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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
