karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/23/89)
In article <281@jwt.UUCP>, john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: > ...But in the > multitasking benchmarks, Unix consistently had a 3 to 1 performance edge over > OS/2. It sounds like OS/2 has a long way to go compete with Unix in > performance. Further, OS/2 has not been used enough (compared to Unix) to determine if it is complete and reasonable, or if there are quirks and weirdnesses introduced by what's there in terms of calls versus what you often want to do, and what kind of contortions are necessary to do what you want. As an example, the IBM PC did not have a BIOS call to output a string (or it was brain-dead "$"-terminated, I'm not sure) and single-character BIOS calls were terribly slow for writing to the display... The resultant kludge was that programs wrote directly to the display, and DOS people are still suffering from that because it makes multitasking really hard to implement. (Perhaps Digital Research could have done a better job with it had CP/M-86 been dominant rather than MS-DOS. DR already had MP/M (multitasking CP/M) on Z80's. Microsoft was a language house.) A prediction: Unix is going to support threads in wide-use implementations, like the 386, in the not too distant future. Threads are not a compelling argument in favor of OS/2, especially if one cares about compatibility with non-80x86 hardware, particularly for those trying to maintain a pathway into these new ultrahigh-performance RISC processors. Unix. [...drifting afield of the Amiga here I admit, but it is the interest in multitasking of so many of us in this forum that makes it a recurrent topic, and the Amiga is at the very least an interesting realtime multitasking machine.] -- -- uunet!sugar!karl | "Woof!" -- Free Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018
waynec@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Wayne Cannon) (06/16/89)
A 20+ MHz '386 with a 150-300 Mb 16 ms disk drive, a tape drive for backup, a CAE quality high-resolution (1024x7868 or greater) 19-inch CRT, and 16 Mb of RAM and you have around a $20K system. The above is a very typical CAE system. The '386 processor (incl. box, motherboard, and power supply) is just the [cheap] tip of the iceberg. You don't buy a 20+ MHz '386 just to run a word processor, for example. If you really need one of the faster '386 systems, you are either doing significant database or file-server stuff, or are into something like CAD with significant graphics or simulation processing needs, all of which require significant additional costs. I guess you might just be into the sound of having a '386. The [non-CAE, non-database] program developer is one of the few people who can really benefit from a high-performance system without a lot of the more expensive extras. However, there had better be a lot more users than developers for any product if it is going to be profitable. Therefore, we should be focusing on the bulk of '386 customers -- the users, not the developers.
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (06/22/89)
>A 20+ MHz '386 with a 150-300 Mb 16 ms disk drive, a tape drive >for backup, a CAE quality high-resolution (1024x7868 or greater) >19-inch CRT, and 16 Mb of RAM and you have around a $20K system. >The above is a very typical CAE system. > You don't buy a 20+ MHz >'386 just to run a word processor, for example. I just decided to do so. > If you really >need one of the faster '386 systems, you are either doing >significant database or file-server stuff, or are into something >[like CAD, etc] Really? I got my first 386 for general purpose use, got 32 bit compilers, and am now tied to 386's. For "word processing" I use TeX and a screen previewer. To do big figures in TeX, which works well incidentally, I need a version with megabytes of memory. It is sooooo pleasant not to have to wait forever to process my file [I found TeX on an AT or a shared VAX 780 hopeless!]. So now I am getting a 1200x1600 monitor. Doug McDonald
mdharding@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Matthew D. Harding) (06/23/89)
In article <340009@hpnmdla.HP.COM> waynec@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Wayne Cannon) writes: >A 20+ MHz '386 with a 150-300 Mb 16 ms disk drive, a tape drive >for backup, a CAE quality high-resolution (1024x7868 or greater) ^^^^ Pretty good! Anyone know where I can get that resolution? :-) Cheers, Matt.
