Should Stardock make DOS games?
ti...@io.com
I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
games, and have these games supported under OS/2. Consider the
advantages:
1. Many OS/2 (and Win95) users are more than happy to play DOS games.
The problem that some die-hard OS/2 users have is installing Win-OS/2.
I refuse to install Win-OS/2, but I do have DOS support and I have
played DOS games under OS/2.
2. It is quite possible to write a DOS game that runs just fine,
including audio, under OS/2. Look at Tomb Raider. That game
runs great! And there are many others.
3. Stardock would actually have fewer hardware problems than under
OS/2. Ironically, the concept of device-independent multimedia fails
quite a bit under major OS's like OS/2. (Win95 is not much better,
and WinNT is worse). Look at the DOS games out there. They license
their sound and video drivers from another company, and that's it.
There's no worrying about whether your driver has buggy EnDIVE
support, or whether it has DirectX 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 support. Or
whether your audio driver supports DART (OS/2) or DirectSound
(Win95). Under DOS, all you have to do is support SoundBlaster
and SVGA. Very simple.
4. I think many OS/2 users would consider a DOS game that is officially
supported under OS/2 to be just as pro-OS/2 as a native OS/2 game.
I know I would. Imagine playing a game like Mech Warrior under
OS/2, with full audio?
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, ti...@io.com.
Home page: http://www.io.com/~timur/index.html
OS/2 page: http://www.os2ss.com/Information/Newusers/index.html
OS/2 Programming page: http://www.edm2.com/common/links.html
... In Windows 95, no one can hear you scream
sp...@ibm.net
In <33f7bcea$1$gvzhe$mr2...@news.io.com>, ti...@io.com writes:
>I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
>and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
>and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
>bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
>games, and have these games supported under OS/2.
Now this is a GREAT idea. Another major benefit is if these games were labeled
"Ready for OS/2" besides the "works under w95" . As a DOS game, they would
stand a much better chance of getting shelf space, and the "Ready for OS/2"
would remind the ms lemmings(and those who don't know any better) that they still
have a choice :-)
Darrell Spice Jr.
- Care to play Atari, Coleco, or Sega under OS/2? Stop by the SpiceWare
- homepage to download Stella ,ColEm, and MasterGear today!
- OS/2 programming and Newton <--> OS/2 info also available.
- http://www.geocities.com/~spiceware
Young J
ti...@io.com wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
>
> and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
>
> and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
>
> bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
>
Super idea! I've seen how a lot of long-time, power OS/2 users stress
the need for native apps, and I see their point; however, as a home
user, and a relatively new convert (I got OS/2 to replace Win 3.11 on an
Aptiva, crashed more often than it ran), I consider OS/2's ability to
run DOS/Win16 apps a strength, not a liability.
You cite Tomb Raider, which is the primary example of a great DOS game
running without hitch in OS/2; there's also Descent I/II (I ran the
special 3Dfx version of the latter in OS/2, looks great!), SimCity 2000,
SpyCraft, Whiplash, VRSoccer, M.A.X., and MANY others.
I know some OS/2 users would consider it heresy, but I consider a
DOS/Win16 app that advertises its compatibility with OS/2 a very close
2nd to a native app, and in the case of DOS games (because of some of
the technical issues you cited), equal to a native app.
Jay
Rodney W. Harper
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:24:47 -0700, Young J wrote:
:>You cite Tomb Raider, which is the primary example of a great DOS game
:>running without hitch in OS/2; there's also Descent I/II (I ran the
:>special 3Dfx version of the latter in OS/2, looks great!), SimCity 2000,
:>SpyCraft, Whiplash, VRSoccer, M.A.X., and MANY others.
:>
Add, Steel Panthers and almost every other SSI game for DOS. As an external
tester, myself and one or two others run our Betas under OS/2 Warp and make
they work. The upcoming Steel Panthers III is working quite well under Warp
4.0.
:>I know some OS/2 users would consider it heresy, but I consider a
:>DOS/Win16 app that advertises its compatibility with OS/2 a very close
:>2nd to a native app, and in the case of DOS games (because of some of
:>the technical issues you cited), equal to a native app.
I do not consider this heresy. There are more tools available on the DOS and
Win3.x platform for writing games. I think the main reason many game
companies have switched to writing Win95 games is that the DirectX SDK is
available and takes a lot of the "work" out of writing the code. However, it
puts a lof of the work back in to the technical support side of it (as the
phones clog up from disgruntled users have DirectX errors).
A game is a game and if it works under OS/2 it is just fine with me. I don't
really care if it is native OS/2 or not.
Rod
===============================
Rodney W. Harper
Grand Bay, Alabama USA
================================
:Richard.Riley@pointinfo.com Richard G. Riley
On 18 Aug 97 04:12:28 GMT, sp...@ibm.net wrote:
:>In <33f7bcea$1$gvzhe$mr2...@news.io.com>, ti...@io.com writes:
:>>and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
:>>and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
:>>bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
:>>games, and have these games supported under OS/2.
:>Now this is a GREAT idea. Another major benefit is if these games were labeled
:>"Ready for OS/2" besides the "works under w95" . As a DOS game, they would
:>stand a much better chance of getting shelf space, and the "Ready for OS/2"
:>would remind the ms lemmings(and those who don't know any better) that they still
:>have a choice :-)
:>Darrell Spice Jr.
No way is this a great idea now : it's far too late. This market was well
and truly missed two years ago. People kept harping on about OS/2 gaming
using native OS/2 instead of, THEN, supporting DOS. The simple fact is that
Win95 native games can utilise all the 3rd party support for DirectX : there
is next to nothing to worry about in this case (e.g sound, video card
support). DOS games under Windows are becoming rarer & rarer. Expect DOS
support to vanish from Windows in the next year or two .. I do. Performace of
DirectX games has constantly surprised me : they are virtually all much
faster and responsive than the DOS versions. For gaming switch to W95
*unless* there is a native OS/2 version & then buy it to support the vendor :
there will almost certainly be *nothing* in the OS/2 version which is
superior to the Win32 version. Don't bother flaming me unless you have seen
OS/2 games which are *better* than the W95 version when the Win32 version has
benn threaded too & isn't merely a Win3.1/DOS port.
Richard.
A. Willard Reese
Brad, are you listening?
This sounds like another "Why did'nt I think of this" suggestions?
If some great DOS games can run in OS2, why can't most of the others?
Maybe Brad will explain the reasons why this can (cannot) be done.
Seems Stardock could work up a deal with some of these games people to
fix up these programs to run in Dos under OS2.
Willard
Chris Smith
On Sun, 17 Aug 97 21:52:34 -0500, ti...@io.com wrote:
:>I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
:>and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
:>and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
:>bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
:>games, and have these games supported under OS/2. Consider the
<snip>
I think this is a great idea. However, if you haven't noticed,
practically all the new games are comming out in Win32 versions only.
You mentioned Tombraider. Tombraider II is going to be Win32 only.
Therefore, I believe a DOS game would be a good short term answer only.
Stardock, if you are reading this, then this is what I believe you
should do:
There are rumours going around that IBM is going to put support for
hardware acceleration of OpenGL into the next release of OS/2. Do what
you have to do to find out if this is true. If so, then I propose that
you cease all game developement for OS/2 and continue Win95 support for
revenue. Put all your energies into making a good, fast full screen
video mode for OS/2. I would suggest you contact the people at Polyex
for joint development work. Make it as easy as possible for video card
developers to add full screen support. This is a requirement because
it may be that us, the users' and game developers, will have to write a
.dll or such for video cards to work in full screen mode. Perhaps you
should let IBM know you are doing this. Perhaps you could convince
them, upon a successful completion of this project, they could pay for
half of the development (I know, I know.... that last bit is wishful
thinking). From then on out, write in OpenGL.
I know this would be a lot of work. Also, loss of possible revenue due
to the ceasing of OS/2 game developement is probably not a thought you
enjoy. However, the way OS/2 is now, good quality games are
impossible. Currently, about the only type of good games we can get
are strategy games and that genre is getting old fast! If we wish to
have any kind of future for games on OS/2, then this must be done and
Stardock is the only company with the resources to do this. Well,
actually, there is a *BIG* company out there (it begins with the letter
I) that could do it, but I doubt they will. C-ya!!
Chris Smith
smi...@ibm.net
====================================
"The biggest trick Microsoft pulled
off was convincing the world that
Windows was the only operating
system."
-Greg Dolley
====================================
David T. Anderson
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:08:51, ti...@io.com wrote:
> I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
> and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
> and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
> bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
> games, and have these games supported under OS/2. Consider the
> advantages:
YES! YES! YES! YES! (to quote Meg Ryan in a slightly
different context...)
Whenever I sent off my begging letters to game companies
for some kind of OS/2 version of their games, I always
mention that a DOS version that runs under OS/2 would be
acceptible if they can't see their way to creating a PM
version. Personally, I'd love to see a port of DoomII that
works with sound and networking under OS/2...
As it is, I have a dedicated DOS/FAT drive just for
games...I have to run Tomb Raider here, for eg., since it
insists on running at 640x480, and I'd rather boot to DOS
than constantly be changing my video setup...
In the most recent issue of Computer Gaming World, Lloyd
Case has a column that basically solicits commentary of
whether Win95, as opposed to DOS, is okay as a gaming
platform. My vote as an OS/2 user was for DOS, natch.
Lloyd's email address is lc...@pacbell.net ...
David T. Anderson, Calgary, Alberta.
http://www.agt.net/public/dtander/
beta testing ProNews/2 from Panacea
SPAMSTOP -- TO REPLY BY E-MAIL REMOVE THE 'S' FROM MY
ADDRESS
Chris Boyd
On 18 Aug 97 04:12:28 GMT, sp...@ibm.net wrote:
|| >I've been thinking about Stardock's new cross-platform direction,
| >and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
| >and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
| >bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
| >games, and have these games supported under OS/2.
| <snip>
|
| Now this is a GREAT idea. Another major benefit is if these games were labeled
| "Ready for OS/2" besides the "works under w95" . As a DOS game, they would
| stand a much better chance of getting shelf space, and the "Ready for OS/2"
| would remind the ms lemmings(and those who don't know any better) that they still
| have a choice :-)
I second that idea. Or if we do a game like that (full screen DOS), how about
shipping it with a full screen DOS and a full screen OS/2 executable. That sounds
like an even better idea to me (Quake/2 for example). Ship 'em in the same box,
that'll give those other platform people a little exposure to our little world. :)
Oh BTW, thanks for Stella/2, etc. Playing PacMan for Atari again after all these
years was such a trip for me! :)
Chris Boyd | For my PGP key, email me
Junction City, KS, USA | with "Demand PGP Chris"
http://www.oz-online.net/~cboyd | as the subject of your message
sp...@ibm.net
This is what I get for staying online too late at night. I didn't think through
before responding :-)
No, Stardock should not make DOS games. They should continue to do as they are,
write native versions that run under native under windoze AND OS/2. It's better if
the windoze users can SEE real software that also runs native under OS/2.
What would be great is if all the DOS game companies would acknowledge that
"Yes, this game runs well under OS/2" and put it on the box.
Patrick
For direct reply, remove "virus" from my email address.
-----
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Richard G. Riley wrote:
> :>In <33f7bcea$1$gvzhe$mr2...@news.io.com>, ti...@io.com writes:
> :>>and I think I have a better idea. Instead of writing for OS/2
> :>>and Win95 (and have some Stardock employees complain about how
> :>>bad OS/2 is as a gaming platform), I think Stardock should make DOS
> :>>games, and have these games supported under OS/2.
[...]
> No way is this a great idea now : it's far too late. This market was well
> and truly missed two years ago. People kept harping on about OS/2 gaming
[...]
I agree. Bad idea. DOS' days ARE numbered as Microsnot will be dumping
support for it as soon as they are able. It makes it easier that most
new games coming along seem to be Win32 or a mix of DOS, Win32,
Direct(SU)X, etc. This is a transition period to an evil time when
Windblows will be the only means to play most games.
Inspite of the fact that DirectX SUCKS, as does Direct3D (try the game
"MDK", it comes with three versions on the same CD: DOS, DirectX, and
Direct3D. The DOS version CLEARLY beats the Windows versions hands down).
No wonder id Software is so staunchly against the M$-Windblows API crap.
Native OS/2 games OR games using openGL or Java would be better. Then
they would be real OS/2 versions (as well as Linux, MacOS, Windblows,
BeOS, etc, if using OpenGL or Java). DOS will not continue to be
supported just to provide games for OS/2 users. Having real OS/2 software
supports OS/2.
patrick
L. Stephen Kelly
In article <33f7bcea$1$gvzhe$mr2...@news.io.com>, ti...@io.com wrote:
>4. I think many OS/2 users would consider a DOS game that is officially
>supported under OS/2 to be just as pro-OS/2 as a native OS/2 game.
>I know I would.
Amen to that. I've always appreciated that readme.os2 file that can be
found in a few DOS games here and there ...
--
L. Stephen Kelly | sacman on Internet Chess Club and FICS
| http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/4857/
Kay-Yut Chen
>Inspite of the fact that DirectX SUCKS, as does Direct3D (try the game
>"MDK", it comes with three versions on the same CD: DOS, DirectX, and
>Direct3D. The DOS version CLEARLY beats the Windows versions hands down).
>No wonder id Software is so staunchly against the M$-Windblows API crap.
>
Actually the D3D version is the best since it is the only version with
bilinear filtering. As for performance, D3D is better than DOS even if
you only has a rendition card. With a 3dfx card, it is FAST. DOS is of
course, faster than the win95 version.
(All speed number can be verified by MDK's own benchmark program.)
>Native OS/2 games OR games using openGL or Java would be better. Then
>they would be real OS/2 versions (as well as Linux, MacOS, Windblows,
>BeOS, etc, if using OpenGL or Java). DOS will not continue to be
>supported just to provide games for OS/2 users. Having real OS/2 software
>supports OS/2.
>
>
And of course there are close to no developers (the main exception is
Stardock) developing OS/2 native games. Java will be too slow if the
client uses Netscape or IE java engine.
OpenGL games will be great. Unfortunately only 3dfx owners can enjoy
them now and they are very few in the number. However, it is getting
more support (for example, rendition is coming out with an OpenGL
driver).
Brad Wardell
Timothy Weaver wrote in article <34005...@news1.ibm.net>...
>This isn't likely to happen, especially in light of the fact that
>native Win32 games are an inevitable fact of life now.
>
>However, I have thought about ways for Stardock to still serve games
>to the OS/2 community. One of the problems I have had is that native
>OS/2 games are just not as sophisticated as DOS and Win32 games. I
>understand why that is the case. The OS/2 market simply doesn't
>provide the kind of returns on investment that the other two platforms
>can.
>
>I think Stardock recently did something that I hope it repeats: take a
>DOS/Windows game and provide an OS/2 version of it. They did this with
>Links and it works great. In fact, it's a far better OS/2 application
>than it was a DOS or Windows one (MS Golf).
