home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!brunix!brunix!wcn
- From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
- Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1? (Why it may cost) READ THIS!!
- Message-ID: <1992Dec14.092052.9234@cs.brown.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
- Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
- References: <62740@mimsy.umd.edu> <1992Dec14.094803.12759@waikato.ac.nz> <OLAVT.92Dec14003146@ulrik.uio.no>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:20:52 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <OLAVT.92Dec14003146@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
- >
- >Win 3.1 support is of course important in todays market. But I think
- >that if MS continues this attitude, IBM should in not to distant
- >future make Windows support an option. Past 1993 I will probably not
- >need Windows support anymore, so why pay MS for it? Making Win support
- >an option from let us say OS/2 2.2 or 3.0 can also boost the
- >development of OS/2 applications, assuming that OS/2 will have a well
- >established critical user base by then.
- >
-
-
- I said this when OS/2 2.0 was just released. At that time, there were
- very few Win 3.1-specific software. All we had might be Excel 3.0
- or MS Word 2.0 (for Windows).
-
- There is no reason why OS/2 should plug the Windows 3.1 support into
- the newly release OS/2 2.x. You can get it as an option. But, for those
- who had long stopped buying Windows applications, they should be treated
- in a different way. There may be new users of OS/2 who need WIn3.1
- support. Fine, they can purchase that separately.
-
- I'd like to pay for the OS/2 2.x to IBM, *but*, thanx, no Windows 3.1.
- I don't need that dog. All I need is native OS/2 software.
-
-
-
- Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu (401) 863-7669
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
- I do more after 2 a.m. than most people do all day.
- - from a T-shirt given by a friend.
-