supply*,and * from a
> strictly business viewpoint*, why work on multiple platforms at the same
> time? EVERYBODY knows
> Executors success will come from the DOS/PC world not Linux or NEXT(?). It
> sounds like its more do to personal interest of individual engineers there
> and not a business
> decision. And when you are way overdue on a project I would think you would
> do only what is essential and would contribute most to its/your success.
> Linux?! Next?!
> Criticism?No.Puzzled?Yes.
>
> jim210
>

I think you are missing the point.  ARDI has been working on making executor
for eight years.  The computer industry has/will change a lot in that time
period.  If you want short term profits, you will make an "executor" that
runs on _todays_ best platform(s).  ARDI has chosen to look towards the
future, and has made thier code very, very portable so that they will
run "executor" on _any_ platform that has the current market-force!  You see,
if by some chance Microsoft really screws up and goes down the tubes, and
OS/2 gets to be the "biggie", then ARDI will have very little trouble
staying in business.  (^o^)

Also, development started on both NeXT and Linux (as I understand it).  DOS
is _not_ a good system to develop on compared to Linux and NeXT.  By
supporting multiple platforms, I bet ARDI can understand better what
problems are DOS-extender problems and which are Executor-specific.

Besides, have you tried using either of these systems?  They sure are
smoother than DOS... :-)   (No flame-starting intended, just my personal
bias!)

Jeff Halverson