>
>This would resolve probably one of the greatest costs associated with
>producing games: graphics and sound. Plus, Stardock is probably the
>only OS/2 ISV with a track record for producing entertainment titles
>for OS/2 that would be able to negotiate a licensing or profit sharing
>deal with other game ISVs.
>
>I know that isn't the only thing Stardock should do because it isn't
>particularly satisfying for their designers and programmers. Porting
>doesn't give them the creative outlet to make exactly the kind of
>games that they want. But perhaps they might even be able to negotiate
>something that allows them to improve on an existing game.
>
>
Good to hear the voice of reason. I was waiting for a post entitled
"Stardock should write games for the Commodore 64 since you can run C-64
games under OS/2 via emulation and on Macs, Amigas, and Windows/DOS."
Writing for DOS is too far a step backward. No built in threads, licensing
of sound and graphics libraries, etc.
The OS/2 game market has changed in the past year pretty dramatically. Two
things have happened:
1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
Windows 95 users.
and
2) Those who remain gamers on OS/2 have no problem dual booting to Windows
95 to play a new game.
This has had the following 2 effects on OS/2 games:
1) Far far fewer people to buy OS/2 games.
2) OS/2 games now have to compete feature-wise with the top of the line
Win32 games available.
The irony is that some people say that OS/2 ISVs should be "OS/2 only" ISVs
but OS/2 users themselves run games and applications from multiple OS's.
PMINews has to compete with a Windows news reader. Trials of Battle has to
compete with Quake.
So what can be done?
I cannot ethically recommend that anyone invest large amounts of money into
an OS/2-only game. Both CSS and Shadowsoft spent 2 years creating Avarice
and Trials of Battle (respectively) only to lose their shirts (so to speak)
despite both being excellent cutting edge games (and if you don't already
have these two titles, you should take a close look at them, they do things
that still haven't been done in the Win32 market and they're quite new
games -- Powergamer 97 at http://www.stardock.com has more info).
Clearly Stardock has taken the cross-platform approach. That is, create the
game for OS/2 and Windows at the same time. Entrepreneur and Stellar
Frontier both run on both platforms. The official demo (being released
tomorrow afternoon) of Entrepreneur includes both the Windows and OS/2
version of the game. On games -- unlike applications -- cross-platform
development has virtually no drawbacks except for extra work in creating the
libraries and having to support multiple OS users. That is, there's no
performance hit like you'd see in an app because both versions just write to
the hardware directly.
But then the question comes up, if Stardock can do it, why not Blizzrad or
ID or Sierra or whatever. Because, as Adam Hall (from PolyEx) pointed out
(and hopefully he's reading this so he can add in on this) that the OS/2
game market is just too small to support. There might be 5000 potential
OS/2 games that an OS/2 ISV can get access to today.
So why does Stardock continue to support OS/2 gamers? Because OS/2 users
put us where we are today and OS/2 users can help us make it to the "next
level". Let me explain:
Each year, roughly 1500 games are released (according to E3). About 200 of
these are considered "major" games (Entrepreneur fits into the major
category, a game like Asteroids 98 would not). But the stores can only
stock 20 to 50 different games at a given time (Depending on their size).
I have seen "suggestion" posts from OS/2 users that say "OS/2 ISVs need to
get their stuff on the store shelves." The response is of course, "Duh! No
kidding!"
It's time to give credit where credit is due: Stardock did not get Galactic
Civilizations and Object Desktop into CompUSA... YOU GUYS DID. It was not
Stardock that got the massive coverage for its products in the mainstream
magazines. It was OS/2 users writing in demanding more coverage for OS/2
products. That's not to say we had no part in it. We had to capitialize
on the opportunities OS/2 users gave us (obviously that's pretty important
since most OS/2 ISVs seemed to let their opportunities go by).
In 1995, Galactic Civilizations beat out DOOM for Game of the Year on the
Internet Top 100. That was because OS/2 users went to great lengths to
support products that supported them. That means a great deal, not just in
pride but in recognition as well.
So even though there might only be 5000 active OS/2 game buyers out there
that we can reach, those 5000 people can make it possible to sell 500,000
games (in my opinion). That's why Entrepreneur has both OS/2 and Windows
95 versions in the same box. OS/2 users tend to appreciate support and
return that support and if that support gets us on the shelves of CompUSA or
Best Buy which allows us to sell an order of magnitude more because of being
generally available then you have those Windows advocates tell me how it's
not smart to develop for OS/2? When Entrepreneur is in the top 10 of the
Internet Top 100 because OS/2 users who like the game vote for it over a
game that doesn't support OS/2 which in turn makes more Windows users know
and buy the game, you have your friends that think OS/2 is dead explain to
me why it was "dumb" to support OS/2.
Because from where I'm standing, OS/2 is a pretty damn good market to be in
if you're doing cross platform development. And maybe -- just maybe other
ISVs will pick up on how developing for OS/2 can actually help them not just
in selling to OS/2 users buy to the general market as well.
Brad
--
Pick up the Entrepreneur demo at http://www.stardock.com
For OS/2, Windows 95, and Windows NT.
>
>
Chris Smith
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:51:03 -0400, Brad Wardell wrote:
:>
:>
:>Timothy Weaver wrote in article <34005...@news1.ibm.net>...
:>
:>>This isn't likely to happen, especially in light of the fact that
:>>native Win32 games are an inevitable fact of life now.
<snip>
:>
:>Good to hear the voice of reason. I was waiting for a post entitled
:>"Stardock should write games for the Commodore 64 since you can run C-64
:>
<snip>
:>2) Those who remain gamers on OS/2 have no problem dual booting to Windows
:>95 to play a new game.
See below.....
:>2) OS/2 games now have to compete feature-wise with the top of the line
:>Win32 games available.
Are you saying that OS/2 games should not have to compete feature-wise
with the top of the line Win32 games? This is a load of BS. I hope
you don't think so low of us poor OS/2 users that we should just run
out and buy any game that gets shoved at us.
I heard you are a millionare now. It must be nice not to have to worry
about whether or not you are getting your moneys worth. The rest of us
do. New games today cost $40 to $60 bucks. I expect to get my moneys
worth. The fact of the matter is, with the possible exceptions of
Links/2 and Galactic Civilizations II, none of the OS/2 games can
compete compared to the Windows world.
:>The irony is that some people say that OS/2 ISVs should be "OS/2 only" ISVs
:>but OS/2 users themselves run games and applications from multiple OS's.
:>PMINews has to compete with a Windows news reader. Trials of Battle has to
:>compete with Quake.
Again, they should be compared to the best. Quake and Forte's Free
Agent run just fine under OS/2. Free Agent is *FREE* and Trials of
Battle cost just as much as Quake did. If I believe Quake is better
and Free Agent is better, why would I want to pay for what I think may
be second hand knockoffs? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be
down on TOB and PMINews. I'm proud to say that I own both titles.
PMINews, despite some rough edges (which I have no doubt will be fixed
in the not to distant future), is just as good,if not better, then any
news reader I've seen (and I've seen several on OS/2 AND Windows),
IMHO. As far as TOB goes, I thoroughly enjoy the game and it's one of
the few games I boot up to keep on playing (despite the fact I've
beaten it several times!). However, as far as comparing it in terms of
quality graphics and features, this game simply can't even compare to
even an average DOS/Win32 game. If you had done as good of a job on
the OS/2 version of TOB as you are doing on the Win95 version, perhaps
this game could be held up to a higher standard. If you don't know
what I'm talking everyone, go to
http://www.neosoft.com/~shadsoft/screenshot.html to see what I mean.
:>
:>So what can be done?
:>
:>I cannot ethically recommend that anyone invest large amounts of money into
:>an OS/2-only game. Both CSS and Shadowsoft spent 2 years creating Avarice
:>and Trials of Battle (respectively) only to lose their shirts (so to speak)
:>despite both being excellent cutting edge games (and if you don't already
Neither of these games are even close to "cutting edge." I've already
mentioned that, IMO, TOB can't compare. I didn't buy the final version
of Avarice but I do have the preview version. The graphics are only so
so and it was buggy. The newsgroups were filled with people
complaining that the final version was so buggy it was barely playable.
I hope neither company really lost their shirts so to speak, but the
fact was neither TOB or Avarice could compete with Windows stuff and I
don't believe we, OS/2 users, should just go out and buy everything
that comes our way.
The fact of the matter is OS/2 in it's current state is not able to be
a great games platform. I mentioned this once before in this thread
and I'll say this again:
There are rumours going around that IBM is going to put support for
hardware acceleration of OpenGL into the next release of OS/2. Do what
you have to do to find out if this is true. If so, then I propose that
you cease all game developement for OS/2 and continue Win95 support for
revenue. Put all your energies into making a good, fast full screen
video mode for OS/2. I would suggest you contact the people at Polyex
for joint development work. Make it as easy as possible for video card
developers to add full screen support. This is a requirement because
it may be that us, the users' and game developers, will have to write a
.dll or such for video cards to work in full screen mode. Perhaps you
should let IBM know you are doing this. Perhaps you could convince
them, upon a successful completion of this project, they could pay for
half of the development (I know, I know.... that last bit is wishful
thinking). From then on out, write in OpenGL.
Then work on the little details that make an OS good for games. How
about updating the joystick driver for instance? It was a real pain
that I couldn't use all the buttons and the hat on my joystick in TOB.
If you are not willing to do this, then I would humbly suggest you stop
the games development for OS/2 because the decline in games purchases
is only going to get worse.
Oh, well. That was my two cents....... C-ya!!
Jack Christensen
In message <jyqennkdnrc...@slip166-72-194-212.tn.us.ibm.net> - "Chris
Smith" <smi...@ibm.net> writes:
<snip>
:>even an average DOS/Win32 game. If you had done as good of a job on
:>the OS/2 version of TOB as you are doing on the Win95 version, perhaps
:>this game could be held up to a higher standard. If you don't know
:>what I'm talking everyone, go to
:>http://www.neosoft.com/~shadsoft/screenshot.html to see what I mean.
It does certainly look better in the windows version.
:>The fact of the matter is OS/2 in it's current state is not able to be
:>a great games platform. I mentioned this once before in this thread
:>and I'll say this again:
:>
:>There are rumours going around that IBM is going to put support for
:>hardware acceleration of OpenGL into the next release of OS/2. Do what
:>you have to do to find out if this is true. If so, then I propose that
:>you cease all game developement for OS/2 and continue Win95 support for
:>revenue. Put all your energies into making a good, fast full screen
:>video mode for OS/2. I would suggest you contact the people at Polyex
:>for joint development work. Make it as easy as possible for video card
:>developers to add full screen support. This is a requirement because
:>it may be that us, the users' and game developers, will have to write a
:>.dll or such for video cards to work in full screen mode. Perhaps you
:>should let IBM know you are doing this. Perhaps you could convince
:>them, upon a successful completion of this project, they could pay for
:>half of the development (I know, I know.... that last bit is wishful
:>thinking). From then on out, write in OpenGL.
Hardware OpenGL would be great, but who knows what IBM will decide to do
with OS/2. I think that DIVE actually is better than its reputation.
On my pentium 120 I get 25 fps fullscreen at 1024x768x64k on the jet dive
demo. A game that I am writing gets 15fps full screen (No warpcenter, no
titlebar). On more modern machines it should be possible to do much faster.
:>
:>Then work on the little details that make an OS good for games. How
:>about updating the joystick driver for instance? It was a real pain
:>that I couldn't use all the buttons and the hat on my joystick in TOB.
I don't actually think that that is the joystick drivers fault. Don't hold
me to this, but the joystick driver supports 4 axises and 4 buttons. I
'think' it would simple be a matter of reading it as joystick b. Now I
don't know it would work as I have only used it with one joystick, 2
buttons. But the docs say it should work.
:>
:>If you are not willing to do this, then I would humbly suggest you stop
:>the games development for OS/2 because the decline in games purchases
:>is only going to get worse.
:>
:>Oh, well. That was my two cents....... C-ya!!
:>
:>Chris Smith
:>smi...@ibm.net
:>
:>====================================
:>"The biggest trick Microsoft pulled
:>off was convincing the world that
:>Windows was the only operating
:>system."
:> -Greg Dolley
:>====================================
:>
:>
:>
Jack
--
Jack Christensen
jnc(AT)ibm.net
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved.
Chris Smith
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:29:56 -0400, Brad Wardell wrote:
:>
:>
:>Richard Steiner wrote in article ...
:>
<snip>
:>
:>This gets into an entirely different subject of course since Quake and
:>Trials of Battle, while in the same genre, are pretty fun.
:>
:>Quake is really more of a 3rd generation game (Wolf3D..DOOM..Quake). ID had
:>lots of money to throw at it. If Shadowsoft had gotten some success on
:>OS/2, they would have had the funds to keep making it better and I would
:>argue that it is a really fun game.
First of all, I will definitely argue that TOB is a fun game. Yes, it
lacks in the graphics department and such. However, it's still a great
game when it comes to just playing it.
Second: Are you saying there will not be an update to TOB of any kind,
including a sequal? I recall the end of TOB says something about a
Trials of War or something like that.
Third: When will the Win95 version come out (your publishing it too,
right?)? It may be interesting to compare the two different
versions..... C-ya!!
derek...@ndude.fidonet.org
Greetings jnc(AT)ibm.net,
25 Aug 97 04:37, jnc(AT)ibm.net (Jack Christensen) wrote to All:
jC> Hardware OpenGL would be great, but who knows what IBM will
decide to
jC> do with OS/2. I think that DIVE actually is better than its
jC> reputation. On my pentium 120 I get 25 fps fullscreen at
1024x768x64k
jC> on the jet dive demo. A game that I am writing gets 15fps full
screen
jC> (No warpcenter, no titlebar). On more modern machines it should
be
jC> possible to do much faster.
Which jet dive demo is this..... Just before i bought a new machine I
had a fantastic demo of vr modeling that was a game in development
for os/2.
I have since not been able to find it... and i am thinking that it
might be this demo you mentioned..
Live Long and Prosper,
Derek
275-7944
Richmond BC,
_star...@jumppoint.com
(remove the _ for the correct address)
Golded For OS/2
Brought To You with the Power of OS/2
Chris Smith
On 25 Aug 97 04:37:08 GMT, ATJack Christensen wrote:
:>In message <jyqennkdnrc...@slip166-72-194-212.tn.us.ibm.net> - "Chris
:>Smith" <smi...@ibm.net> writes:
:>
:><snip>
:>
<snip>
:>
:>Hardware OpenGL would be great, but who knows what IBM will decide to do
:>with OS/2.
Who knows indeed!? I doubt even IBM knows........ Hey Brad, have you
heard anything on this?
:> I think that DIVE actually is better than its reputation.
:>On my pentium 120 I get 25 fps fullscreen at 1024x768x64k on the jet dive
:>demo.