platt@ndla.UUCP (Daniel E. Platt) (12/16/89)
Greetings, I just read an article in PC Computing (which came today) looking at the future of PC computing in the next year. The authors of the editorial have suggested that OS/2, because of its similarity to DOS and increasing availability of resources to make it work, have suggested that OS/2 will come into its stride this comming year. The authors have even indicated that one of the selling points will be re-writing OS/2 in C so that it will be portable to other processor platforms. They also said Unix would pick up, in spite of its 'ugliness'. Having used both DOS and Unix (as well of trying OS/2) I've found little difference between the two operating systems (besides not being able to move files easily from one directory to another without a temporary 'copy' first, and not being able to do several things at the same time easily, DOS is almost as easy as Unix...) from a beginning user standpoint. I've also been confronted with trying to explain good DOS management to my Aunt. Explaining HDB UUCP setups to Unix ignorant friends was easier. Other than some very Unix like additions such as pipes, standard I/O re-direction, and directories, DOS looks a lot like CP/M. Most of the best features of DOS were copied from Unix. Unix also has a 20 year tradition of portability to other systems, as well as 20 years to develop a standard set of software ranging from sophisticated development tools such as yacc, to very early text processing in troff, to one of the most well established set of TCP/IP tools in the business. Unix is mature. Further, Unix is supported on systems ranging from PC's (80386 boxes) to Mainframes (IBM 3090's, Cray's, etc). It is network compatible (mostly) over many systems. It is possible to share disk resources over the network between almost any two Unix systems via NFS. I've been doing it between an RT and a Stellar for some time now. And Unix is multi-user as well as multi-tasking. OS/2 is only multi-tasking, single user. The wide range of applications supported on DOS have been written primarily in assembler. Word Perfect recently moved to C. Ashton-Tate's DB series was written in C. Most C programs are very portable, and can run with little modification on a Unix system if it runs on DOS, and vice-versa (unless the code running on a Unix system has multi-tasking elements in it). There should be very little barier in moving a program in C from DOS to Unix. The story is different in moving Assembler routines from DOS to Unix... but then, there's almost as much of a problem in moving to OS/2... all the direct screen references, all the BIOS calls, &c have to be re-written to use OS/2 compatible calls. That is one reason why so many applications have taken so long to move from DOS to OS/2 ... it just hasn't been worth it. There have been claims in this article that OS/2 was going to come out in a truly '386 (32 bit) version (no more 'near'/'far' pointer junk? will this still be compatible with old OS/2? I thought one of the only advantages of OS/2 was that it would run on '286 machines -- but then, the authors were predicting the demise of '286 in the light of '386SX...), as well as a 'portable OS/2' that would run on non-Intel 80X86 chips. I'd always thought that one of the weaknesses of OS/2 was that it was destined to be stuck on the Intel line. I never considered making it portable. Now that I do, I wonder what commercial line of machines are available to take this software? Most of those in existance that aren't 80x86 machines are either running Unix, or are Apple Mac's (if they're in a power range to utilize OS/2). I don't see where 'portable' OS/2 could go. Also, as the '286 dies, there won't be any high end PC's that cannot run Unix. Further, the memory requirements (around 4MB) and disk space is comparable on both systems. I have more issues and arguments, but this article has scrolled several pages already. This is already plenty of grist for the mill. In any case, I'd be interested in hearing other opinions, either posted, or sent direct to me. I'd even be somewhat interested in flames... within reason. By the way; I wanted the opinion of people who are still using DOS; also people who may be using OS/2 or UNIX, but also the opinion of people who may be considering the move: this is the newsgroup for this question. Is there a percieved vested interest in DOS users to 'stay with the family' and go with OS/2? and if so, why is it that Unix (which so strongly resembles DOS in so many ways) isn't considered to be a part of that family? Thanks in advance :-) Dan Platt ...!uunet!dla!platt
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) (12/19/89)
One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use 'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots easier to remember than 'cat.' As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected to a network allowing data sharing as desired.
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) (12/19/89)
In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the >non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its >problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots >easier to remember than 'cat.' what about aliasing on UNIX, you can make your 'cat' be anything you want. of course you need some shell for that, but almost all unix systems have it. gary
tj@mks.com (T. J. Thompson) (12/19/89)
I read this article carefully several times looking for the tongue in cheek, and have concluded that the author is perfectly straight-faced. So i respond. In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >... For example, to display a file under DOS, I use >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots >easier to remember than 'cat.' I am mystified by this claim. Please attempt to justify it. I expect you either to concede that the claim is nonsense, or to splutter for a while, and then concede. >As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider >this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in >computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her >own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected >to a network allowing data sharing as desired. 1. If you have a real operating system, then users cannot crash the box. OS/2 may yet reach this level of maturity. 2. Without the access protection provided by a multiuser system, it is impossible to connect to a network while being as discriminating in the sharing of data as many users and organizations demand. -- || // // ,'/~~\' T. J. Thompson tj@mks.com /||/// //|' `\\\ Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (519) 884-2251 / | //_// ||\___/ 35 King St. N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. N2J 2W9 O_/ long time(); /* know C */
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/19/89)
In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: > One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the > non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its > problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use > 'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots > easier to remember than 'cat.' cat is less to type than type :) One could always install a menuing front end on the Unix machine so all the users sees is a series of nested menus with every available option. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN uucp: root@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!root
djo7613@blake.acs.washington.edu (Dick O'Connor) (12/20/89)
In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the >non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its >problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots >easier to remember than 'cat.' Ah, but it's easier *yet* to remember 'more.' And you don't need to have it pathed and add that silly < wunder UNIX like DOS requires. And you can skip ahead to the good parts with swift pattern matching under UNIX with /findthesechars. And you can advance by line or page and even retreat! I agree that certain UNIX commands are ugly to folks used to DOS. But there are better examples to use than 'type'!!! -Just another DOS User trying to learn a *real* operating system now... :) "Moby" Dick O'Connor ** DISCLAIMER: It would Washington Department of Fisheries ** surprise me if the Olympia, Washington 98504 ** rest of the Department Internet Mail: djo7613@blake.u.washington.edu ** agreed with any of this!
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) (12/20/89)
In article <5096@blake.acs.washington.edu> djo7613@blake.acs.washington.edu (Dick O'Connor) writes: > >Ah, but it's easier *yet* to remember 'more.' > >I agree that certain UNIX commands are ugly to folks used to DOS. But >there are better examples to use than 'type'!!! That's why I wrote my own 'more' for MS-DOS !!(Because 'type' is useless, and the 'more' that comes with DOS isn't very much better!) Fred
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (12/20/89)
In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the >non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its >problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots >easier to remember than 'cat.' > That's your opinion. I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I never use "type" on my UNIX box. Easy to remember is what you use most. >As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider >this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in >computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her >own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected >to a network allowing data sharing as desired. Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it multi-user. DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without having others running more programs behind your back. At least if you run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Thank goodness we don't get all D'Arcy Cain Consulting | the government we pay for. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | No disclaimers. I agree with me |
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (12/21/89)
In article <8188@cg-atla.UUCP>, fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) writes... >In article <5096@blake.acs.washington.edu> djo7613@blake.acs.washington.edu (Dick O'Connor) writes: >> >>Ah, but it's easier *yet* to remember 'more.' >> >>I agree that certain UNIX commands are ugly to folks used to DOS. But >>there are better examples to use than 'type'!!! > > >That's why I wrote my own 'more' for MS-DOS !!(Because 'type' is useless, and >the 'more' that comes with DOS isn't very much better!) That would be nice, but (this is an unsolicited plug from a satisfied user, just 'cause I like the product) 4DOS includes a "list" command that blows them both away. You use the movement keys (home, end, page, etc.) in the obvious way and exit with Esc. Binaries don't faze it either, so you can peruse them to look at the ascii text. Of course, the best thing about 4DOS is that it's shareware, and not too expensive to register ($35/50 depending on if you want the manual). Besides, it gives me sorta VMS-like command line editing. I'm surprised not more of the shareware ads list it; I think simtel20 has it. fred
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (12/21/89)
In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: > [deleted] > problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use > 'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots > easier to remember than 'cat.' Unless you've got DOS 4.x, you won't have seen the **IX steal, 'alias' If you have trouble remembering any unix command, you can use e.g.: alias type cat in your .login file, just like having a cat.bat file which says type %1 both are flexible enough to be MADE friendly to any individual user, if you know how. (I don't have a clue what you do on a mac, and I don't want to be enlightened in this newsgroup, thanks.) Dave E.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/21/89)
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: ... > As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider > this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in > computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her > own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected > to a network allowing data sharing as desired. This argument is backwards. If you want to have a UNIX box per person, that's just fine. We do it here; we also have network connections so that the machines can get to one another and to servers. A multi-user system doesn't *require* multiple users on the machine. OS/2 (and DOS), however, require a machine per user, whether you really need it or not. Why should my wife and I have to buy two machines (plus network cards?!?) just so we can occasionally work at home at the same time? With UNIX, we've got just one, and everything is in one place. Moreover, we only have to worry about a place to put one machine, power for one, backups for one, etc., etc. The issue of a user crashing the machine just doesn't arise if you've got decent protection and a real operating system underneath you. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (12/21/89)
In article <7032@shlump.nac.dec.com>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com wrote: >>That's why I wrote my own 'more' for MS-DOS !!(Because 'type' is useless, and >>the 'more' that comes with DOS isn't very much better!) > >That would be nice, but (this is an unsolicited plug from a satisfied >user, just 'cause I like the product) 4DOS includes a "list" command >that blows them both away. On the other hand, Vern Buerg's LIST.COM blows away the 4DOS "list" (that's why I have alias list s:\list.com in my aliases file). 4DOS is indeed an excellent replacement for COMMAND.COM. And yes, it is on SIMTEL20 (PD1:<MSDOS.SYSUTL>4DOS221.ARC). -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 FAX: available on request Disclaimer? I claimed something? "How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin 13. proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: | In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: | >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the | >non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its | >problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use | >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots | >easier to remember than 'cat.' | > | That's your opinion. I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I | never use "type" on my UNIX box. Easy to remember is what you use most. I hate to say this, but if you were choosing an intuitive command you would choose 'list', or 2nd choice 'show'. I guess type is a bit easier to remember than cat, but I doubt that either would be in the first five guesses of a non-computer user. What you're arguing about is which is LEAST unintuitive, and I think type wins that dubious distinction. I wrote a baby interface in shell functions, and so far everyone has guessed 'list' without prompting in no more than two tries. | Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it | multi-user. DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without | having others running more programs behind your back. At least if you | run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself. I don't think you can fault OS/2 for not being suited for multi-user operation. It was not designed to be used as such, and not marketed as such. Let's concentrate on its actual faults as a single user multitasking system, and not set inappropriate goals for the purpose of noting that it can't meet them. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
rob@prism.TMC.COM (12/21/89)
>Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it >multi-user. DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without >having others running more programs behind your back. At least if you >run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself. Not particularly relevant, since OS/2 is not DOS. Under a well designed protected mode operating system, a program cannot crash the entire system, and OS/2, once mature, should be reasonably immune to crashes brought on by errant programs. DOS, which operates in real mode, has no such power to ensure system integrity.
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) (12/22/89)
>In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >what about aliasing on UNIX, you can make your 'cat' be anything you want. >of course you need some shell for that, but almost all unix systems have it. Then again, if there isn't one, you could always make your own. ;) Sri
robert@ireqs3.uucp (R.Meunier 8525) (12/22/89)
I tink were arguing for the wrong point. The problem with UNIX is
that it is hard to install and manage. The end users sees no difference
between UNIX shell and DOS.
