Re: Re: [VirtualNET open?]...

> I see your point, but I'd also like to add that the PCBoard folks made a
> native OS/2 version of their software and not a windows version, but yet they
> made a local message base reader for windows.
> Weird marketing strategy eh?

Not really. At that time, OS/2 offered a more efficient multi-tasker than
Windows, and it was therefore logical to offer the multi-tasking BACK-END
under OS/2, bearing in mind that the SysOp is often more technically
competent than the callers and could therefore live with setting OS/2 up.

But the callers would always be predominantly Windows-based, so for them a
Windows FRONT-END makes far more sense. What market, even today, would there
be for a native OS/2 front-end?

Whilst that logic was valid last year, August 24th changes the ground rules.
The multi-tasking under Windows/95, which I am running on one machine here,
is so blindingly fast that there is no need to do a dedicated OS/2 back-end
any more.

So expect to see future offerings from PC Board and others with a dedicated
Windows/95 back-end, and a Windows/95 front-end, probably integrated with the
excellent Microsoft Exchange mail reader built in to Windows/95.

In fact, what I expect to see is people writing Mail Providers for Microsoft
Exchange to allow Microsoft Exchange users to participate in Fido Type
Networks, and maybe even VNET Type Networks.

Neil J Marshall.

TransAtlanticBBS {Harpoon Scenario Warehouse}   Orpington, Kent, United Kingdom
VirtualNET AreaList Co-ordinator & International Region Co-ordinator  VBBS 7.00
VirtualNET @440    FIDOnet 2:440/211     Mercury 240:100/111    +44-1689-812646