Gary A. Churchh (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : Yuri Muzychka (email@example.com) wrote:
: : Besides this issue, the OS/2 version is quite a welcome edition. I was think : : ng about MMA but that bastardization is just not worth the money.
: Since you're at UWaterloo, maybe you can stop by the developers office : and complain in person :-)
: Wolfram is coming out with their major update for MMA for the OS/2 : platform soon (it's already available for most other platforms.) When I : called to ask about the OS/2 upgrade, I was told it was supposed to be : released sometime this November. I then pressed them on whether a native : front end would be included. The answer was that one was "in the works" : but in the mean time the flaky Win-OS/2 shell would be used. Yuck! I made : it clear that I would NOT consider upgrading, until their OS/2 product : matched their other products in quality (actually I'd expect more quality : from the OS/2 version.)
Same here. I have MMA 2.2 or so for OS/2 and the FE plain sucks, WRI chooses to ignore my emails regarding these things mostly. Unless they cook up a really well-integrated WPS aware native OS/2 FE for MMA 3.0+ I may choose to ignore them in further purchase decisions. Our Univ. anyway has a Maple site licence, I just installed Maple for OS/2 and now compare the two. I used to recommend MMA but now wher it all seems to be either Mac, Windoze or rather expensive UNIX I can't anymore. Who knows what they drop next. How about a native Mac kernel and a Windoze FE running in Softwindows :-) Same could be done for UNIX. They wouldn't surprise me at all with that.
Regarding a native MMA FE bein in the works -- I believe it when I have it. A close friend of mine is beta tester for MMA 3 and he asked them repeatedly about it, too. They told him -- Kernel would be ported, FE will remain Windoze. So, who knows what really will happen, but one can say that Wolframs commitment to their OS/2 customers is even worse then their frontend. They don't seem to see that putting out a crappy port causes the thing not to sell, and hence seems to justify not porting it. Like a car manufacturer putting out cars which have only three wheels concluding that cars don't seem to sell well. Go figure.
: I also mentioned that I was considering Maple (although I already have : the OS/2 version of Maple V r.4) as an alternative since they have a : competitive product which has been really well integrated into the OS/2 : desktop (I streatched the truth here a bit.)
: At least OS/2 users aren't being completely ignored anymore; we're just : told to go sit in the back of the bus.
: Gary. : : -- : firstname.lastname@example.org
-- ========================================================================== Stefan A. Deutscher, email@example.com, (001)-423-[522-7845|974-7838|574-5897] home^ UTK^ ORNL^ ========================================================================== If there is software you'd like to have in a native OS/2 version, visit the: OS/2 E-mail Campaign Page http://www.andrews.edu/~boyko/email.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------