SPONSORED LINKS
On Fri, 14 Jul 1995, Victor Kress wrote: > If IBM had offered 1/4 of the amount of information for installing WARP on > a thinkpad as they provide for installing win95 *beta* on at thinkpad, it > would have saved me hours or days of tweaking. From what I've read, Sickening, isn't it? > WARP > is technically superior in every way but one (single input buffer), That's pretty much true. From an architectural point of view, Windows95 is not all that different from WfWG 3.11. This fact really makes itself known after using both OS's for a while. I've run multiple tasks under OS/2 Warp on a 386/25, that I'd have had a lot more trouble with on Win95 on a 486/33. > but if > the parent company cares so little about it, it is destined to always be a > fringe operating system with a loyal cult following. Lack of corporate support has really crippled OS/2 2.x throughout it's history. Jerry Pournelle complained that at a COMDEX a few years ago MS was handing out the stuff to develop device drivers for free, wheras IBM was charging exorbidant amounts for inferior development tools for OS/2. From a bundling perspective, it's even worse. If IBM had really wanted to make a statement, they should have made it policy that if you buy an IBM x86 box, you get OS/2 period. By not doing that, they really undermined the image of the system. A friend of mine bought a Thinkpad (A 340 I think, but it's still a decent ObThinkpad :) a while ago, and guess what was installed... MS Windows. -Mike