LS>Dave Navarro, has stated in this conference, PowerBASIC for OS/2 was 
schedul
LS>for release at the end of 1995 and it didn't happen. It would have been a 
ni
LS>gesture coming back and saying why it was'nt released. A little customer
LS>relations goes along way.
First of all I never stated that PowerBASIC for OS/2 *would* ship at the end 
of 1995.  I had *hoped* that it would ship by then.  Obviously things 
happened and it hasn't shipped.
LS>I agree Joe, I want a bug-free compiler also and I've been willing to 
ait.
LS>The point is, PowerBASIC for OS/2 is on the back burner, It's low priority 
i
LS>it has any at all. AND, I don't much care for the way PowerBASIC Inc. is 
doi
LS>business at this point in time. You know the old saying, screw me once, 
sham
LS>on you, screw me twice, shame on me.
Oh my gawd!  A company that tries to make money!  What is this world coming 
to?
As I mentioned in another message, for every request we get for an OS/2 
version of PowerBASIC we get twenty for a Windows version.  Bad business 
would be to ignore that kind of ratio.
Also, if you did a little research, you might discover that internally OS/2 
and 16-bit Windows are not all that far apart.
By creating the PB/DLL product first, it gives insight which can be used in 
the OS/2 version.  Indeed, the 32-bit Windows version which will probably 
ship this summer uses a lot of code from the OS/2 port as did the 16-bit 
Windows version.
Besides the fact that we get more requests for a Windows version than OS/2 
version, the Windows version was a lot easier to do because you can still 
make DOS calls from Windows (you can't do that from OS/2, so all of the 
internal calls to DOS have to be changed in the OS/2 version).
Each product/platform is a part of the others.  Each one drawing on things 
learned from the others.
--Dave
---
 * QMPro 1.53 * I get mail, therefore I exist. 
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------