Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: OS/2READ/NEW/FOLLOWUP Message-ID: <1991Feb7.132453.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> Date: 7 Feb 91 18:24:53 GMT References: <73605@bu.edu.bu.edu> <8NuZw5w163w@tz.wimsey.bc.ca> Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL Lines: 31 In article <8NuZw5w163w@tz.wimsey.bc.ca>, johankha@tz.wimsey.bc.ca (e_mou) writes: > Well if IBM is going to solely develop OS/2, then we can just send it out of > the window and forget about it. Too bad, it could have been a decent > environment. Windows needs multithreading. Badly. Someone posted a statement to this newsgroup that MicroSoft was no longer developing OS/2 and it has been repeated a number of times since then. I don't believe it's true, although MicroSoft's policy has been so confusing that you couldn't blame anyone (including me;^) for whatever conclusion they drew. MicroSoft appears to be developing a portable OS/2 that, last I heard, was supposed to support Windows, PM and be POSIX compliant and be available in a couple of years. Now we all have our opinions about what that may be worth, but what it implies for the marketplace is clear in at least one important respect: there will be multi-tasking OS to host all of those Windows apps that are being developed out there and the Windows environment will have to be reckoned with for years to come UNLESS there's a big change in the requirements of the user environment (e.g., voice recognition/response). In that case, an operating system that was truly portable, had multi-user protections, could launch threads on multiple processors including special purpose signal processors and included a programming environment where code development using re-usable objects was encouraged just might have a chance to prosper. Now who might have something like THAT by then? c.f.waltrip Internet: Opinions expressed are my own.