🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Timmins wrote:

> Tony Weddle wrote:
> >
> > As I'd posted a few weeks ago, the modem works fine in Windows '95 and I'm
> using
> > exactly the same IRQ and com port that I did with my previous modem under
> OS/2.
> > I'm mystified but at least it now seems to work.
> >
>
> Ah yes, I remember that. I'm pleased you got it sorted.
>
> >
> > I would love it if you were right.  I was basing my comment on the front
> page
> > story of last week's Computing where Nick Davis, the UK OS/2 product
> manager,
> > was quoted as saying, "It is no longer being developed as a standalone ...
> > product.  We are taking it down the road of network computing.  We see OS/2
> > supporting ebusiness from now on."  The back page of this week's PC Week
> > (admitedly not purely a news page) also implied that OS/2 was dead ("long
> live
> > Linux").  I think this is a disastrous piece of news but not wholly
> > unpredictable.
> >
> > Tony Weddle
>
> Those stories were just a re-hash of earlier stories which have already
> been debunked by IBM. They tend to surface when bad news is coming out
> about 95 or NT. For instance, turn to page 2 in Computing for bad news
> about NT.

Well, I can't say I recall such a clear quote from a leading OS/2 manager but I
hope you're right about this being just a rehash and wrong.  What worried me was
that it is consistent with IBM's pushing of Workplace on Demand.  As for the NT
story, it may be bad news for the user but it not in the same league as the
apparent ditching OS/2 and is probably just Microsoft trying to get more money
out of the system and trying to tie users in to their technologies (if that's
not too strong a word!).

Tony Weddle