DR| I don't want to sound mean, but its just a matter of
DR| practicality. SOO much work has gone into DOS support under OS/2.
DR| [ ... ]
DR| maintaining all of this Dos compatibility is draining significant
DR| resources from the primary reason for OS/2, which is full bore, 32
DR| bit, protected mode applications.

Unfortunately, we are caught in a chicken-and-the-egg situation...if the
majority of users don't move to OS/2, developers will continue to write
DOS/Windows apps.  Users won't move to OS/2 until there's the "killer app"
for OS/2 that drives them there, but the developers won't be working on
OS/2 killer apps since the user demand isn't there, ad infinitum, ad
nauseum...  

DR| Actually I no doubt that you will win. IBM will not drop the
DR| emulation any time soon. But you also have to look at it from the

It's not a matter of who's winning...I want to be able to continue to
produce my DOS code, while working with multi-platform tools to be able to
offer a migration path for my utilities to OS/2 versions.  In other words,
to wean my customers from DOS to OS/2, if possible.

However, my sole problem with OS/2 (I love it, personally) is that it is
not as crash-proof as I would like, at least in my experience with DOS
coding.  I've used DOS emulators under a couple of Unix implementations,
and a crash in the emulator has never crashed Unix in my tinkering.

DR| people like me. If you want to write Dos apps, you can use Dos.

That's not very forward-thinking...if more DOS programmers move in the
direction that I am of providing a migration path from DOS to OS/2
versions of their products, that may ultimately help the OS/2 base.
Simply ripping DOS emulation out of OS/2 and telling everyone to like it
or lump it certainly won't win IBM any accolades or market share.

DR| I would rather cut my legs off with a plastic diner fork than
DR| go to NT.

Can't argue with you there... 

---
 þ RM 1.3 02371 þ You can't choose your face, but you can pick your nose
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'