TL>It's 07 Jan 97  07:34:26,
  >We'll return to Jack Pfisterer and John Augustine's
  >discussion of CASE AGAINST WINDOWS
TL> JA>  ... but people are "Forced" to use Windows because the Programs
  > >they want to use, UNFORTUNATELY, are Only Windows Based.
TL> JP> To me, a growing and potentially greater problem is that nearly all
  > JP> new CD-ROM's require Windows to run.  For the moment at least, most
  > JP> allow use of Windows 3.1; but I fear that concession will pass rather
  > JP> quickly. This means that even if you have satisfactory OS/2 software
  > JP> for all your regular applications, you will still have to have some
  > JP> form of Windows to make use CD-ROM resources.
TL> JP> Am I the only one that this worries?
TL>Hmm, I'm not sure what this drama about CD-ROMs is.  When I installed
  >mine, I ouldn't get it working under DOS/Windoze, with the supplied
  >drivers.  Anyway, I decided to put it in the "too hard" basket, booted
  >OS/2 and set about doing the usual things.  Anyway, to cut a long story
  >short, there was the new CD-ROM proudly staking its claim on the F:
  >drive!  It didn't work, but that was only because I had previously
  >commented out the CDFS driver in config.sys. :-)
I was referring to CD-ROM's, not CD-ROM drives.  Look at what's available
to run in your drive F: and the odds are that it will require some form
of Windows to run.  So, unless you use your drive for nothing more than
OS/2 programs, you will have to keep Windows/WinOS2 on your system to run
any CD-ROM's you buy; and will have to forgo buying an increasing number
of titles that will be in such proprietary formats as Windows95.
Guess I am the only one that that worries.
Jack P.
--- FLAME v1.0
---------------