markha@microsoft.UUCP (Mark HAHN) (05/28/90)
pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Don Pajerek) writes: ... >Amen! This habit of Microsoft's isn't confined to compilers, >either. ... >And they've been doing it with OS/2 also. OS/2 version 2.0 is >going to require a LOT of recoding, since it is a true 32-bit >OS (no segments!). Also, a lot of the present OS/2 run-time >library is going to be trashed. ... this is completely untrue. os2 2.0 runs 16:16 binaries alongside 0:32 ones. regards, -- Mark Hahn microsoft!markha@uunet.uu.net uunet!microsoft!markha YES, Bill Gates IS my personal savior, and I CHANNEL for him in CLEAR WEATHER.
pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) (05/29/90)
In article <54887@microsoft.UUCP> markha@microsoft.UUCP (Mark HAHN) writes: >pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Don Pajerek) writes: >... >>And they've been doing it with OS/2 also. OS/2 version 2.0 is >>going to require a LOT of recoding, since it is a true 32-bit >>OS (no segments!). Also, a lot of the present OS/2 run-time >>library is going to be trashed. >... > >this is completely untrue. >os2 2.0 runs 16:16 binaries alongside 0:32 ones. > >regards, >-- >Mark Hahn microsoft!markha@uunet.uu.net uunet!microsoft!markha Glad to hear it. However, let's not leave unmentioned the fact that OS/2 has changed even between releases 1.1 and 1.2, and that some code that will run under one won't run under the other. BTW - I understand that sometimes, in order to employ new technologies, it is necessary to forgo compatibility with older ones. I just wish that Microsoft had some concept of the fact that there is a limited amount of programmer man-hours out there, and that programmers shouldn't spend all their time just adapting OLD programs to Microsoft's new environments. One of these days, we'd actually like to ENHANCE those programs, or (God forbid) even write a new one occasionally. Don Pajerek