Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1992 comp.windows.ms:12427 comp.os.os2.misc:1270
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!ogicse!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!lajolla.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@lajolla.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: <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com>
Date: 8 May 91 21:04:37 GMT
References: <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: lajolla.qualcomm.com

In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes:
>Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop
>strictly for OS/2."  My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any
>indication, watch out Bill Gates...

If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing
of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night-
mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might
become available to the users.  If you're not, I still don't think that
internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much
of an indicator. 

On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta
version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers
messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised
way back in 86/87 (?).  If it's decent, the applications will start appearing,
inexorably.  I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any
usable parallel for the real world.
-- 
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold