ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/09/90)
Date: 05-07-90 (10:28) Number: 576 (Echo) To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: NONE From: STEVE PALINCSAR Read: NO Subj: 32-bit OS/2 PC Mag articl Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Ray, I just read your article on 32-bit OS/2 in the v.9 no. 10 issue of PC Mag. To begin with, an excellent article -- as always! But what's noteworthy about my reaction is this: after a couple of years of <ho-hum, who needs this crap> reactions to OS-2 & PM, finally there's something there that maybe makes sense! Now that more machines are getting the resources (and the _hefty_ resources required certainly contribute to my <ho-hum> feelings) to run it, at last it can do a number of things that maybe you might just want. Being able to both run OS/2 applications, and also multi-task existing DOS applications, does indeed sound like something worth while. Also seems to reinforce the idea that they should never have wasted their time writing an OS/2 for the 286 anyway, but should rather have cut straight to the 386 world. We'd then be easily 2 years ahead of where we are now. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/11/90)
Date: 07-06-90 (09:38) Number: 3474 (Echo) To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: NONE From: JACK WOEHR Read: 07-06-90 (17:55) Subj: UR/FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE >We will probably not release a PM version for a while. We have a >preliminary version but it seems to be wiser to wait for OS/2 2.0 and >release the PM version for that. It appears to me that the 286 16-bit >versions of OS/2 are going to be orphaned in the fairly near future. > True! >We will be releasing a Win 3.0 version of UR/FORTH soon though. Really? Do you have that confidence that Windows is going to be around for a while? I'd be interested in your opinions on this. While we're at it, why not transfer this thread to the networked FORTH conference and we can talk about UR/Forth on the net. Our (Vesta's) interest is that we are interested in porting our single-board computer development environment to Windows &| OS/2. =jax= --- * Via ProDoor 3.1R NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/11/90)
Date: 07-06-90 (17:54) Number: 3475 (Echo) To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: NONE From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: UR/FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE We have just gotten the 2nd prerelease of OS/2 2.0 and the new version seems much more stable. The performance is also much better. We have a 32-bit version of 80386 UR/FORTH underway for OS/2 2.0, but we don't plan to release it until the retail OS/2 2.0 is released too (this is our only assurance that the system has been sufficiently stabilized). Although MS and IBM have previously stated that retail OS/2 2.0 would be shipped in 1990, we don't believe this will happen. We don't expect to see retail OS/2 2.0 until 2nd or 3rd qtr 1991, although I guess it's possible IBM might ship some buggy version on December 31 just to meet their previous promises on paper. In the near term we see Windows 3 as a more viable target for developers. The ability of Win 3 to support protected mode apps and provide demand paged virtual memory (when running on a 386) will meet most users' needs for now, and the transition from DOS to DOS+Win3 is a lot less frightening to end users than the transition from DOS to OS/2. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu