Message-Id: <199703220425.XAA24017@keeper.albany.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
From: "James Lefavour" <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net>
To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:22:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
Reply-to: jamesl AT albany DOT net
In-reply-to: <19970321.194200.4631.12.chambersb@juno.com>

> 
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:57:49 -0500 "James Lefavour"
> <jamesl AT mail DOT albany DOT net> writes:
> >And, we could develop the 16-bit OD in the same direction, with a GUI 
> >layer (for those who want it) that could (maybe?) handle the win3.1 
> >programs (on appropriate hardware). Anybody? For everyone, the 
> >command line would always be available, and all features of the OS 
> >would be available from it (except the GUI specific ones, that is).
> 
> I would suggest that either:
> a)	We either have two separate versions, ie OD16 and OD32, which
> are developed independently, or,
> b)	Whatever changes are made are made simultaneously to both
> versions, preferably in the OD16 first to make sure it's compatible.
Well, either way, OD16 has to take priority first.  First come, first 
served.  But it can only be taken so far, and then it's time for 
OD32.

> 
> >If the interface (GUI) is customizable enough, we could even (easily) 
> >win over the W95/W97 users! As if that would be difficult <g>
> 
> Unfortunately, it would be difficult.  In my experience, people who use
> Win95 either don't know enough to use a better system or are hard-core MS
> fanatics who'd love to lick Bill's (Gates) *ss, or both :(
I've never met anyone like that 2nd, but I know many who are 
inexperienced or insecure with their computers, so you are probably 
right overall.  We would have to get the system installed on new 
computers, prior to sale, to get the most people.

Jim
jamesl AT albany DOT net - http://www.albany.net/~jamesl/