NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/296

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-01 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:296 comp.os.os2.misc:28933 comp.os.os2.programmer:4657 comp.os.os2.apps:5797 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4857
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!bauwens
From: [e-mail] (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: About this Hercules business (Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???)
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 01:04:22 GMT
References: <liuyu.715301119@kramden> <[e-mail]> <liuyu.715378220@kramden>
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 67

In article <liuyu.715378220@kramden> [e-mail] (Liuyu) writes:
>[e-mail] (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>
>>In article <liuyu.715301119@kramden> [e-mail] (Liuyu) writes:
>>>
>>>>About this Hercules business:
>>>
>>>Why don't you also include CGA and EGA? Are you implying GUI on CGA is
>>>much better? If IBM wanted to drop support on low-res video, they should
>>>have drop them all.
>
>>What's the logic of that statement?  Just because neither Hercules
>>nor CGA makes much sense, you seem to think that because they
>>maintain support for CGA, then they should also have supported
>>Hercules?
>
>Many people who have older hardware think it is only fair to support BOTH
>standards!! If you don't get the logic, I give UP!

I still don't see why indulging in supporting one obsolete standard
would create some kind of an obligation to support them all...

>Say you had a step mother and she has a kid. Both you and her kid are rotten
>scums (being old hardware). Is it fair for her (IBM) to dump you (Herc) but
>not her kid (CGA)?? If IBM wants to support old hardware, why not ALL?! They
>only seem to support their own. A bad step mother.

It's funny how you put this in ethical terms :-).  A mother has
obligations toward her children.  If I develop software, I support
the platform that I want, period.  It all boils down to marketing.

(I don't see why they support CGA.  But who cares, that's not the point;
the fact that they threw money away developing support for CGA
does not mean they have an obligation of making OS/2 run on 8088
machines...)

>You sound like you have never used Hercules card. There are many, repeat many,
>applications support standard Hercules. Don't try to make a comment on a
>product you have no experience with!

I did use Hercules stuff; I remember that it was kind of a
pain.  Now that was more than five years ago...

>Let's drop this subject. I know IBM will never support standards other than
>its own. No matter how big my voice is, they won't listen... No wonder many
>people stay away from IBM products. They are too arrogant and insensitive to
>customers' demand. I learn my lesson.... (sigh)

I won't argue with you about IBM's arrogance.  (Though I would
rather use the word complacency.)  But about Graphics and support,
have you noticed that they dropped support of one of their
own children: remember those "Professional Graphics" monitors?
(Was it PGA or something like that?)

And coming back to Hercules, I am sure they (Hercules) no longer
support *their* obsolete hardware.  (Last time I heard about them,
they were trying to market some king of a TIGA card; they also were
selling VGA cards; but they seem to be a shadow of their past.)
But, if they have dropped out of that video mode and
no longer support it, why would anybody else anyway?

(If you feel it's so important, why don't you write and market
drivers...   Might be a nice niche???   And if it's not
worth it to you, it certainly isn't for IBM.)

Luc B