OS/2

Bill Pechter skrev: You have to? I haven't used NT myself, but we all know about its OS/2 roots, and it was developed by old VMS engineers. But OS/2 should really each its own. I really don't think that compatibility with foreign systems is really beneficial to evolution. If people can just run application X under Windows or Mac emulation, or rebooting into Windows for that matter, or even just run some UNIX/GNU port, why would anyone ever bother to develop application X for platform Y? People tend not to exploit the particular features of platform Y if running platform X software or hardware will do the job, and then there is little incentive to keep running platform Y. Look at the Mac, probably the world's most incompatible machine, yet probably the non-Wintel platform with the most balanced software and hardware selection. Similarly, I think that Linux's lack of many packages which are considered common appliances on other platforms owes much due to the fact that a sizable portion of "Linux users" run dual-boot systems. A lot of people have also complained about the fact that the ISA slots on big- box Amigas were inactive (something Ethan Dicks has got a solution for =), but if people could have used cheap ISA cards from the beginning, there would probably never have been many Zorro cards developed, and Amiga users would have had to deal with jumpers en masse instead of autoconfig and high transfer rates. I'd say the Workplace Shell is a problem in itself. It's so very IBM-ishly unelegant. Possible != standard. Dito for just about every OS made after 1975. ;-) Amen. -- En ligne avec Thor 2.6a. Vi m?ste vara r?dda om varandra - det ?r v?rt enda reciproka pronomen.