Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1895 comp.windows.ms:12205 comp.os.os2.misc:1186
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bywater!arnor!the-village!waterbed
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Message-ID: <19910502.141008@the-village>
Date: 2 May 91 18:21:29 GMT
Sender: Voice@the-village
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail

In  <8493@umd5.umd.edu>  bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes:
>      What does this mean?  Clearly, for small developers and hackers,
> Windows is currently the way to go.  With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps
> *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like
> would probably be built in Windows first.

On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner,
since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments
and 64k limits.  Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on
OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on
Windows).  Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc.
I know which one *I'd* buy.

(My only problem with OS/2 2.0 is that I don't have any Windows applications
to try out under it.  Everything I use runs native OS/2.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (csnet)