Jet Dive Demo? What's this? I have no doubt that dive is better than
its reputation. However, for games it leaves much to be desired in
terms of raw speed. Is this demo playable with a joystick? How are
the graphics? Are they really 1024*768*64k or are they just a lower
res stretched to that res, which is something dive can do? How do the
graphics compare to say, Flight Sim for Win95? If this demo just plays
back graphics, then it doesn't have the overhead from reading input
from a Joystick, simulating the dynamics of flight, and updating
instruments (are there instruments?) in real time so it wouldn't
suprise this demo gets that kind of performance.
:> A game that I am writing gets 15fps full screen (No warpcenter, no
:>titlebar). On more modern machines it should be possible to do much faster.
Game? What kind of game? C-ya!!
:>Jack Christensen
:>jnc(AT)ibm.net
Brad Wardell
Chris Smith wrote in article ...
It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever. But who
knows, some third party could always do it.
As for DIVE, DIVE isn't bad at all and indeed, it gets back into one of the
topics that annoy all OS/2 users -- being #2. Linux isn't about to take
over the market from Windows but no one ever says Linux is dead. Yet OS/2
is easily a larger market than Linux is and yet people say it's dead. DIVE
is in the same boat. It's good but not as good as DirectX (specificially
DirectDraw). But performance differences really come down to this: Can the
average person even tell the difference in performance if you put a DirectX
windowed game next to a DIVE windowed game?
I invite people to try out Entrepreneur (demo now available) and see what
you think. The DIVE performance on that is quite good even though it's
animating the water constantly.
Brad
Brad Wardell
Chris Smith wrote in article ...
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:29:56 -0400, Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>:>
>:>
>:>Richard Steiner wrote in article ...
>:>
>
><snip>
>
>:>
>:>This gets into an entirely different subject of course since Quake and
>:>Trials of Battle, while in the same genre, are pretty fun.
>:>
>:>Quake is really more of a 3rd generation game (Wolf3D..DOOM..Quake). ID
had
>:>lots of money to throw at it. If Shadowsoft had gotten some success on
>:>OS/2, they would have had the funds to keep making it better and I would
>:>argue that it is a really fun game.
>
>First of all, I will definitely argue that TOB is a fun game. Yes, it
>lacks in the graphics department and such. However, it's still a great
>game when it comes to just playing it.
>
>Second: Are you saying there will not be an update to TOB of any kind,
>including a sequal? I recall the end of TOB says something about a
>Trials of War or something like that.
>
>Third: When will the Win95 version come out (your publishing it too,
>right?)? It may be interesting to compare the two different
>versions..... C-ya!!
>
Answers:
Trials of War probably won't ever appear on OS/2. While I cannot speak for
Shadowsoft (they are the ones who make the game), Trials of Battle hasn't
done well enoughs sales-wise to justify an OS/2 sequel but again, it's up to
them.
The Win95 version should be out in November. The graphics are updated and
if possible there will be an OS/2 update as well (available to those who
already bought the game) but the Win95 version has larger viewing areas and
we're not certain DIVE can give adequate performance without a fulls screen
mode. Still though, OS/2 users and Win95 users should be able to battle it
out.
Brad
Chris Smith
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:26:25 -0400, Brad Wardell wrote:
:>
:>
:>Chris Smith wrote in article ...
:>
:>>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:51:03 -0400, Brad Wardell wrote:
:>>
:>>:>
:>>:>
:>>:>Timothy Weaver wrote in article <34005...@news1.ibm.net>...
:>>:>
:>>:>>This isn't likely to happen, especially in light of the fact that
:>>:>>native Win32 games are an inevitable fact of life now.
:>>
:>><snip>
:>>
<snip>
:>I don't think you got my meaning here. At this point, there's no way a new
:>OS/2-only product can compete with what's in Windows feature wise (key word
:>NEW).
:>
:>For example, people ask for OS/2 desktop publishing packages pretty
:>regularly. But it took Aldus (and now Adobe) many YEARS (since 1986) to get
:>Page Maker to the point it is today. So how could a new OS/2 desktop
:>publishing package compete with Page Maker unless OS/2 users were willing to
:>go with the OS/2 product to give it the chance to catch up?
:>
:>In the OS/2 world, I use Trials of Battle as an example. Trials of Battle
:>is a very good game with some of the best networking available (only Quake
<snip>
OK. Compared to an office app or something, I see what you are saying.
:>>:>The irony is that some people say that OS/2 ISVs should be "OS/2 only"
:>ISVs
:>>:>but OS/2 users themselves run games and applications from multiple OS's.
:>>:>PMINews has to compete with a Windows news reader. Trials of Battle has
:>to
:>>:>compete with Quake.
:>>
:>>Again, they should be compared to the best. Quake and Forte's Free
:>>Agent run just fine under OS/2. Free Agent is *FREE* and Trials of
:>>Battle cost just as much as Quake did. If I believe Quake is better
:>>and Free Agent is better, why would I want to pay for what I think may
:>>be second hand knockoffs? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be
:>>down on TOB and PMINews. I'm proud to say that I own both titles.
:>>PMINews, despite some rough edges (which I have no doubt will be fixed
:>>in the not to distant future), is just as good,if not better, then any
:>>news reader I've seen (and I've seen several on OS/2 AND Windows),
:>>IMHO. As far as TOB goes, I thoroughly enjoy the game and it's one of
:>>the few games I boot up to keep on playing (despite the fact I've
:>>beaten it several times!). However, as far as comparing it in terms of
:>>quality graphics and features, this game simply can't even compare to
:>>even an average DOS/Win32 game. If you had done as good of a job on
:>>the OS/2 version of TOB as you are doing on the Win95 version, perhaps
:>>this game could be held up to a higher standard. If you don't know
:>>what I'm talking everyone, go to
:>>http://www.neosoft.com/~shadsoft/screenshot.html to see what I mean.
:>
:>Your viewpoint merely underscores what I was getting at. If OS/2 users are
:>going to buy Windows programs anyway, then cross platform development is the
:>only way to go...you seem to agree with that.
:>
:>
:>>
:>>:>
:>>:>So what can be done?
:>>:>
:>>:>I cannot ethically recommend that anyone invest large amounts of money
:>into
:>>:>an OS/2-only game. Both CSS and Shadowsoft spent 2 years creating
:>Avarice
:>>:>and Trials of Battle (respectively) only to lose their shirts (so to
:>speak)
:>>:>despite both being excellent cutting edge games (and if you don't already
:>>
:>>Neither of these games are even close to "cutting edge." I've already
:>>mentioned that, IMO, TOB can't compare. I didn't buy the final version
<snip>
:>
:>And again, like Avarice, Trials of Battle was designed to be OS/2-only and
:>so its budget was appropriate. Trials of Battle can't compete with
:>Quakeworld at this point because the authors of it didn't have millions of
:>dollars to go at it. But Quake 1.0 wasn't exactly a wonderful game (in my
:>opinion) but ID got huge sales anyway.
:>
<snip>
OK. I'm going to limit this discussion to TOB because there is about
to be a Win95 version made available and also due to the fact that this
discussion is going off on so many directions I can't keep track.
Plus, this will help narrow the point of this discussion where it will
be easy to keep track of.
The point I was getting at is that, as far as games go, OS/2 is just
not capable of even doing the quality stuff we want,need, and desire.
Currently, we seem only to get quality games in the strategy genre (and
this is getting old fast!) If OS/2 is not capable of doing something
better, then we will be in trouble. Consider the following:
Look at Trials of Battle for Win95. It has a a view out of the hover
craft that reminds me an awful lot of Descent II while the view out of
the OS/2 version is out of a small portal, window, or something. The
displays on the instrument panel in the Win95 are more detailed
graphically and look "better" ( I can't think of a better way to
describe this. Compare the way the shield display shows in the Win95
version compared to the OS/2 version for instance.) compared to the
OS/2 version. Finally, there seem to be items the OS/2 version doesn't
have like a cracked windshield.
Question: I have a P166 system set on 1024*768 with all options set to
on in terms of graphic details. I have the game window set to where it
takes up to 35% of the total screen (that's just a rought guess off the
top of my head). If the OS/2 version had the same view, instrument
displays, and the extras (windshield crack and whatever else is
present) the Win95 version has, would the game run at the same speed in
the same size window (I'm ignoring the fact that the Win95 version can
run in full screen compared to my annoying window!) ? Or, would I have
to either reduce the screen size and/or reduce the graphics detail in
order to get the game to run at the same speed? I bet the latter is
more likely. As long as this is true, it will be hard to get others to
consider porting there games and it will be impossible to get the
present developers to deliver the quality games that exists in the
DOS/Windows world. This is why I suggested the following (see below):
:>>
:>>There are rumours going around that IBM is going to put support for
<snip>
:>
:>(your post got cut off for some reason)
I saw in another response that all of my response did get through.
Hmm.. I see you use IBM for Internet service. I also use IBM and this
sometimes happens to me as well. Here's the rest of my response......
---------- begin cut portion --------------
There are rumours going around that IBM is going to put support for
hardware acceleration of OpenGL into the next release of OS/2. Do what
you have to do to find out if this is true. If so, then I propose that
you cease all game developement for OS/2 and continue Win95 support for
revenue. Put all your energies into making a good, fast full screen
video mode for OS/2. I would suggest you contact the people at Polyex
for joint development work. Make it as easy as possible for video card
developers to add full screen support. This is a requirement because
it may be that us, the users' and game developers, will have to write a
.dll or such for video cards to work in full screen mode. Perhaps you
should let IBM know you are doing this. Perhaps you could convince
them, upon a successful completion of this project, they could pay for
half of the development (I know, I know.... that last bit is wishful
thinking). From then on out, write in OpenGL.
Then work on the little details that make an OS good for games. How
about updating the joystick driver for instance? It was a real pain
that I couldn't use all the buttons and the hat on my joystick in TOB.
If you are not willing to do this, then I would humbly suggest (from a
business standpoint. Yes I just did add that<g>!) you stop the games
development for OS/2 because the decline in game purchases is only
going to get worse.
Oh, well. That was my two cents....... C-ya!!
--------- end cut portion ---------------
:>
:>The plain truth is, there's no much point to doing OS/2-only game
:>development. Cross-platform development is the way to go. I cite
:>Entrpereneur and Stellar Frontier as examples of why this is the way to go.
:>
I agree. This does seem to be the way to go. C-ya!!
:>Brad
Chris Smith
On 25 Aug 97 23:13:22 GMT, Jason wrote:
:>Chris Smith (smi...@ibm.net) wrote:
:>
:>: First of all, I will definitely argue that TOB is a fun game. Yes, it
:>: lacks in the graphics department and such. However, it's still a great
:>: game when it comes to just playing it.
:>
:>I think one of the main problems was the demo of trials of battle. I was
:>really excited about trials of battle and was all ready to go out and buy
:>it. But then I downloaded the demo and felt it was blah. It seemed to
:>be nothing more the a multimedia enhanced Battlezone with worse
:>playabilty. Now I've heard from users that it includes more things then
:>the demo showed like capture the flag. But I just don't know about it
:>enough to justify spending that kind of money when I enjoy Battlezone
:>just as much.
:>
:>All I know is you have the base for a kick ass game that just wasn't put
:>together right.
In my opinion, you should get the game if you are even remotely
considering it. It really is a lot of fun.
I agree this is a great base for an even better game. I just read
there will probably not be an update to this game. I wonder if
Shadowsoft would consider giving up the code? C-ya!!
:>-Jason
John Rutherford
Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> Dave {Reply address in.sig} wrote in article
> <872531...@llondel.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >In article <5tpsaf$5gc$1...@denws02.mediaone.net>
> > "Brad Wardell" <war...@ibm.net> writes:
> >>
> >> The OS/2 game market has changed in the past year pretty dramatically.
> Two
> >> things have happened:
> >>
> >> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
> >> Windows 95 users.
> >> and
> >> 2) Those who remain gamers on OS/2 have no problem dual booting to
> Windows
> >> 95 to play a new game.
> >>
> >there isn't a copy of it in the house. I have the misfortune to use it
> >at work and that's enough to convince me to avoid it as long as possible
> >at home. My main machine is pure HPFS Warp4 so if it won't run under
> >OS/2 then I'm not buying it, whatever it is.
> >
>
> Let me clarify:
>
> Two major trends have occured in the OS/2 market (the two above). That's
> not to say every single person has left or is dual-booting but on average
> that's what's happened.
>
> >Dave
> >--
> >dav e...@llondel.demon.co.uk
> >http://www.llondel.demon.co.uk/
> >The User has given an illegal instruction and must be terminated.
> >
> >
What I feel *is* happening, is that many of us, like users of all
*other* operating systems, are upgrading our machines. These new
machines almost invariably come with Windose/95, which we keep around in
a Boot Manager set up (No Dual Boot for me, no siree). Win95 is around
on my PC to play Outlaw or whenever I want to do just a pure "surfin"
session on that Internet Explorer plaything with a full set of actually
functional plugins.
However, Warp is my everyday "productional" environment for almost
everything else, both on and offline. Because, I just like it better.
And I take a lot for granted in setting up my desktop in Warp, that just
is too difficult or impossible to do in the Win95 shell.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
jru...@jetcity.com
Home of MicroLion, PicoTiger, and Associate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
dbo...@ibm.net
In <5trii6$1ctg$1...@lynx.unm.edu>, just...@unm.edu (Justin Curtner) writes:
>In message <5tpsaf$5gc$1...@denws02.mediaone.net> - "Brad Wardell"
><war...@ibm.net>Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:51:03 -0400 writes:
>
>>The OS/2 game market has changed in the past year pretty dramatically. Two
>>things have happened:
>>
>>1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>>Windows 95 users.
>>and
>>2) Those who remain gamers on OS/2 have no problem dual booting to Windows
>>95 to play a new game.
>
>I'm not booting Windows 95 ever. Don't have it installed, and won't have it
>installed. Just change it to "Many remaining OS/2 gamers..." or "Most OS/2
>gamers..." because that second statement is just not completely true. And if
>I am the ONLY one, then you can change it to "Those who remain gamers on OS/2
>(well, except for Justin)..." :)
>
>Justin
I'm with you, Justin. I play games to relax, and how can one relax while using
Windows?
>
>
>
>What's this "Windows" thing everyone keeps talking about?
>
>
dbongo[@]ibm.net
To reply via E-mail remove the brackets. I'm tired of spammers.
Michael Duffy
The DIVE "Jet" demo is just a demo that loads around 15 images of a jet
*into video memory* and plays them back in a loop. This is the only
code on how to use DIVE that IBM has ever released, and it is completely
useless for real world application. The images are 320x240x256 colors
I believe, so any higher resolutions are the result of stretching.
DIVE bites compared to DirectDraw. Sad, but true. IBM initially never
intended DIVE to be used for games. It was simply meant to be an
interface for their video playback that handled the stretching and
conversion of resolution and color depth.
Later,
Michael Duffy
mdu...@ionet.net
Rene Kint
Hello, guys.
> Look at Trials of Battle for Win95. It has a a view out of the hover
> craft that reminds me an awful lot of Descent II while the view out of
> the OS/2 version is out of a small portal, window, or something. The
> displays on the instrument panel in the Win95 are more detailed
> graphically and look "better" ( I can't think of a better way to
> describe this. Compare the way the shield display shows in the Win95
> version compared to the OS/2 version for instance.) compared to the
> OS/2 version. Finally, there seem to be items the OS/2 version
> doesn't
> have like a cracked windshield.
Well, let me jump in here.
First, I think I have a real BIG vote here because me and my RC5 team
(r...@omegam.amsterdam.nl) bought *3* copies of Trials of Battle, and
looking at the postings here I would say that we have a large percentage
of sales. :-))
I like the game, and I am really aware of its limits (like the view,
etc.). Still it is FUN to play. I did NOT buy Quake, I bought TOB.
That said, I have had a good look at the website with the new TOB 1.1
screenshots for W95. I do not have W95, but just for information. They
look prettier, sure. BUT, IT IS A NEW VERSION!!!! It seems to me that
Shadowsoft has done a very sane thing: Listen to the customer. They
brought us the original on OS/2, listened to the 'crowd' and learned
their lesson. A wider viewport, better granularity, and maybe they fixed
the 'sitting duck syndrome' as well.
Good move Shadowsoft. Now I really hope that they WILL bring out an OS/2
version 1.1 of TOB. THAT would be GREAT and VERY STIMULATING to keep
buying their games and other products.
OS/2 as a gaming platform....well I have mixed feelings. I run only OS/2
at home...there is an NT box somewhere in the house but the only thing
it runs is Office. For the girlfriend (she still likes WP5.1 better,
though ;-) who writes articles and (small) books. For me, <EGOIST MODE
ON> I like companies who make the effort bringing us quality stuff, be
it a game or a serious application <EGOIST MODE OFF>. Keeping up with
Windows versions or Windows equivalents IS hard, but I prefer native
stuff as I do not like Windows 16 bit applications. I buy a piece of
software IF IT FIT MY NEEDS, not for being the one in the arena with the
most features. Examples: Describe for WP, TOB instead of Quake, Simcity
2000 native, Simcity Classic. On other software I use (InJoy, Murray,
ObjectDesktop etc.) I do not know of any Windows equivalent and frankly,
I do not care.
Gaming companies trying to go cross platform? I really hope they do
well, as long as they do not forget about me. Them doing well is
neccessary for large sales volumes and gearing up to quality games, I
understand that. But don't forget that it will be HARD. Competition is
hard over there. But whatever you do: MAKE OS/2 VERSIONS, guys!!
Regards,
Rene Kint
Amsterdam, NL.
jl...@no.spam.prolog.net
rste...@skypoint.com (Richard Stei wrote in a message to All:
rs> I have Windows 95 installed here, but I absolutely *DETEST* having
rs> to boot the thing into Windows 95 in order to run game software
rs> (which is why I vastly prefer DOS games, and also why I've not yet
rs> purchased a single piece of software for the Windows 95 environment
rs> I have).
I know how you feel, we have NT 4 here but have
not purchased anything to run on it yet. I prefer the
look and feel of OS/2 and tend to use that almost
all of the time. We have purchased many native OS/2
games, including most of those Stardock sold, but found
most of them less desirable than many of the dos
games. I prefer to use QuakeFS, (even though
I am very poor at playing it) than to boot to dos
to play a good game with sound. However, I think
I would rather boot to dos than NT.
The current situation does make me hesitate about
buying any new OS/2 software, with many dropping support
for OS/2 , I hate to invest to find I need a bug fix
and can't get it. I didn't mind buying something when
I believed they would be upgrading the product to
get it up to a decent standard, but lately you
here them complain "there wasn't enough profit to
warrant future development". That kind of talk
really makes me question if I should spend my
money on an OS/2 product, unless I am absolutely
sure it will work as promised on my system with
my hardware.
I will say that I appreciate the honesty of one
OS/2 developer we contacted, after we downloaded
the demo and found it didn't work with the
son's Mwave sound card we asked them about it and
they recommended we NOT buy their product because
it would not work with the Mwave and they had no
plans on doing anything about that problem. Wow!
That was nice, saved me some money there, they could
have fed us a line of crap and later said there
"wasn't enough profit to warrant future
development", but no, they told us up front to
save our money.
BTW: I haven't purchased any new native OS/2 software in
about 2 months now! The last one ordered was the
WebAk/SXPaint combo special listed on
WarpCity ( yes, I enjoyed going to WarpCity
amostt every day to see what was posted).
joe (email to jl...@prolog.net)
Greg Burland
:>
:>Chris Smith wrote:
:>
:>> :> I think that DIVE actually is better than its reputation.
:>> :>On my pentium 120 I get 25 fps fullscreen at 1024x768x64k on the jet
:>> dive
:>> :>demo.
:>>
:>> Jet Dive Demo? What's this? I have no doubt that dive is better than
:>> its reputation. However, for games it leaves much to be desired in
:>> terms of raw speed. Is this demo playable with a joystick? How are
:>> the graphics? Are they really 1024*768*64k or are they just a lower
:>> res stretched to that res, which is something dive can do? How do the
:>>
:>> graphics compare to say, Flight Sim for Win95? If this demo just
:>> plays
:>> back graphics, then it doesn't have the overhead from reading input
:>> from a Joystick, simulating the dynamics of flight, and updating
:>> instruments (are there instruments?) in real time so it wouldn't
:>> suprise this demo gets that kind of performance.
:>
:>
In message <34025868...@ionet.net> - Michael Duffy <mdu...@ionet.net>
writes:
:>
:>The DIVE "Jet" demo is just a demo that loads around 15 images of a jet
:>*into video memory* and plays them back in a loop. This is the only
:>code on how to use DIVE that IBM has ever released, and it is completely
:>useless for real world application.
Actually they released a demo called BEEHIVE.EXE at around DevCon 9. It
demonstrated how to blit normal sprites and compiled sprites using DIVE. It
only worked in 256 colour mode, but I modified it easily enough to work at any
resolution/color depth.
Not sure why it's completely useless for real world applications.
:>The images are 320x240x256 colors
:>I believe, so any higher resolutions are the result of stretching.
:>
That is true in that demo. Also you can code DIVE to work at higher
resolutions. Make your window bigger and load in bigger bitmaps.
:>DIVE bites compared to DirectDraw. Sad, but true. IBM initially never
:>intended DIVE to be used for games. It was simply meant to be an
:>interface for their video playback that handled the stretching and
:>conversion of resolution and color depth.
That's true as well. It was probably originaly coded for their Ultimotion
stuff and MMPM stuff. When they had one of their brief fits of schizophrenia
and decided to push OS/2 as a games platform on developers ( how long did that
last? Three, four months? ), they simply documented the API's and packed them
in a DLL.
It was never intended to be a complete games/graphics development library (
there are only about 15 DIVE API's) It was simply a way for the developers to
get direct access to the video frame buffer and do all the work, such as
window clipping, etc, or to let DIVE do all the work.
I think their theory was to give the developers the lowest level API's
possible to the video card and let them develop graphics libraries.
Developers usually build their own libraries anyways so they can tweak them as
much as possible.
I think DIVE can be pretty quick ( not that you said it wasn't ). How do you
get faster than writing directly to the video frame buffer? You're writing
directly to hardware so that's about as fast as you can go. Unfortunately
there is no full screen modes :( and no high level graphics API's, but I
already coded what I need, so I don't care. There is a third party graphics
library available from Polyex ( WGT/2 ) which I'll probably buy for my next
game.
I don't know what DirectDraw is capable of now, I haven't looked at it for a
at least 6 months, it's probably been through many versions since then. If
it's more than a basic set of low level API's to access the hardware and more
like a graphics library, then I'm sure DIVE does 'bite' compared to it. But
then it's almost like compariing apples to oranges. MS keeps supporting game
developers, where as we all know by now that IBM doesn't give a shit about
game deveoplers. Of course MS, being the brilliant marketeers that they are,
always pushed Win95 as a great games platform. What better way to get to the
consumer market then to make it easy for games/graphics developers? As you
say, sad but true. Oh well, such is life.
Greg Burland
gbur...@canuck.com
:>
:>Later,
:>Michael Duffy
:>mdu...@ionet.net
:>
Chris Smith
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:59:14 GMT, Greg Burland wrote:
:>:>
:>:>Chris Smith wrote:
:>:>
:>:>> :> I think that DIVE actually is better than its reputation.
:>:>> :>On my pentium 120 I get 25 fps fullscreen at 1024x768x64k on the jet
:>:>> dive
:>:>> :>demo.
:>:>>
:>:>> Jet Dive Demo? What's this? I have no doubt that dive is better than
<snip>
:>In message <34025868...@ionet.net> - Michael Duffy <mdu...@ionet.net>
:>writes:
:>:>
:>:>The DIVE "Jet" demo is just a demo that loads around 15 images of a jet
:>:>*into video memory* and plays them back in a loop. This is the only
:>:>code on how to use DIVE that IBM has ever released, and it is completely
:>:>useless for real world application.
:>
:>Actually they released a demo called BEEHIVE.EXE at around DevCon 9. It
:>demonstrated how to blit normal sprites and compiled sprites using DIVE. It
:>only worked in 256 colour mode, but I modified it easily enough to work at any
:>resolution/color depth.
Again, does this BEEHIVE demo have the added overhead of reading input
from a joystick or other such device? How about the overhead of
aritificial interligence for enemies and the overhead of maintaining
the "physics" of an environment? Any sound in this? I don't recall
saying DIVE is not capable of showing good, quality graphics (if I did,
I was wrong!). I also don't recall anyone here comming out and saying
DIVE is not capable of great graphics as well. DIVE is capable of great
graphics and playback as long as it's just video.
Speaking, of demo's, I recall someone not to long ago releasing a demo
of a running man. It was great graphically speaking. Aren't the
flicks that start before you play the Chess and Solitaire games that
come with OS/2 using DIVE? Those are great as well. However, DIVE
appears to not to be so great when it comes to speed. I bet if you
added the ability to control the running man in the demo I mentioned,
added some sound, and added another character with great graphics as
well that had some AI to it, it would either slow down the demo a great
deal, make the motion in the demo appear jerky, and/or would require
the user to shrink the window.
Again, I don't doubt that DIVE is *CAPABLE* of good graphics. However,
when you add the overhead of sound, game input, AI, and multiple
characters on a screen takes away some processing power being given to
DIVE/Graphics and results in having to lower graphics detail or window
size. I think we saw a hint of this in TOB.
:>
:>Not sure why it's completely useless for real world applications.
DIVE is most certainly not useless for real world apps.
:>
:>It was never intended to be a complete games/graphics development library (
:>there are only about 15 DIVE API's) It was simply a way for the developers to
:>get direct access to the video frame buffer and do all the work, such as
:>window clipping, etc, or to let DIVE do all the work.
<snip>
:>
:>I think DIVE can be pretty quick ( not that you said it wasn't ). How do you
:>get faster than writing directly to the video frame buffer? You're writing
:>directly to hardware so that's about as fast as you can go. Unfortunately
:>there is no full screen modes :( and no high level graphics API's, but I
OK, let me mention this. I'm not going to jerk anyone's chain here and
claim I'm an expert on this so I could be way off on the following:
Are you sure DIVE gives direct access to the hardware? I thought under
OS/2 this was impossible. I was under the impression that, for various
reasons (namely system stability), that there were several layers of
code between the user and the hardware. In effect, when something
happens, something gets passed from one layer then to another and so
on.
Steven C. Den Beste
Jeff Freedman wrote in article <3403343E...@hevanet.com>...
>Richard Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Here in comp.os.os2.misc, "Brad Wardell" <war...@ibm.net>
>> spake unto us, saying:
>>
>> >1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>> >Windows 95 users.
>> >and
>> >2) Those who remain gamers on OS/2 have no problem dual booting to
>> >Windows 95 to play a new game.
>>
>
>No Windows95 on either of my home machines either, and I'll also vote
>for DOS games which run under OS/2.
>
>BTW, Privateer 2, a DOS game, has EXTREMELY nice graphics and sound,
>even on my P133. Is there a Windows95 game which looks this good
>(without a hardware upgrade)? Also, it runs better, with far fewer
>crashes, under Warp than under plain DOS.
>
>-- Jeff
Hmmm... to quote Han Solo: "Don't get cocky!" Actually, there are quite a
number of games which look that good which are Win-95 only, and many more
coming. (And when you toss in 3D cards, there are some games coming which
will blow your socks off. The consensus right now is that a 3D card will be
a necessity for the best games next year, just as a good sound card is a
necessity now.) Forget any notion you might have that "the best PC games are
still DOS." It simply isn't true.
The graphics of "X Wing vs. Tie Fighter" are superb. You can find some
sample shots at http://www.ogr.com/reviews/xvt.shtml.
Though it is a different genre, the graphics of Diablo are excellent. (Still
shots don't do them justice.)
But probably the best looking game I've played in recent memory is
"Obsidian"; the graphics are absolutely stunning. Again, it is a different
genre.
Jeff Green
Replying to a message of Brad Wardell to All on 25-08-97:
BW> Trials of War probably won't ever appear on OS/2.
That's a pity :-(
BW> While I cannot speak for Shadowsoft (they are the ones who make
BW> the game), Trials of Battle hasn't done well enoughs sales-wise
BW> to justify an OS/2 sequel but again, it's up to them.
It looks like Shadowsoft probably won't ever see my money for Trials of War
then.
Regards...Jeff
--
Jeff Green - Greentrees - All pigs fed and ready to fly. _--_|\
Internet: je...@grntrs.dialix.oz.au / OS/2 \
or: je...@matra.com.au \_.--._*
Fidonet : 3:712/610.20 v
Public PGP key file available upon request.
Dan Fowler
In <5tuoer$2...@news1.mnsinc.com>, on 08/26/97
at 02:15 PM, dmc...@mnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) said:
>Brad Wardell (war...@ibm.net) wrote:
Brad wrote:
>: OS/2 program DO have to compete with the latest/greatest Windows programs
>: like it or not. That means cross-platform development on games and
>: applications.
>David H. McCoy,
>Avatar to John Ominor wrote:
>I say more power to the cross platform efforts. A programmer should
>get his hands into as many pies as he can. I don't have problem with
>the concept, just the implementation to a few specific examples.
[great examples deleted]
I believe that cross-platform development will reap great benefits to customers,
particularly as hardware becomes more capable and development tools
(such as Stardock's cross-platform libraries) more sophisticated. My employer
has had great success in porting a large software system to multiple platforms
by architecting a system comprised of 80% portable code and 20% host code.
Keys to success include setting a high standard for "lowest common denominator"
and effectively capturing the unique personality of each platform.
I like Stardock and want them to continue OS/2 development, so I'm all far
any strategy that allows them to continue their creative and os/2-friendly
endeavors.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
dwf...@ibm.net (Dan Fowler) Strange how the world got so small.
