Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I was an avid OS/2 user at one time, until technology moved on and the logical
> switch for most OS/2 users was Linux.
>
> Your thoughts on using Win3.1 and OS/2 are interesting...except that Win3.1 was
> known to run better under OS/2.
How ve
I was an avid OS/2 user at one time, until technology moved on and the logical
switch for most OS/2 users was Linux.
Your thoughts on using Win3.1 and OS/2 are interesting...except that Win3.1 was
known to run better under OS/2. The reason was problem because IBM did a
work-around for the bugs th
Hello Roberto,
Sunday, November 9, 2003, 2:08:44 PM, you wrote:
>> 4. Wine. The crutch this is absolutely right, but right now that's the
>> only way to play Windows-only games on Linux. And the better it is, the
>> better we are for it.
>>
RS> I can agree with this.
That's not right logic. Non
Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
techlists wrote:
I really love the analogy of comparing wine to a crutch. Because that
is exactly what it is. An as a crutch, we should not be trying to make
the crutch better, rather work on healing the leg so that the crutch is
not needed. In this case instead of mak
techlists wrote:
I really love the analogy of comparing wine to a crutch. Because that
is exactly what it is. An as a crutch, we should not be trying to make
the crutch better, rather work on healing the leg so that the crutch is
not needed. In this case instead of making windows apps work under
Yeah, I remember OS/2 all too well. Our office standardized on it and used
it for a year or so. We also used OS/2 Lan Server apps, and I got to mess
with sharing folders and printer, setting up users and all that good stuff.
We eventually migrated to Windows 3.1 and Netware servers. By that time I
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 03:24:45PM +0100, Christian Schnobrich wrote:
>
> Anyone remembers OS/2? I think that one important reason why it failed
> (among admittedly many others) is that many developers didn't see any
> need to write software for it. I've heard/read many times that an OS/2
> versi
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 12:49, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 10:22, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> > Christian Schnobrich wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:52, David Millet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:24:45 +0100
Christian Schnobrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:52, David Millet wrote:
>
> > >
> > Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
> > everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
>
> No!
> please
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 10:22, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> Christian Schnobrich wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:52, David Millet wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
> >>everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
> >
> >
Christian Schnobrich wrote:
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:52, David Millet wrote:
Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
No!
please.
Here's my take. I like to play games. I have lots of games. As you are
pro
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:52, David Millet wrote:
> >
> Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
> everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
No!
please.
Anyone remembers OS/2? I think that one important reason why it failed
(among admittedly many ot
12 matches
Mail list logo
