🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk> paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>....  Certainly, before I started using and
>programming PM, I was very put off by the adverse publicity in the
>computer press.  When I finally had a crack at an OS/2 machine, I
>expected something slow, complex, arcane and unreliable.  In truth, I
>found that I was very impressed by the system, and especially by the
>ease of writing PM programs....
>
>On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the
>press, which it doesn't deserve at all.
>
I must say I'd go along with that. There is nothing outrageously confusing
about PM, and it is certainly better than Windows. Of course, you can't
expect the scribes at InfoWorld to know anything about that, and people
like Duncan and Petzold of PC Magazine have extolled the praise of OS/2
consistently.

I do think MS is partially to blame, though.
(1) This waffling about Windows vs. OS/2 is extremely damaging. If they
    want to make Windows 3 with 16MB memory utilization, fine. BUT MAKE
    THE API THE SAME AS OS/2.
(2) Believe me, NOBODY is going to buy an OS without an HP LaserJet driver.
    Why do they keep delaying the thing?
(3) Ok, MS took the big companies to the cleaners by charging 3K for the SDK.
    Now it is time to TAKE OUT FULL-PAGE ADS in Computer Language, PJ etc
    with a one-stop-shopping offer for all you need to know to start writing
    an OS/2 PM program for $195. Like, send us the cover page of your C 
    compiler and a check. 
	 They have such a promotion for CD-ROMs. I guess Bill G. cares more
    about CD-ROMS than OS/2.
	 Yeah, I know MS claimed they lost money on the SDKs, but so what. 
    They'll win big only if OS/2 catches on. And while they can rely on the
    Unix folks to make a mess of things for a while, UI and OSF just MIGHT
    agree on a common graphics API, and I for one wouldn't mind developing
    for that instead. So, as my lawyer says, "time is of the essence."

Cay