Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1936 comp.windows.ms:12324 comp.os.os2.misc:1224
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
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: <1991May6.182628.19811@qualcomm.com>
Date: 6 May 91 18:26:28 GMT
References: <19910502.141008@the-village>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

In article <19910502.141008@the-village> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>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.

However, OS/2 running Windows applications removes a lot of the pressure to
write strictly OS/2 apps.  If you write a Windows version, it can be run by
the miniscule amount of users who run OS/2 (currently) _and_ the huge market
of Windows users.  The big companies can afford to write one of each, but for
someone with limited resources, I know which one I'd write for maximum return
on investment.
-- 
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold