🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan5.224229.1799@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>Mr. Mihocka, it is understandable that you are upset about the current Windows
>situation. I have asked you a long time ago about GEMulator and its ability
>running under the superb OS/2 2.0 environment. You have provided me with a
>4 page message crying why IBM sells OS/2 and their poor ability to test it.
>This statement is rather very funny and showed me the Fear, Uncertainty, and
>Doubt about Microsoft's ability to produce a good product. So here we go
>again, did you test GEMulator under OS/2 2.0. Since GEMulator is a DOS
>product, and OS/2 is better DOS than DOS, I would hope that you did verify
>GEMulators ability to work with IBM's OS/2.
>
>OS/2's success is tremendous and is growing remendously. Wouldn't it be
>obvious to make it work with GEMulator and test it under the OS/2 environment?
>

 Mihocka may be a jerk, but to ignore OS/2 does _not_ make him a ceritfiable
 idiot.  Remeber, Microsoft is "ignoring" OS/2, so do most "real" programmers.

 IBM is betting against the continued success of OS/2, they layed off the
 development teams on OS/2.

 It would appear that IBM has handled the OS/2 situation in much the same
 way that Traimiels inc have handled Tos/Gem, why would you think that
 any development that targets OS/2 will be commercially profitable?

 By the way have you seen the book _Now that I have OS/2 loaded on My Disk,
 What do I do Now?_.

 The real question would be should GEMulator be tested under NT? Do I really
 care about the answer? Would I want to support more Mihocka'isms.  NO.

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie