Re: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"
Speaking of Reader Rabbit, has anyone gotten any of the educational
games running under wine?
Art Edwards
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Daniel Miller wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 13:20, techlists wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 17:52, David Millet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>all I have to say is that I personally want linux to rule the desktop,
> >>>>>simply because I will stand to make alot of money when big companies
> >>>>>start picking it up. a lot of us will, in fact.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>i'm extremely confident that it will rule the desktop market, because
> >>>>>of the speed at which the desktops have improved, which i have been
> >>>>>lucky to observe during the past year i've been doing the linux thing.
> >>>>>i've seen major improvements, unlike how windows upgrades their
> >>>>>operating systems these days. i use winXP at work and haven't seen
> >>>>>yet too much of an improvement from win2000. i agree with that guy
> >>>>>from red hat. give kde, gnome, etc a few more years to mature and it
> >>>>>will be night-night time for the M$ monopoly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Not until Broderbund releases a Calendar Creator that works with
> >>>>Linux. Ditto for Reader Rabbit, Math Blaster, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
> >>>everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
> >>>
> >>>david
> >>>
> >>>
> >>As much as I like Wine, and use it myself for some products, I fear that
> >>the wine project may do to linux what win-os/2 did for os/2. If your
> >>system will run win32 apps, what insentive do companies have to develop
> >>native programs for you.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >One difference is that Big Blue bungled the marketing of OS/2 worse
> >than DEC did of VMS, and that's saying something.
> >
> >
> >
> I must admit I was a bit disappointed in the outcome of OS/2. Not to
> get off topic, but credit is due.
>
> My first experience with OS/2 was version 2.0 - attempting to run in on
> a 386 with 4M RAM. It didn't run, it didn't even stagger - it crawled.
> But it did install, and it did function. This being in the '80's, I
> returned my 40+ disks to their package and got a refund from the store
> (it wasn't Egghead, I forgot the name).
>
> Then I tried version 2.1 - this time with 8M RAM. There was something a
> bit unusual here - the distribution had about half the disks, required
> less hard drive space - and ran faster with more features.
>
> This I had Warp version 3.0 - again, smaller distribution, smaller
> installation requirements, more features. This was my platform of
> choice for running Windoze 3.x applications.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a better example of programmers taking more
> pride in their work and continually refining their code - instead of
> just throwing more hardware at a performance problem. I've seen
> exceptional programs written from scratch - Q, later TSE comes to mind -
> but the level of improvement displayed by OS/2 I haven't seen anywhere
> else. If IBM had decided to tackle a Win95 emulator - I think the
> market would be bit different today.
>
> Sigh. I guess they already knew whatever undocumented functions they
> emulated - Microsoft's next version would just add more.
>
> Oh well. Maybe I need to start scrounging pennies and forwarding my
> meager contributions to the Wine effort - being able to eliminate
> Windoze while retaining my existing application library is quite appealing.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: