Hello Louis!


 LR> It seems to me that if you used VDM for total development of a DOS
 LR> apps - under OS/2 - for both the compilations and testing, you would
 LR> get the benefits of the memory protect features of OS/2.  Is this not
 LR> true?

 LR> What additional benefits do you perceive to obtain by developing a DOS
 LR> targeted apps as a OS/2 apps first then recompiled as a DOS apps?

 LR> I see a big disadvantage - the additional labor to *convert* a OS/2
 LR> apps back to a DOS apps. Which to me means that it is not just a
 LR> simple re-compilation for DOS;it also requires testing the DOS apps
 LR> to make sure it will run properly under DOS - as envisioned.

I'm sort of butting in here, but you seem to be confused as to why somebody
would want to write something under OS/2 only to convert it to dos later.

I'm not the world's greatest programmer by any means, but I have spent
enough time latching on to interrupts under DOS with assembly and calling C
APIs to know that under OS/2, I don't have to reboot if I mess up too bad. 
The worst thing I ever have to do is kill a process, or Ctrl-ESC out of a
"hang."  The OS always comes back.

Under DOS, I always ended up doing things that wouldn't even let me
CTL-ALT-DELETE.  Sloppy programming, maybe.  But working under OS/2 has
saved me hundreds of hours of reboots.

I must say, however, that it's still a pain to write device drivers under OS/2.  :-)

Bye, Ed!

--- FleetStreet 0.95wb