MR/2 ICE Registration #10614 -Joe Jackson
Austin Tx
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Christensen
In message <emsyoaggalu...@slip166-72-194-198.tn.us.ibm.net> - "Chris
Smith" <smi...@ibm.net> writes:
:>
<Large snip>
:>
:>:>
:>:>I think DIVE can be pretty quick ( not that you said it wasn't ). How do you
:>:>get faster than writing directly to the video frame buffer? You're writing
:>:>directly to hardware so that's about as fast as you can go. Unfortunately
:>:>there is no full screen modes :( and no high level graphics API's, but I
:>
:>OK, let me mention this. I'm not going to jerk anyone's chain here and
:>claim I'm an expert on this so I could be way off on the following:
:>
:>Are you sure DIVE gives direct access to the hardware? I thought under
:>OS/2 this was impossible. I was under the impression that, for various
:>reasons (namely system stability), that there were several layers of
:>code between the user and the hardware. In effect, when something
:>happens, something gets passed from one layer then to another and so
:>on.
:>
It offers 2 modes. You can either just use a buffer and call the dive
blitter and it stretches it to whatever and clips it and everything.
OR you can somehow get a pointer to video memory and have to deal with
bank switching and everything. I've never used the direct mode though.
:>
:>
:>Chris Smith
:>smi...@ibm.net
:>
:>====================================
:>"The biggest trick Microsoft pulled
:>off was convincing the world that
:>Windows was the only operating
:>system."
:> -Greg Dolley
:>====================================
Stephen Eickhoff
In <wgcid$3$g712$h610$i20$j340...@grntrs.dialix.oz.au>, je...@grntrs.dialix.oz.au (Jeff Green) writes:
>Replying to a message of Brad Wardell to All on 25-08-97:
>
> BW> Trials of War probably won't ever appear on OS/2.
>
>That's a pity :-(
>
> BW> While I cannot speak for Shadowsoft (they are the ones who make
> BW> the game), Trials of Battle hasn't done well enoughs sales-wise
> BW> to justify an OS/2 sequel but again, it's up to them.
>
>It looks like Shadowsoft probably won't ever see my money for Trials of War
>then.
Mine either. And it won't be because of the platform. It'll be because TOB was a nice
concept that they SCREWED UP. The view window should have been adjustable (way
too small for my quick system), controls more configurable, and internet play usable.
So, good luck guys, you and Colorworks. Should you decide to enter the Wintel market,
you'd better come up with something a lot better or it'll collect dust with the Psygnosis
and Sierra crap.
Jeff Freedman
Rodney W. Harper wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:24:47 -0700, Young J wrote:
>
> :>You cite Tomb Raider, which is the primary example of a great DOS game
> :>running without hitch in OS/2; there's also Descent I/II (I ran the
> :>special 3Dfx version of the latter in OS/2, looks great!), SimCity 2000,
> :>SpyCraft, Whiplash, VRSoccer, M.A.X., and MANY others.
> :>
>
> Add, Steel Panthers and almost every other SSI game for DOS. As an external
> tester, myself and one or two others run our Betas under OS/2 Warp and make
> they work. The upcoming Steel Panthers III is working quite well under Warp
> 4.0.
>
And add Privateer 2, which actually runs BETTER (far fewer crashes)
under Warp 4.0 than under straight MSDOS.
Colin L. Hildinger
In message <cwcayogmwuk...@slip166-72-194-109.tn.us.ibm.net> - "Chris
Smith" <smi...@ibm.net> writes:
:>Look at Trials of Battle for Win95. It has a a view out of the hover
:>craft that reminds me an awful lot of Descent II while the view out of
:>the OS/2 version is out of a small portal, window, or something. The
:>displays on the instrument panel in the Win95 are more detailed
:>graphically and look "better" ( I can't think of a better way to
:>describe this. Compare the way the shield display shows in the Win95
:>version compared to the OS/2 version for instance.) compared to the
:>OS/2 version. Finally, there seem to be items the OS/2 version doesn't
:>have like a cracked windshield.
:>
:>Question: I have a P166 system set on 1024*768 with all options set to
:>on in terms of graphic details. I have the game window set to where it
:>takes up to 35% of the total screen (that's just a rought guess off the
:>top of my head). If the OS/2 version had the same view, instrument
:>displays, and the extras (windshield crack and whatever else is
:>present) the Win95 version has, would the game run at the same speed in
:>the same size window (I'm ignoring the fact that the Win95 version can
:>run in full screen compared to my annoying window!) ? Or, would I have
:>to either reduce the screen size and/or reduce the graphics detail in
:>order to get the game to run at the same speed? I bet the latter is
:>more likely. As long as this is true, it will be hard to get others to
:>consider porting there games and it will be impossible to get the
:>present developers to deliver the quality games that exists in the
:>DOS/Windows world. This is why I suggested the following (see below):
Actually, on a game like TOB or Quake or whatever the DIVE perfomance should
be similar to the DirectX performance when Windowed (including maximized
Windows). The biggest advantage that DirectX has in this setting (though it
does have others) is the ability to run full screen. You just can't compare a
640x480 screen in 640x480 to one stretched to 1024x768. There's going to be a
performance loss no matter what you do. EnDIVE helps, but dynamic
resolution/full screen mode is the only real solution.
Colin L. Hildinger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Games Editor - OS/2 e-Zine! | The Ultimate OS/2 Gaming Page |
| http://www.os2ezine.com/ | http://www.ionet.net/~colin/games.html |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The Official Unofficial AWE32 and OS/2 Warp Page |
| http://www.ionet.net/~colin/awe32.html |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRACK 56-bit RC5 WITH OS/2 NOW!
http://www.ionet.net/~colin/rc5.html
Colin L. Hildinger
In message <3404e...@news1.ibm.net> - jnc(AT)ibm.net (Jack Christensen)
writes:
:>
:>In message <emsyoaggalu...@slip166-72-194-198.tn.us.ibm.net> - "Chris
:>Smith" <smi...@ibm.net> writes:
:>
:>:>Are you sure DIVE gives direct access to the hardware? I thought under
:>:>OS/2 this was impossible. I was under the impression that, for various
:>:>reasons (namely system stability), that there were several layers of
:>:>code between the user and the hardware. In effect, when something
:>:>happens, something gets passed from one layer then to another and so
:>:>on.
:>:>
:>It offers 2 modes. You can either just use a buffer and call the dive
:>blitter and it stretches it to whatever and clips it and everything.
:>OR you can somehow get a pointer to video memory and have to deal with
:>bank switching and everything. I've never used the direct mode though.
This is what I thought as well, but Mike D. says otherwise. Or maybe not?
Colin L. Hildinger
In message <5u052o$7...@proxye1.san.rr.com> - "Steven C. Den Beste"
<sden...@san.rr.com> writes:
:>Jeff Freedman wrote in article <3403343E...@hevanet.com>...
:>>
:>>No Windows95 on either of my home machines either, and I'll also vote
:>>for DOS games which run under OS/2.
:>>
:>>BTW, Privateer 2, a DOS game, has EXTREMELY nice graphics and sound,
:>>even on my P133. Is there a Windows95 game which looks this good
:>>(without a hardware upgrade)? Also, it runs better, with far fewer
:>>crashes, under Warp than under plain DOS.
:>>
:>>-- Jeff
:>
:>Hmmm... to quote Han Solo: "Don't get cocky!" Actually, there are quite a
:>number of games which look that good which are Win-95 only, and many more
:>coming. (And when you toss in 3D cards, there are some games coming which
:>will blow your socks off. The consensus right now is that a 3D card will be
:>a necessity for the best games next year, just as a good sound card is a
:>necessity now.) Forget any notion you might have that "the best PC games are
:>still DOS." It simply isn't true.
:>
:>The graphics of "X Wing vs. Tie Fighter" are superb. You can find some
:>sample shots at http://www.ogr.com/reviews/xvt.shtml.
:>
:>Though it is a different genre, the graphics of Diablo are excellent. (Still
:>shots don't do them justice.)
It's a shame game play got boring after a few sittings. After I'd beaten the
game once and played a few multiplayer games, I was glad I was borrowing the
CD instead of playing a game I'd bought. It was really all flash, all the
monsters were really just variations on a theme. Game play consisted mostly
of a lot of rapid clicking with very little thought.
:>But probably the best looking game I've played in recent memory is
:>"Obsidian"; the graphics are absolutely stunning. Again, it is a different
:>genre.
Well, I have to agree with Steven (Houston must have frozen over ;-) ). Most
new quality games are coming out for DirectX. DOS gaming is dying fast. This
means that we NEED quality OS/2 games.
J. Link
Hi,
Which courses currently available in the stores will work with Links OS/2?
Will the Links LS courses work?
Thank's for the help.
Remove X for E-Mail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Yes, I'm an OS/2 Warp Home User! |
| Abandoned by IBM, Ignored by Micro$oft and 99% of Software Vendors. |
| OS/2 Warp - Still the best 32-bit Operating System - |
| Inspite of IBM! |
| |
| OS who? |
| \|||/ |
| {o o} |
----------------------------OOo---(_)--oOO-------------------------------
jl...@best.com
IBM Non-Customer
Hugh Preston
In message <5uugsk$o3j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com> - jli...@best.com (J. Link)
writes:
:>
:>Hi,
:>
:>Which courses currently available in the stores will work with Links OS/2?
:>Will the Links LS courses work?
Any of the Access software courses that end with a .crh will work with
Links/2. I have both MS Golf 2.0 and Links/2 on my machine. I deleted
the courses out of the ms golf dir and edited the msglfcrs.ini file to use
the courses in the links/2 dir. Works fine. Oh yeah, also have links ls
on here too. You can't use the ls courses on links/2.
Hugh Preston
h.pr...@spectra.net
|^..remove the . to e-mail me..
http://spectra.net/~hpreston/first.html
Robert Gelb
and...@chatlink.com wrote:
: >installed. Just change it to "Many remaining OS/2 gamers..." or "Most OS/2
: >gamers..." because that second statement is just not completely true. And if
: >(well, except for Justin)..." :)
:
: Agreed, I don't have any version of mickysoft windoze (including but not limited to
: win-OS/2) and NEVER will.
That's too bad, cause Hexen2 is offly good game.
--
Robert Gelb
Senior Systems Analyst
Data Express
Garden Grove, California USA
(714)895-8832
Dave Tholen
Brad Wardell writes:
> It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever.
On what basis do you make that prediction?
Dave Tholen
Brad Wardell writes:
> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
> Windows 95 users.
How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
year ago are today OS/2 users?
Brad Wardell
Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
Brad
-------
Brad Wardell
Stardock Systems, Inc.
http://www.stardock.com
Brad Wardell
Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lvc$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>Brad Wardell writes:
>
>> It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever.
>
>On what basis do you make that prediction?
Many years of dealing with IBM and internal knowledge of IBM's development
resources on OS/2.
Brad
Brad Barclay
In <605tsc$cdr$1...@denws02.mw.mediaone.net>, "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@remove.stardock.com> writes:
>However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
>that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
>Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
Uh, I'm an Entrepreneur Beta tester, and I never received any such
survey.
Then again, I've been a StarDock customer for a very long time, and I've
never received a copy of your newsletter either (I know - I can sign up and
request it. But when it was originally announced, it was said that everyone
who was a StarDock customer would automatically receive it, and I never have).
So I have to ask - what subset of users were questioned for you to come
to this conclusion? I'm an OS/2 only user, and I never received it. If the
subset was narrow (ie: only beta testers who live in the US), then we should
only draw conclusions from the survey based on that subset.
Still - the figure is alarming.
Brad Barclay,
OS/2 Development Director,
Internet Direct Canada Inc.
---------------
From the OS/2 WARP v4 Desktop of Brad Barclay.
E-Mail: o...@idirect.com WWW: http://warp.idirect.com
Finger for Public PGP Key. [ ] VoiceType Dictated.
nos...@mdi.ca
In <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, on 09/22/97
>Brad Wardell writes:
>> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>> Windows 95 users.
>How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
>year ago are today OS/2 users?
Good question... :) I'm myself a "sworn" OS/2 user... will not use windows
unless the situtation is extreme... might consider other excellent OS... but
none from Apple or M$... :)
===Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICENews Beta Tester===
===================And Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher====================
NUTS' Home Base
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
nos...@mdi.ca
In <605tsc$cdr$1...@denws02.mw.mediaone.net>, on 09/22/97
at 10:04 AM, "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@remove.stardock.com> said:
>Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>>Brad Wardell writes:
>>
>>> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>>> Windows 95 users.
>>
>>How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
>>year ago are today OS/2 users?
>I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
>recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
>However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
>that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
>Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
did the beta tester pool change? you can have a larger pool or the people
dropped the beta testing...
nos...@mdi.ca
In <605lvc$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, on 09/22/97
>Brad Wardell writes:
>> It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever.
>On what basis do you make that prediction?
I just got the latest OpenGL from IBM... Silver edition... I'll see what
enhancement it have... <G>
Jason
Brad Wardell (bwar...@remove.stardock.com) wrote:
:
:
: Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
:
: >Brad Wardell writes:
: >
: >> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
: >> Windows 95 users.
: >
: >How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
: >year ago are today OS/2 users?
:
: I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
: recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
:
: However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
: that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
: Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
Actually more of a bad sign for the OS/2 game market. People who are
into gaming are far more likely to switch to then people who use it as a
work platform. My roommate switch to OS/2 a while back because of all
the games coming out for it and he now using Win95. I don't play many
games, if I have 3 good ones I'm have enough games, and I'm not even
considering switching to Win95. But I recently upgraded my Win 3.1
partition on my hard drive to a Win95 partition so my roommates friends
can play games over our LAN, but I don't boot into that myself unless I
actually want to jump into some game. Usually I do my game playing on a
Saturn.
-Jason
--
malstrom @ oitunix.oit.umass.edu
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~malstrom/
MP3 info on OS/2 - http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~malstrom/mp3.html
"It's not that I like IBM, it's that I like ABM (Anything But Microsoft)"
Brad Wardell
Jason wrote in article <3426a...@oit.umass.edu>...
I really don't want to involve myself in a fairly pointless debate. If you
guys want to believe that the OS/2 market is growing or relatively stable
then fine. But those of us who have to make a living supporting OS/2 have
to live in the real world. As much as I love OS/2 and love to advocate it,
I can't live in the fantasy os2.advocacy world when it comes time to pay
employee salaries.
I don't think OS/2 is dead -- not by a long shot, but it is going through a
serious consolidation period. Any statistic one gives can be picked apart
to find some silver lining. 85% of Stardock's revenue last year was from
OS/2 business applications -- not games, we're heavily involved in both
markets.
Brad
Brad Wardell
nos...@mdi.ca wrote in article <3426ad73$5$qnivqjrv$mr2...@news.mdi.ca>...
>In <605tsc$cdr$1...@denws02.mw.mediaone.net>, on 09/22/97
> at 10:04 AM, "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@remove.stardock.com> said:
>
>
>
>>Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>
>>>Brad Wardell writes:
>>>
>>>> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>>>> Windows 95 users.
>>>
>>>How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
>>>year ago are today OS/2 users?
>
>
>>I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
>>recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
>
>>However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta
testers
>>that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
>>Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
>
>did the beta tester pool change? you can have a larger pool or the people
>dropped the beta testing...
>
The original Entrepreneur beta group from a long LONG time ago (like 2 years
ago) got forms in the mail to fill out to send back in (a few people here
mentioned it). Those were pure OS/2 users back then. Most are Win95/NT
users today based on their feedback.
I'm not arguing or advocating anything, just backing up what I said earlier
with evidence.
Brad
John Brush
**Brad Wardell (bwar...@remove.stardock.com) wrote:
**:
**:
**: Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lt7$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
**:
**: >Brad Wardell writes:
**: >
**: >> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
**: >> Windows 95 users.
**: >
**: >How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
**: >year ago are today OS/2 users?
**:
**: I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
**: recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
**:
**: However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
**: that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
**: Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
It may be true that some people are moving to W95 from OS/2, but your
statement needs to be questioned in that you surveyed your beta
testers and asked them if they were former OS/2 users, but you have
not asked OS/2 users if they are former windows users, therefore you
have no basis for such a statement.
Please don't make unqualified judgements in behalf of W95. You have
not seen any evidence, because you have not looked for it.
Regards,
John
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
>>> 1) Many people who were OS/2 users a year ago are today Windows NT and
>>> Windows 95 users.
>> How many? And how many people who were Windows NT and Windows 95 users a
>> year ago are today OS/2 users?
> I haven't seen too much evidence of people switching FROM NT or Win95
> recently to OS/2 despite the fact that OS/2 is better.
I see evidence of people switching to OS/2. The question is, switching
from what? MacOS? DOS? Windows 3.1? Windows 95? Windows NT? Linux?
> However, we recently sent out a survey to all our Entrepreneur beta testers
> that were once OS/2-only. About half of them are Windows 95 only today.
> Not a good sign for the OS/2 end user market.
Hardly a representative sample of OS/2 users.
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
> I really don't want to involve myself in a fairly pointless debate. If you
> guys want to believe that the OS/2 market is growing or relatively stable
> then fine.
A bank in Brazil just bought 27000 licenses. Why wouldn't that represent
growth?
> But those of us who have to make a living supporting OS/2 have
> to live in the real world.
You don't have to make a living supporting OS/2. You could support BeOS,
for example. The real world has alternatives.
> As much as I love OS/2 and love to advocate it, I can't live in the
> fantasy os2.advocacy world when it comes time to pay employee salaries.
Then maybe you should consider calling up that bank in Brazil and find out
what they need.
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
>>> It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever.
>> On what basis do you make that prediction?
> Many years of dealing with IBM and internal knowledge of IBM's development
> resources on OS/2.
I didn't know you were internal to IBM. I have external knowledge of a
reported $150 million R&D budget.
Brad Barclay
In <6077jv$j...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu writes:
>Brad Wardell writes:
>
>> I really don't want to involve myself in a fairly pointless debate. If you
>> guys want to believe that the OS/2 market is growing or relatively stable
>> then fine.
>
>A bank in Brazil just bought 27000 licenses. Why wouldn't that represent
>growth?
In Brad Wardell's defense, in his original statement he did qualify the
growth as being the end-user market where OS/2 was quickly dwindling. A bank
in Brazil does not qualify as end-user, and I sincerely doubt that they will
be interested in buying 27000 copies of Entrepreneur to go with those OS/2
licenses.
Brad Wardell
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu wrote in article
<607tlt$3...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>Brad Barclay writes:
>
>>> Brad Wardell writes:
>
>>>> I really don't want to involve myself in a fairly pointless debate. If
you
>>>> guys want to believe that the OS/2 market is growing or relatively
stable
>>>> then fine.
>
>>> A bank in Brazil just bought 27000 licenses. Why wouldn't that
represent
>>> growth?
>
>> In Brad Wardell's defense, in his original statement he did qualify the
>> growth as being the end-user market where OS/2 was quickly dwindling.
>
>Banks are end users.
>
>> A bank in Brazil does not qualify as end-user,
>
>Balderdash.
>
>> and I sincerely doubt that they will be interested in buying 27000 copies
>> of Entrepreneur to go with those OS/2 licenses.
>
>So do I. So what?
>
Dave, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is. Go and start up
an OS/2 ISV and cater to these "End" users.
It's pretty easy to sit on the side lines being an advocate. I'm sure
you'll be at Warpstock right? You can talk to other OS/2 users about how to
get started on your new career path. Now you can jump into the gold mine
that is OS/2 software development.
Brad
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
>> Brad Barclay writes:
>>>> Brad Wardell writes:
>> Banks are end users.
>> Balderdash.
> Dave, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is. Go and start up
> an OS/2 ISV and cater to these "End" users.
Why should I try to compete with the existing ISVs, especially when my
expertise isn't in the banking industry? That's a terribly illogical
suggestion, Brad.
> It's pretty easy to sit on the side lines being an advocate.
I'm not advocating OS/2, Brad.
> I'm sure you'll be at Warpstock right?
I have other commitments, Brad.
> You can talk to other OS/2 users about how to get started on your new
> career path.
My current career path has been quite successful, thank you.
> Now you can jump into the gold mine that is OS/2 software development.
If I were to do that, I'd certainly take the time to understand my
market.
Brad Wardell
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu wrote in article
<609g4u$2...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
What exactly is your career path, David? Last time I looked, you were a
college student.
>> Now you can jump into the gold mine that is OS/2 software development.
>
>If I were to do that, I'd certainly take the time to understand my
>market.
>
But you already pretend as if you understand the market. I, unlike you,
understand the OS/2 market pretty well.
Is it any wonder that you are constantly ridiculed online? Your constant
circular arguments, your inability to ever move forward on any discussion
leads people to think that you just don't have much to say but you like to
say it a lot.
I mean, what point are you actually trying to make? You keep posting over
and over and yet I haven't seen any point in your arguments. Your typical
response to people who ask you to answer a direct question is to accuse them
of having poor reading comprehension.
The OS/ 2 market has been good to me. I have no complaints about how I have
personally done or how Stardock has done. OS/2 made me a millionaire at 23.
I don't say that to "brag" but to illustrate that the OS/2 market was one of
great opportunties for people with a lot of energy and who wanted to make
good products for it.
Unfortunately, times have changed. There is still certainly a decent market
for OS/2 in the financial industry which, while a niche market, is very
lucrative. But that market is very distant from the OS/2 that you and I
have spoken of or advocated. In the years when I debated Brian Sturgill, I
wasn't advocating that people should switch to OS/2 because it was one heck
of a cool ATM machine back end. Similarly, if I were into hardware
advocacy, I don't think I'd be advocating the PowerPC if it were just
something used for embedded systems.
OS/2 has so much more going for it than just being an OS that just runs a
single program for some insurance company. It could have been and still
could be so much more than that. But IBM can't make money (profit-wise) in
a market that they don't have a very large market share because of IBM's
considerable overhead. IBM gave the consumer market their best shot and it
didn't pan out for them.
But OS/2 isn't dead despite IBM's moving into a different direction. But
the OS/2 community and let me spell that out clearly for you since you seem
to speak a different language -- the OS/2 community being end users (i.e.
people who chose to use OS/2 on their desktop PC's as opposed to Windows)
needs to know an honest assessment of where things stand.
People like you running around saying there are these 14 million OS/2 users
(repeating a very outdated IBM "units of non-upgrade 32bit OS/2 units ever
shipped" figure -- and if you doubt my definition of where they got that
number, ask IBM) give the unsuspecting OS/2 user different expectations.
OS/2 users need to band together and get things moving themselves.
Warpstock, which you won't even be at, is a great first step towards
organizing the OS/2 community. For OS/2 to survive in the end user market,
there needs to be a much lower cost of entry for OS/2 software developers
and an organized way of OS/2 users to obtain new software. Linux already
has this going pretty well and OS/2 can do it too.
The most frustrating thing about you when you debate (if "debate" is the
proper word for what you do) is that you don't take a position but instead
just make little retorts. I can almost see in between my paragraphs a bunch
of nonsensical "Why doesn't X do Y, Brad?" which don't even add to the
discussion. No one can even tell if you are part of the problem or part of
the solution or just someone who just posts for the sake of making sure
their newsserver is still up.
Brad
Frits Spieker
On 23 Sep 1997 04:56:45 GMT, Brad Barclay wrote:
:>I sincerely doubt that they will be interested in buying 27000 copies of
:> Entrepreneur to go with those OS/2 licenses.
They might however be interested in a considerable number of copies of Object
Desktop Pro as that one makes it real easy to standardize on a certain
desktop layout.
Grtz,
// Frits //
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++ Written with PMINews 1.01b for OS/2 ++
++ Remove "nospam" to reply ++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richard Steiner
Here in comp.os.os2.apps, Brad Wardell <bwar...@nospamme.stardock.com>
spake unto us, saying:
>For OS/2 to survive in the end user market, there needs to be a much
>lower cost of entry for OS/2 software developers and an organized way
>of OS/2 users to obtain new software. Linux already has this going
>pretty well and OS/2 can do it too.
Yes, there's a tremendous amount of development activity occurring in
that OS community. It'd be interesting to see if the OS/2 and Linux
developer communities could find some common ground (I think we users
would benefit, and perhaps the developers on both sides as well).
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
>>>> Brad Barclay writes:
>>>>>> Brad Wardell writes:
>>>> Banks are end users.
>>>> Balderdash.
Isn't it obvious, Brad?
> Last time I looked, you were a college student.
Apparently the last time you looked was while you were in diapers or
shortly thereafter, Brad. I defended my Ph.D. thesis in 1983.
>>> Now you can jump into the gold mine that is OS/2 software development.
>> If I were to do that, I'd certainly take the time to understand my
>> market.
> But you already pretend as if you understand the market.
I do understand that the OS/2 market is primarily in corporations, Brad.
> I, unlike you, understand the OS/2 market pretty well.
Then why are you having such trouble selling games for it? Have you
discovered yet that the bank in Brazil isn't going to be buying very
many copies of Entrepreneur?
> Is it any wonder that you are constantly ridiculed online?
It doesn't surprise me that people who have their FUD countered
lash out with invective.
> Your constant circular arguments,
What allegedly circular arguments, Brad? Unsubstantiated claims don't
go anywhere with me.
> your inability to ever move forward on any discussion
What alleged inability to ever move forward on any discussion? Do you
not see the forward motion in this discussion, Brad?
> leads people to think that you just don't have much to say
I have plenty to say, Brad. Many people simply refuse to comprehend
what I've been saying. For example, did you bother to read what D.
Scott Katzer had to say? We share a lot of views about the OS/2
market.
> but you like to say it a lot.
The people whose FUD I'm countering like to say their FUD a lot.
> I mean, what point are you actually trying to make?
See above. See below. It's all there, multiple times. Does it
take a rocket scientist to figure it out?
> You keep posting over and over
The people whose FUD I'm countering gets posted over and over.
Exactly how many times do we have to put up with these "OS/2 is
dead" or "dying" claims? It's been going on for *years* and it
still hasn't come true.
> and yet I haven't seen any point in your arguments.
If you can't see the point in my last statement, then it's no
wonder you have trouble seeing my points.
> Your typical response to people who ask you to answer a direct
> question is to accuse them of having poor reading comprehension.
Balderdash, Brad. I accuse of them of reading comprehension
problems when they demonstrate such a problem. For example,
I'd like to know exactly what you were looking at when you
came to the conclusion that I am a college student. Obviously
you didn't comprehend whatever it was you were looking at.
> The OS/ 2 market has been good to me.
Not good enough, or you wouldn't be complaining so much.
> I have no complaints about how I have personally done or how
> Stardock has done.
Then explain your "doomsday" tone, Brad.
> OS/2 made me a millionaire at 23.
Irrelevant; does that prove the market is doomed?
> I don't say that to "brag" but to illustrate that the OS/2 market was
> one of great opportunties for people with a lot of energy and who wanted
> to make good products for it.
And now you seem to be running scared.
> Unfortunately, times have changed.
Then change with the times, Brad.
> There is still certainly a decent market for OS/2 in the financial
> industry which, while a niche market, is very lucrative.
There's where you can make your next million.
> But that market is very distant from the OS/2 that you and I
> have spoken of or advocated.
I haven't been advocating OS/2, Brad. I've been advocating the right
tool for the job. But it takes reading comprehension to realize that.
> In the years when I debated Brian Sturgill, I
> wasn't advocating that people should switch to OS/2 because it was one heck
> of a cool ATM machine back end. Similarly, if I were into hardware
> advocacy, I don't think I'd be advocating the PowerPC if it were just
> something used for embedded systems.
I haven't been doing those either.
> OS/2 has so much more going for it than just being an OS that just runs a
> single program for some insurance company.
Never said it didn't.
> It could have been and still could be so much more than that.
Never said it couldn't be.
> But IBM can't make money (profit-wise) in a market that they don't
> have a very large market share because of IBM's considerable overhead.
We're not talking about IBM making money, but rather you and Stardock.
> IBM gave the consumer market their best shot and it
> didn't pan out for them.
Meanwhile, the corporate market is doing just fine. No doomsday.
> But OS/2 isn't dead despite IBM's moving into a different direction.
Never said it was. Indeed, I've been saying the opposite.
> But
> the OS/2 community and let me spell that out clearly for you since you seem
> to speak a different language -- the OS/2 community being end users (i.e.
> people who chose to use OS/2 on their desktop PC's as opposed to Windows)
> needs to know an honest assessment of where things stand.
Where things stand for you and Stardock isn't necessarily where things
stand for the entire OS/2 community, Brad.
> People like you running around saying there are these 14 million OS/2 users
> (repeating a very outdated IBM "units of non-upgrade 32bit OS/2 units ever
> shipped" figure -- and if you doubt my definition of where they got that
> number, ask IBM) give the unsuspecting OS/2 user different expectations.
On the contrary, I've been quite clear about OS/2 being primarily in
corporations. There shouldn't be any unsuspecting OS/2 users if they
comprehend that simple statement.
> OS/2 users need to band together and get things moving themselves.
Feel free to contact the bank in Brazil, if you think it will help, Brad.
> Warpstock, which you won't even be at, is a great first step towards
> organizing the OS/2 community.
Some of us have jobs that require our presence elsewhere, Brad.
> For OS/2 to survive in the end user market,
There's that doomsday feeling again. Banks are end users, Brad.
> there needs to be a much lower cost of entry for OS/2 software developers
> and an organized way of OS/2 users to obtain new software. Linux already
> has this going pretty well and OS/2 can do it too.
Fine, but don't expect the bank in Brazil to show much interest.
> The most frustrating thing about you when you debate (if "debate" is the
> proper word for what you do) is that you don't take a position but instead
> just make little retorts.
What's frustrating about not taking a position? Do you get frustrated
with a courtroom judge if he doesn't take a position? Would you not
rather have him wait for a presentation of the facts before rendering a
judgment? Is there such a problem with asking for the facts first, as
I do?
> I can almost see in between my paragraphs a bunch
> of nonsensical "Why doesn't X do Y, Brad?" which don't even add to the
> discussion.
Compare with the reality of the above, Brad, and then think about how it
adds to the discussion.
> No one can even tell if you are part of the problem or part of
> the solution
What problem, Brad? Why should I be part of a solution? Do you have a
problem with me being operating system agnostic? I use several. OS/2
happens to be among them.
> or just someone who just posts for the sake of making sure
> their newsserver is still up.
Get back to me when you've comprehended the reason for me posting here.
I've said it enough times already. Get back to me when you have an
explanation for concluding I'm a college student, last time you looked.
David H. McCoy
Brad Wardell (bwar...@nospamme.stardock.com) wrote:
Great post, Brad. You hit the nail on the head about Mr. Tholen. The said
part is, about three years ago, I remember the guy being a fairly decent
debater.
I guess all the years in the "trenches" finally sent him over the edge.
David H. McCoy
Brad Wardell
David H. McCoy wrote in article <60b0lp$2...@news1.mnsinc.com>...
I was thinking the same thing. At work, people have regularly kind of made
fun of him and I've always been one of his staunchest defenders at the lunch
table because I've met him and he's pretty normal and when I used to be
active in .advocacy long ago, his posts were well thought out. But since
looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed in that
time. Maybe someone else is doing the posting, I don't know. I know I
won't waste any more time on this topic though. :)
Brad
>David H. McCoy
Stephen Granade
On 24 Sep 1997 tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> > But since looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed
> > in that time.
>
> Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
If you disagree w/Tholen, you are automatically part of the "OS/2 is
dying" crowd?
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Check out
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
Brad Barclay
In <nwkaurkeuqhkgcq.pminews@brainpark3>, "Frits Spieker" <fspi...@nospam.xs4all.nl> writes:
>On 23 Sep 1997 04:56:45 GMT, Brad Barclay wrote:
>
>:> Entrepreneur to go with those OS/2 licenses.
>
>Desktop Pro as that one makes it real easy to standardize on a certain
>desktop layout.
Certainly - but this is not the point. I don't think that Brad Wardell
was arguing that there isn't a market for certain types of OS/2 software -
obviously, there is. His point was that the OS/2 end-user market is
declining.
This point was challenged by Dave Tholen - his pro-offered proof was that
a Bank in Brazil just bought 27000 licenses of OS/2 from IBM.
My defense was based on the fact that the sale of these 27000 units was
irrevelent to Brad Wardell's original premise - that the OS/2 'end-user'
market is on the decline.
Now perhaps part of the confusion here is that different people have
different ideas of what an 'end-user' sale of OS/2 consists of. My point of
view, which is the point of view I believe Brad Wardell was arguing from, is
that an 'end-user' is a SOHO user that is interested in buying software such
as games, and cosmetic utilities (ala PlusPak: Themes). And while he hasn't
specifically stated what he believes an end-user to be, it would seem that
Dave Tholen has a different (and not necessarily incorrect) view of what an
end-user consists of (an 'end-user' could be considered anyone who uses OS/2
on a WorkStation, as opposed to using something else and using OS/2 as a
server). In this context, Brad Wardell's argument that the OS/2 end-user
population is on the decline would appear incorrect.
For the sake of supporting OS/2, I certainly do hope that the bank in
Brazil does invest in software from fine, reputable OS/2 ISV's like StarDock.
I would also like to see a rebirth in sales of OS/2 in the home/SOHO
power-user markets.
Which brings me on to another topic - the power of a self-sustaining
support system. We all know that IBM's foray into the consumer market with
OS/2 was a pretty dismal failure. They tried to sell OS/2 to everybody, and
then found they couldn't support those people.
But take a look at Windows. Microsoft doesn't do a good job of
supporting it either, and yet it flourishes, and people who have problems (on
a daily basis...) can still get the support they need. How?
Take a look in a phone book. You'll find consultants everywhere who
specialize in Windows. Or go to a computing department at any university
around the world - you'll find quite a large number of students who can
support Windows 95.
What IBM really needs to do if OS/2 is ever to succeed in the consumer
markets is to put together the support structure for OS/2 first, and then sell
it to the end-consumer. If IBM were smart about marketing, they would market
OS/2 WARP v5 not only to corporations, but also to power users everywhere.
They'd push OS/2 to universities around the world. They'd send a copy to
every ISP they could (much like they used to send OS/2 v2.1 to any BBS sysop
who asked for it for free...), along with a special toolkit for easing setup
for their customers (I've already written a specific toolkit for use by my
company to do just this...with a little time, I could make it generic...) -
and they would get the support community hooked on OS/2.
Then they could easily sell OS/2 to the home market - the ISV's would
follow after them. But without that non-IBM support structure - if a
home-based OS/2 user who doesn't have a lot of computer experience can't phone
up their Uncle Bob (or whomever...) and get help...if *everyone* around them
says 'I dunno how to fix that...but I could fix it if it were Windows XX...',
then they're going to jump ship, and run the OS that they know they can get
support on in their own community.
Maybe someone at IBM is listening...
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
Brad Wardell writes:
> David H. McCoy wrote:
>> Great post, Brad. You hit the nail on the head about Mr. Tholen. The said
>> part is, about three years ago, I remember the guy being a fairly decent
>> debater.
>>
>> I guess all the years in the "trenches" finally sent him over the edge.
> I was thinking the same thing.
Then you're equally wrong, or looking from over the edge that you just
went over.
> At work, people have regularly kind of made fun of him
Now, they can make fun of you, after that faux pas about me being a
college student. Or wouldn't they dare, for fear of their jobs?
> and I've always been one of his staunchest defenders at the lunch
> table because I've met him
That was the last time you looked, and I wasn't a college student then
either.
> and he's pretty normal and when I used to be
> active in .advocacy long ago, his posts were well thought out.
My posts are still well thought out.
> But since looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed
> in that time.
Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
> Maybe someone else is doing the posting, I don't know.
Nope. What makes you think that? I've been challenging the "OS/2 is
dead" or "dying" crowd for years. My response has been the same: look
at the corporations. Nothing has changed there.
> I know I won't waste any more time on this topic though. :)
Especially after claiming I'm a college student. That'll be a pretty
tough one to explain.
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
David H. McCoy writes:
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> Great post, Brad. You hit the nail on the head about Mr. Tholen.
No he didn't. He seems to think I'm a college student. He's way off.
> The said part is, about three years ago, I remember the guy being a
> fairly decent debater.
When was this "said"? And what has changed? Not me. You!
> I guess all the years in the "trenches" finally sent him over the edge.
I guess from your perspective over the edge, I am on the other side of
it. You're the one who changed, not me. I've been challenging the
"OS/2 is dead" or "dying" thread for years. You've joined that crowd.
That's said [sic].
kwilas kristopher michael
Brad Barclay wrote:
> What IBM really needs to do if OS/2 is ever to succeed in the consumer
> markets is to put together the support structure for OS/2 first, and then sell
> it to the end-consumer.
Believe it or not, IBM actually felt the same way around the 1993-1994
time period(consider the implications about why it tok until
_then_ to recognize this), but the above goal was one of the
concepts behind the original IBM BESTeam program.
However, rather than targetting power users/universities/BBS sysops,
IBM went after the consultants and the VARs(though the definition
of consultants was very loosely applied to some of the original
crop of members(speaking as someone who was one of the support
contacts for the original 2000-odd members for two months in
1995)). Very-much a Top-Down sort of thing. VARs and consultants
were supposed to, in turn, train others on the products and
this support base build(supported by new education initiatives,
free code, special hardware deals, etc.).
As attitudes shifted w/regards to OS/2 and just how much IBM
was going to position it against Windows 95, BESTeam and IBM
shifted to a cross-platform strategy that precluded OS/2
from getting the same level of intimate support with the
"support base" that they had hoped to build.
Kris
David D'Antonio
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 03:19:44, rste...@localhost.foo.bar (Richard
Steiner) wrote:
> Here in comp.os.os2.apps, Brad Wardell <bwar...@nospamme.stardock.com>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >For OS/2 to survive in the end user market, there needs to be a much
> >lower cost of entry for OS/2 software developers and an organized way
> >of OS/2 users to obtain new software. Linux already has this going
> >pretty well and OS/2 can do it too.
>
> Yes, there's a tremendous amount of development activity occurring in
> that OS community. It'd be interesting to see if the OS/2 and Linux
> developer communities could find some common ground (I think we users
> would benefit, and perhaps the developers on both sides as well).
There already *has* been alot of common ground thanks to the EMX
libraries
and GNU tools. A bunch of cool stuff on OS/2 comes from UNIXes of one
flavour
or enough and native QUAKE came directly from Linux. :-)
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
DDA
--
David D'Antonio CNE - d...@SpamBeGone.ziplink.net
Some they do and some they don't and some ya just can't tell
Some they will and some they won't and some it's just as well
-SuperTramp
David D'Antonio
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:56:45, o...@idirect.com (Brad Barclay) wrote:
> In <6077jv$j...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu writes:
> >Brad Wardell writes:
> >
> >> I really don't want to involve myself in a fairly pointless debate. If you
> >> guys want to believe that the OS/2 market is growing or relatively stable
> >> then fine.
> >
> >A bank in Brazil just bought 27000 licenses. Why wouldn't that represent
> >growth?
>
> In Brad Wardell's defense, in his original statement he did qualify the
> growth as being the end-user market where OS/2 was quickly dwindling. A bank
> in Brazil does not qualify as end-user, and I sincerely doubt that they will
> be interested in buying 27000 copies of Entrepreneur to go with those OS/2
> licenses.
Not that its all that relevent, but they might indeed *want* 27,000
copies of Ent
to help them figure out how to become a bigger bank! :-)
Actually most of the articles I read about this said that the bank was
mostly going
to go JAVA stuff. Oddly enough, the ComputerWorld article only
mentioned at the end
of the article that they had bought several hundred (I think) copies
of OS/2 Warp
Server and several thousand Pentiums (no mention of what OS they would
run).
> Brad Barclay,
David D'Antonio
>
>
> David H. McCoy wrote in article <60b0lp$2...@news1.mnsinc.com>...
>
> >Brad Wardell (bwar...@nospamme.stardock.com) wrote:
> >
> >Great post, Brad. You hit the nail on the head about Mr. Tholen. The said
> >part is, about three years ago, I remember the guy being a fairly decent
> >debater.
> >
> >I guess all the years in the "trenches" finally sent him over the edge.
> >
>
> I was thinking the same thing. At work, people have regularly kind of made
> fun of him and I've always been one of his staunchest defenders at the lunch
> table because I've met him and he's pretty normal and when I used to be
> active in .advocacy long ago, his posts were well thought out. But since
> looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed in that
> time. Maybe someone else is doing the posting, I don't know. I know I
> won't waste any more time on this topic though. :)
In Dave's defense, he is quite capable of logical and critical
thinking. His clear
thinking and iron-clad proof put an end to the stupid "Alien
spacecraft following
Comet Hale-Bopp" nonsense (or at least the "famous astronomer"
photograph
that "showed" it). Unfortunately, the Heaven's Gate folks either
didn't notice or
didn't care at that point.
My guess is that Dave is used to the strict critical thinking that
goes with a scientific career (i.e. you'd better be able to back up
statements with tables of
numbers and such). The newsgroups aren't exactly a bastion of such
proofs and
there is a hell of alot of FUD being spread by folks like Steven C Den
Beste.
Anyway, this no longer has anything to due with OS/2 Games so if
anyone wants
to continue this, they are free to take it to email. Just remove the
obvious crap
from my email address before replying. It's even less related, but I
read that AGIS
pulled the plug on Cyberpromo, Quantum Communications and NANCYNET!
Death to
Spammers! :-)
> Brad
Brad Barclay
In <3429CF...@uiuc.edu>, kwilas kristopher michael <kwi...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>Believe it or not, IBM actually felt the same way around the 1993-1994
>time period(consider the implications about why it tok until
>_then_ to recognize this), but the above goal was one of the
>concepts behind the original IBM BESTeam program.
>
>However, rather than targetting power users/universities/BBS sysops,
>IBM went after the consultants and the VARs(though the definition
>of consultants was very loosely applied to some of the original
>crop of members(speaking as someone who was one of the support
>contacts for the original 2000-odd members for two months in
>1995)). Very-much a Top-Down sort of thing. VARs and consultants
>were supposed to, in turn, train others on the products and
>this support base build(supported by new education initiatives,
>free code, special hardware deals, etc.).
Which, of course, is a great start - but they didn't seem to go far
enough. They really need to try to appeal to the power-user crowd out there.
As it is right now, many of us who have stuck with OS/2 are power-users, but
we're the old-guard: we need new, fresh blood in order to extend our ranks.
Of course, one of the dangers I see to OS/2 is that many of the
traditional power-users are moving away from OS/2, to NT and/or Linux (but
don't count me as one of them...there's still only 1 OS on my machine, and
it's OS/2 :) - without that base, we'll lose the future consultants in this
industry to something different: and we all know that most consultants like
to push what they know best...
>As attitudes shifted w/regards to OS/2 and just how much IBM
>was going to position it against Windows 95, BESTeam and IBM
>shifted to a cross-platform strategy that precluded OS/2
>from getting the same level of intimate support with the
>"support base" that they had hoped to build.
...and where is BESTeam now? It seems that they had another group of
power-users in Team OS/2, and wound up dumping that as well.
Sigh - I'm hoping that one of these days IBM will regroup its forces and
try another, better coordinated attack on the OS market. The WARP 3 release
was a good start, but they just didn't plan and execute it well enough - they
tried, but at times it was a half-hearted attempt.
Brad Barclay,
Team OS/2 Canada.
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Stephen Granade writes:
>>> But since looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed
>>> in that time.
>> Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
> If you disagree w/Tholen, you are automatically part of the "OS/2 is
> dying" crowd?
No. You're part of that crowd when you start writing about it (as Brad
Wardell did) or agreeing with it (as David McCoy did).
Randy Zoellner
Kids wanna make this thread really fun make the following substitutions.
Tholen = Superman
Brad = Myxelplic
OS/2 = Kyptonite
And for you fans of Rocky Horror try this
Brad = Brad
OS/2 = Janet
reading comprehension problems = wedgie
If you want to make any message from Tholen fun you can sub Myxelplic
for the name of whoever he is replying to because he will use that
persons first time at least a half dozen times or at the end of each
and every line of his reply.
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
David H. McCoy
Stephen Granade (sgra...@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
: On 24 Sep 1997 tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
: > > But since looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed
: > > in that time.
: >
: > Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
: If you disagree w/Tholen, you are automatically part of the "OS/2 is
: dying" crowd?
: Stephen
: --
: Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
: sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Check out
: Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
No doubt. When you are part of the "OS/2 head in the sand" crowd, dissent
is viewed as treason.
David H. McCoy
Tim Timmins
Oh dear, D.H. McCoy seems to have joined the dark side.
What would John Ominor say about this??
Tim Timmins
Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> Dave Tholen wrote in article <605lvc$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>
> >Brad Wardell writes:
> >
> >> It's extremely unlikely that OpenGL will be enhanced by IBM ever.
> >
> >On what basis do you make that prediction?
>
> Many years of dealing with IBM and internal knowledge of IBM's development
> resources on OS/2.
>
Oh, for goodness sake, I can understand your wanting to promote your
company and your products, but is it really necessary to adopt M$
marketing techniques just to be able to move into their marketplace?
Please stick to what you know, and leave the FUD to the jokers.
Glen Fine
David H. McCoy wrote:
>
> Stephen Granade (sgra...@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
> : On 24 Sep 1997 tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
>
> : > > But since looking into this thread and others, something weird has changed
> : > > in that time.
> : >
> : > Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
>
> : If you disagree w/Tholen, you are automatically part of the "OS/2 is
> : dying" crowd?
>
> : Stephen
>
> : --
> : Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
> : sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Check out
> : Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
>
> No doubt. When you are part of the "OS/2 head in the sand" crowd, dissent
> is viewed as treason.
>
> David H. McCoy
No... "Only the OS/2 is dead mantra" is false and misleading. Too many
Windows advocates
take great pleasure in constantly repeating it so they can convince
themselves...
*****************************************************************
* Anything stated here is my personal opinion. It is not to be *
* construed, reprinted, or represented as an opinion of IBM *
*****************************************************************
* Glen Fine, Teamlead, Video and Graphic API Debug Support *
* IBM PSP OS/2 Worldwide Defect Support, Austin, Texas *
* e-mail : gf...@us.ibm.com *
*****************************************************************
Frogbert
Dear Stardock,
I have a request. Please do something about your packaging and your
manuals! I know it's an extra cost, but if you're going to play with the
big boys in Win95/WinNT, you'll have to step up a notch.
The only way you can get away with it is:
a) Your game is really, really inexpensive OR
b) Your game/app is really, really, good. I mean really, ultimate-top
good-just-can't-do without, no competitor kind of good.
Stardock Stuff I have: OD, GCII, Links OS/2 (also BUGS, but never mind)
Non-Stardock stuff: PQMagic,Simcity 2000 OS/2, Grand Prix 2, Mechwarrior2,
Colorworks2, TrueSpectra Photo>Graphics
Look at the Simcity box. Now _that's_ a box. Check out the manuals for
Simcity, for GP2 and for Mechwarrior2. Now _those_ are manuals.
Photo>Graphics was also excellent. Very nice reference manual and an
excellent tutorial book as well.
(okay, now CW2, that's in a whole 'nother league, but we won't mention
those traitors again, will we? ;)
For Links, I got a 4 page photocopy??? GCII was....barely enough. Given
the complexity of the game, I'd say insufficient. I resorted to these
good 'ol newsgroups. Now Object Desktop had one that was pretty okay, but
it doesn't quite measure up to what Partition Magic had.
I'm not saying those aren't good programs. They are. But when I pay
"full" price for something, I want a cool box and the heft of a "real"
manual as well. I mean, I sometimes buy those CD games that just have a
CD, and whatever fits in the case, but those are inexpensive.
<sigh>...okay, maybe I am griping too much. Maybe it was receiving
SimCity2000 and Links/2 in the same box.....
Isaac
John Ominor
In article <342A87...@aussmtp.austin.ibm.com>,
gf...@aussmtp.austin.ibm.com says...
This mantra is as misleading as the "Everything is fine with OS/2 mantra.
--
--------------------------------------
John Ominor, The Inhuman
Currently testing Windows NT
A Ram Amongst The Sheep
--------------------------------------
Kay-Yut Chen
>Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
>
>
>dead" or "dying" crowd for years. My response has been the same: look
>at the corporations. Nothing has changed there.
>
Geez .. will someone please read the SUBJECT. It is "Should Stardock
make DOS *GAMES*?"
We are talking about the *GAME* end-user market here. Does anyone
think that counting BANK licences is a pretty big stretch????
And is people denying that the OS/2 *GAME* market is shrinking?? Right
now I would say it is death. Selling a couple of thousand copies of a
newly developed game (numbers from Brad) does not seem to be signs of
a alive and vibrant market.
Kay-Yut
tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu
Kay-Yut Chen writes:
>> Yes; McCoy has joined the "OS/2 is dying" crowd.
>>> Maybe someone else is doing the posting, I don't know.
>> Nope. What makes you think that? I've been challenging the "OS/2 is
>> dead" or "dying" crowd for years. My response has been the same: look
>> at the corporations. Nothing has changed there.
> Geez .. will someone please read the SUBJECT.
I already have.
> It is "Should Stardock make DOS *GAMES*?"
So what? Ever hear of topic drift?
> We are talking about the *GAME* end-user market here.
More specifically, the subject refers to the *DOS* game market. So what's
it doing in an OS/2 newsgroup in the first place, if you're going to pick
on the relevancy of the text to the subject?
> Does anyone think that counting BANK licences is a pretty big stretch????
Topic drift is hardly uncommon.
> And is people denying that the OS/2 *GAME* market is shrinking??
Has anyone proven that it is shrinking?
> Right now I would say it is death.
Illogical. Stardock wouldn't keep selling games if it is death.
> Selling a couple of thousand copies of a newly developed game (numbers
> from Brad) does not seem to be signs of a alive and vibrant market.
Sales of 27000 licenses to South America's largest bank does show signs
that the OS/2 market is alive.
J.R. Morris
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:52:46 -0700 Frogbert <isa...@habs.ee.ubc.ca> jotted:
I think your incorect about boxes. I work for one the largest Electronics Companies in The world, and I CAN Say, my customers
want Quality, not a cool package; yes a good manual is a good thing, but I would like Brad (and other ISV's, not just OS/2 ones),
to concentrate the budget on the Product. I have had so many customers come back to me (as A technician) and say "I loved the packaging, and it LOOKED (empasis added) like a great game, but When I got to play it, it wasn't that great, or it wasn't what i expected" (example - M$ games). I personally would also say I would not want to play the box, I want play the game or app. Now
that a lot of vendors (such as STARDOCK) are also going to the web, the packaging is not really even relevant. I would like the time and effort into the program itself. I do agree that a good manual is important, however I have OD, and upgraded to Object Desktop PRO, (what a Package!) and I thought the manaual was great.
Remember an old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover" because it just might suck in the inside. Also, When I go home I just throw the box out, what use do I really have for it?? anyway??
That just my observations.
John R. Morris
Team OS/2 Cleveland
Stephen Granade
> > And is people denying that the OS/2 *GAME* market is shrinking??
>
> Has anyone proven that it is shrinking?
>
> > Right now I would say it is death.
>
> Illogical. Stardock wouldn't keep selling games if it is death.
Hey, you're right! If the OS/2 game market was that bad off, Stardock
would probably start making games for other platforms....
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Randy Zoellner writes:
> Kids wanna make this thread really fun make the following substitutions.
>
> Tholen = Superman
> Brad = Myxelplic
> OS/2 = Kyptonite
It wouldn't make it any more fun than it already is for some people.
> And for you fans of Rocky Horror try this
>
> Brad = Brad
> OS/2 = Janet
This one seems more appropriate, given the OS/2 Warp --> "Let's do
the time warp again" connection.
> reading comprehension problems = wedgie
What a coincidence. That's the second time I've seen "wedgie"
today, but I don't recall having seen it in this newsgroup
previously.
> If you want to make any message from Tholen fun you can sub Myxelplic
> for the name of whoever he is replying to because he will use that
> persons first time at least a half dozen times or at the end of each
> and every line of his reply.
That person's first time?
I don't suppose you've seen Babylon 5 recently, have you? Mr. Edgars
ended his sentences with "Mr. Garidbaldi" as least a half dozen times
while talking with Garibaldi. Do you have a point?
Kay-Yut Chen
>So what? Ever hear of topic drift?
>
>> We are talking about the *GAME* end-user market here.
>
>More specifically, the subject refers to the *DOS* game market. So what's
>it doing in an OS/2 newsgroup in the first place, if you're going to pick
>on the relevancy of the text to the subject?
>
>> Does anyone think that counting BANK licences is a pretty big stretch????
>
>Topic drift is hardly uncommon.
>
>
>Has anyone proven that it is shrinking?
Brad has with real data. Compared how many copies of Gal Civ 2 sold to
the new ones out this year. I would say probably (Brad, correct me if
I am wrong) all OS/2 games released this year COMBINED sold less
copies than Gal Civ 2.
If this is not a decline, I do not know what is.
>
>> Selling a couple of thousand copies of a newly developed game (numbers
>> from Brad) does not seem to be signs of a alive and vibrant market.
>
>Sales of 27000 licenses to South America's largest bank does show signs
>that the OS/2 market is alive.
>
Topic drift is one thing. Trying to apply irrelevant info is another.
I am talking about the shrinking and death of the OS/2 *GAME* market.
Independent of whether my statement is correct, licenses sold to BANKS
are irrelavent on THIS point.
If you want to argue that the OS/2 *GAME* market is alive and well,
you need to mention something that is related to GAMES.
You *can* uses this bank licenses to argue about the state of the
general OS/2 market (or more specificly in the business sector) but it
really has NO bearing on the entertainment market nor the home market.
Kay-Yut
Frogbert
> I think your incorect about boxes. I work for one the largest Electronics Companies in The world, and I CAN Say, my customers
> want Quality, not a cool package; yes a good manual is a good thing, but I would like Brad (and other ISV's, not just OS/2 ones),
> to concentrate the budget on the Product. I have had so many customers come back to me (as A technician) and say "I loved the packaging, and it LOOKED (empasis added) like a great game, but When I got to play it, it wasn't that great, or it wasn't what i expected" (example - M$ games). I personally would also say I would not want to play the box, I want play the game or app. Now
> that a lot of vendors (such as STARDOCK) are also going to the web, the packaging is not really even relevant. I would like the time and effort into the program itself. I do agree that a good manual is important, however I have OD, and upgraded to Object Desktop PRO, (what a Package!) and I thought the manaual was great.
> Remember an old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover" because it just might suck in the inside. Also, When I go home I just throw the box out, what use do I really have for it?? anyway??
Oh, absolutely not. I'm not saying to go to the Microsoft method of
production (looks nice on top, pretty ugly underneath). That's why I'm
using OS/2 in the first place!
(I also work for a large semiconductor company, we don't put "cool"
packages on our chips either, but it's a whole different market for PC
games.)
If Stardock doesn't have enough money to spend on packaging, then I'd
rather they dump it all on quality programming.
However, all those programs I listed (i.e. SC2000, GP2, PQMagic) are
quality programs _and_ have cool packaging and clear,detailed manuals.
It's the difference between a good software company and a great one.
Just to go to the extreme, imagine if Object Desktop came with NO
documentation whatsoever and just shipped on 3 floppies? Same program, but
I doubt there would be as many happy customers.
Aaah, it's just a minor gripe anyways. I suppose it's just something to
keep in mind for when Stardock "makes it big" :)
Isaac
I guess those nostalgic days on the Commmodore 64, when we hacked
everything and no software ever had manuals or even read.me files (hey,
we were underaged, no money and software came into our
hands....mysteriously... in those days), are not remembered _that_ fondly!
kwilas kristopher michael
Brad Barclay wrote:
> >However, rather than targetting power users/universities/BBS sysops,
> >IBM went after the consultants and the VARs(though the definition
> enough. They really need to try to appeal to the power-user crowd out there.
> As it is right now, many of us who have stuck with OS/2 are power-users, but
> we're the old-guard: we need new, fresh blood in order to extend our ranks.
Old-guard is the very definition of the folks that IBM goes after. :-(
Though BESTeam's focus was predominately OS/2 and related applications
in the beginning, the shifting focus at IBM toward network computing
has eliminated one of the better (IMHO) OS/2-only programs through
the expansion of the program toward other areas. BESTeam members used
to specialize in something like OS/2 or LAN Server. These days, OS/2
almost seems to be an afterthought in the pot along with
CICS/DB2/etc.(which
are _very_ important to IBM and its large customers).
> Of course, one of the dangers I see to OS/2 is that many of the
> traditional power-users are moving away from OS/2, to NT and/or Linux (but
> don't count me as one of them...there's still only 1 OS on my machine, and
> it's OS/2 :) - without that base, we'll lose the future consultants in this
> industry to something different: and we all know that most consultants like
> to push what they know best...
And, unfortunately, even those consultants who actually try to fit
the tool to the job would seem to go increasingly with Windows. When
putting solutions(small networks of under a dozen machines) together
for small businesses or SOHO, it's very difficult to even consider
OS/2 if the client wants to use "mainstream" applications that they
can walk into almost any software store and pickup.
> ...and where is BESTeam now? It seems that they had another group of
> power-users in Team OS/2, and wound up dumping that as well.
BESTeam has . . . changed. Lots of the channel resposibilities and
support/training stuff has been taken over by other groups. In fact,
I am not even sure if the BESTeam group still exists as a unique
entity(or if the name has been kept with everything rolled under
other programs).
> Sigh - I'm hoping that one of these days IBM will regroup its forces and
> try another, better coordinated attack on the OS market. The WARP 3 release
> was a good start, but they just didn't plan and execute it well enough - they
> tried, but at times it was a half-hearted attempt.
That will require IBM to(IMHO):
1. Actually care deeply about the consumer/SOHO/small business markets
2. Hire individuals who understand these markets and give them the
resources they need to be successful w/o constraints that have
existed in the fast.
Frankly, the only way I could ever see that happening would be if
IBM spun off OS/2 to another company. There are just too many
layers and "issues" with the way things work at IBM for OS/2
to be retargetted successfully(IMHO). [And I would be glad to point
some of those out in email, should anyone be concerned that I am
overgeneralizing.]
So, we keep puttering on like we have been for years(albeit w/less
"Windows XX will blow OS/2 away!" than years past). Hopefully, the
rumors about device driver development getting an increased piece
of the R&D pie are true. That should help ensure that those of us
who continue to use OS/2(even out of nostalgia) can continue to
be productive for the next couple of years.
Kris
John Brush
Stardock makes nice products, but if anyone asks, I think utilities
are nice, but what the OS/2 community needs is for Stardock to buy the
rights to Describe, and give us a serious application that really
competes with the rest of the world.
As it was when it was discontinued, Describe did it all and if someone
could get some filters in there to work with you-know-what from
Redmond, then those of us who need a WP would have an alternative, for
a decent price.
I don't expect to ever pay hundreds of dollars for never-ending
bloated betas from stardivision and lotus.
OS/2 has no great word processor (I know, its just an opinion <g>) and
someone like Stardock could give Warp a serious boost by
re-incarnating Describe.
Hey, I use OS/2, I like to dream :)
John