From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Oct 9 04:18:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA25004 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:18:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from kalypso.cybercom.net (kalypso.cybercom.net [209.21.136.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA24998 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:18:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ksmm@cybercom.net) Received: from atlanta (ksmm@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by kalypso.cybercom.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA02420 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971009071056.0096aeb0@cybercom.net> X-Sender: ksmm@cybercom.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 07:10:56 -0400 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: The Classiest Man Alive Subject: Re: Digital, Intel, Silicon Graphics (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19971009145541.15494@lemis.com> References: <199710090449.WAA01811@obie.softweyr.ml.org> <199710081200.VAA04024@word.smith.net.au> <199710081200.IAA17975@hda.hda.com> <199710090449.WAA01811@obie.softweyr.ml.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 02:55 PM 10/9/97 +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: >>> Gates waved his hand a few days ago and announced that business >>> users should now switch to NT, and that home computers should follow >>> after W98. >> >> Apparently you didn't notice when he said the same thing in 1995. >> Remember? Windows 95 is the operating system for homes, Windows NT is >> the operating system for businesses of all sizes. The stated purpose of >> the Win95 branding system requiring that your application also run on NT >> was to ascertain a large number of 32-bit applications compatible with >> NT, even though the vendors were intentionally making Win95 >> applications. Amazing how little Win developers really know about their >> own bread-and-butter. > >Does that surprise you? If they understood the situation, they >wouldn't be there. This doesn't strike me as odd. I would think application vendors would be happy to do the little additional work that it would take to open themselves up the NT market. It's a lot easier than writing portable UNIX applications with disparate development environments. K.S. PS -- Does anybody know of any good integrated development environments on FreeBSD?