Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!newkodak!isctsse!pajerek
From: pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: the truth about os2 2.0 (was MSC 6.0 Link Errors)
Message-ID: <1990May29.141243.21379@usenet@kadsma>
Date: 29 May 90 14:12:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet@k.1990May29.141243.21379
References: <54887@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Telecommunication Services, Rochester, N.Y. 14650
Lines: 31

In article <54887@microsoft.UUCP> markha@microsoft.UUCP (Mark HAHN) writes:
>pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Don Pajerek) writes:
>...
>>And they've been doing it with OS/2 also. OS/2 version 2.0 is
>>going to require a LOT of recoding, since it is a true 32-bit
>>OS (no segments!). Also, a lot of the present OS/2 run-time
>>library is going to be trashed.
>...
>
>this is completely untrue.  
>os2 2.0 runs 16:16 binaries alongside 0:32 ones.
>
>regards,
>-- 
>Mark Hahn         microsoft!markha@uunet.uu.net         uunet!microsoft!markha


Glad to hear it. However, let's not leave unmentioned the fact that
OS/2 has changed even between releases 1.1 and 1.2, and that some
code that will run under one won't run under the other.

BTW - I understand that sometimes, in order to employ new technologies,
it is necessary to forgo compatibility with older ones. I just wish that
Microsoft had some concept of the fact that there is a limited amount
of programmer man-hours out there, and that programmers shouldn't spend all
their time just adapting OLD programs to Microsoft's new environments. One of
these days, we'd actually like to ENHANCE those programs, or (God forbid)
even write a new one occasionally.


Don Pajerek