It take about 30 minutes to install and format with DOS an HDisk but a
lot more with UNIX with a lot more difficulties
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Meunier Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur 1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (12/22/89)
In article <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: >| I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I >| never use "type" on my UNIX box. Easy to remember is what you use most. > > I hate to say this, but if you were choosing an intuitive command you >would choose 'list', or 2nd choice 'show'. I guess type is a bit easier >to remember than cat, but I doubt that either would be in the first five >guesses of a non-computer user. What you're arguing about is which is >LEAST unintuitive, and I think type wins that dubious distinction. > I wasn't trying to say that 'cat' was good, bad or indifferent as a file listing command. I was only trying to point out to the previous poster that 'type' was no better if you use 'cat' all the time. I have a hard time getting my father to use 'list' because he is so used to 'type'. He is closer to your 'non-computer user' (You mean non computer-user I think :-)) than many but he is used to one word and that is the one he remembers. When I first started using MS-DOS boxes I kept typing 'pip' and there is nothing particularly intuitive about that. > I wrote a baby interface in shell functions, and so far everyone has >guessed 'list' without prompting in no more than two tries. > And when they sit down at another system they will have trouble remembering to use whatever that system uses. That isn't necessarily bad of course. It isn't the complete answer for people who have to use different systems. >| Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it >| multi-user. DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without >| having others running more programs behind your back. At least if you >| run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself. > > I don't think you can fault OS/2 for not being suited for multi-user >operation. It was not designed to be used as such, and not marketed as >such. Let's concentrate on its actual faults as a single user >multitasking system, and not set inappropriate goals for the purpose of >noting that it can't meet them. I wasn't faulting OS/2 for not being multi-user. That was just a weak attempt at humour. I was merely suggesting that an OS from the same company that gave us MS-DOS, MSC 5.1 and the "Perma-hold Support System" is probably safer if it isn't multi-user. :-) :-) >-- >bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) >"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called >'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see >that the world is flat!" - anon BTW: I'm not necessarily arguing with you or disputing your ideas. I just think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make however keep trying, I'm sure we can disagree on something. :-) :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Thank goodness we don't get all D'Arcy Cain Consulting | the government we pay for. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | No disclaimers. I agree with me |
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (12/23/89)
From article <518@s3.ireqs3.UUCP>, by robert@ireqs3.uucp (R.Meunier 8525): > > > I tink were arguing for the wrong point. The problem with UNIX is > that it is hard to install and manage. The end users sees no difference > between UNIX shell and DOS. > It take about 30 minutes to install and format with DOS an HDisk but a > lot more with UNIX with a lot more difficulties Pointless argument. I'll admit it takes longer to install UNIX. Mine came in 34 disks compared too dos's two disk. All's I did was pop the disk number it asked for after it asked for it. Everything came up and worked the first time includeing the network and xwindows. Most likely you can say this when you compare OS/2 to UNIX. By the way you don't have to install the "whole" unix system. The runtime is nine disks and takes about 45min to install. Big deal 15min. I see a interesting thing happening with OS/2. That is Microsoft is repeating the same mistakes the SCO did with thier 286 version of Xenix. You find that developing programs under the 286 version's of memory management is a looseing game. What amazes me is MS wrote the first versions of xenix and knew about these problems. The bottom line is this. MS will continue to follow the history patterns of UNIX only changeing the names along the way. So people will never realize this. Some poeple will refuse to realize this. Some don't care. And some wont be able to afford UNIX. This is where MS is going to make money. Watch in 2 years MS will annouce a multi-user (maybe OS/3 product). In any event they are going in the right direction. When OS/2 is up to the current unixies equivalent architecture it will have the same type of problems and complaints from the users. The same holds for Xwindows under UNIX. Many of the unix developers have problems in this area where dos/OS/2 have very little. ---Bob P.S. I use both. -- Bob Palowoda pacbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the >non-computer whiz. (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its >problems.) For example, to display a file under DOS, I use >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots >easier to remember than 'cat.' I draw your attention to the fact that either; A. One can alias cat (most Unix systems support a C-Shell or C-Shell look alike). B. Most people use more (BSD) or pg (SysV) so the text goes by in screen full increments along with being able to search for patterns and go back and skip. Much more powerful than DOS's type with a pipe to more. >As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider >this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in >computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her >own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected >to a network allowing data sharing as desired. There's no law that says that you have to share your Unix workstation with other users. A lot of the Unix workstations out there are used standalone inspite of the fact that they have multiuser capability. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (12/28/89)
In article <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: > | In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: > | >For example, to display a file under DOS, I use > | >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots > | >easier to remember than 'cat.' > | > > | That's your opinion. I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I > | never use "type" on my UNIX box. > I hate to say this, but if you were choosing an intuitive command you > would choose 'list', or 2nd choice 'show'. > bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) Bill, I must disagree. To me, "look" is exceedingly intuitive. I want to be able to see the file so something that is analogous to 'seeing' is the most appropriate, thus "look" or even "see", but look is a more action oriented and see is passive. I have a PD program called "look" on my 286 and am constantly annoyed that I don't have the same ability on Ultrix or Sys V3. Kevin Crocker (kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca -or- decwrl!atha!kevinc) -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
feustel@well.UUCP (David Alan Feustel) (12/29/89)
I say SHOW is better than look since it indicates what you want to
happen.
--
Phone: 219-482-9631 FAX: by arrangement
E-mail: feustel@well.sf.ca.us
{ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (01/03/90)
Please change you subject line for this discussion to "DOS vs. Unix" (this is a very unfair comparison) or discuss about real OS/2 and Unix ! The most important feature of OS/2 above DOS is its memory protection and virtual memory management which makes it directly comparable to Unix. Sometimes i tried to copy a 1.44M Disk as a single piece with my own copydisk program on a system only having 2.5M RAM (the system takes about 1.5M to 2M) - it worked well. When I tried to load about 1.5M sources into the MicroEMACS editor on the same machine running Xenix/286 (also having virtual memory) this lead into serious trouble, the machine was really unusable because of the swapping which blocked the CPU. What I want to say is, that OS/2 is much more flexible than Unix on machines with hardware not supporting demand paging (like the 80286, for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386 version will support demand paging too. Also, take a look on OS/2's dynamic linking (ever heard about dynamic linking of Unix versions on 286/386 class computers ?). And, the separate screen groups for concurrently executing processes are fine. Of course, PC versions of Unix also have this feature, but did you ever work on a Unix terminal (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all of them producing output to you ? Unix is not a bad system, I like it too, but OS/2 is developed several years later and therefore is more modern than Unix is. Unix was designed to run with terminals, when computers were expensive and there were many terminals connected to single machines over slow lines and the users were running mostly command line driven batch programs with stream in/output. But the PC has a memory mapped display with high speed access which allows very interactive programs. And using termcap with a PC monitor is not very fine. Of course, there exists X-Windows, yes. But its a rather expensive system (system ressources) because its build OVER Unix, the Presentation Manager is built INTO OS/2 and when I think about our university computers (Microvax) running Ultrix 3.1 and X11R3 I must say that they are rather unreliable ! Well, I would say OS/2 and Unix are different systems for different purposes and Unix was ported to the PC (286, 386) because no other good time-sharing, virtual-memory OS was available. But they are still a bit uncomparable. We in Germany say "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen verglichen". (Do you speak German ? :-) Kai Uwe Rommel Munich rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (01/04/90)
In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: > Sometimes i tried to copy a 1.44M Disk as a single piece with my own > copydisk program on a system only having 2.5M RAM (the system takes > about 1.5M to 2M) - it worked well. When I tried to load about 1.5M > sources into the MicroEMACS editor on the same machine running > Xenix/286 (also having virtual memory) this lead into serious trouble, > the machine was really unusable because of the swapping which blocked > the CPU. You began this message talking about unfair comparisons and then you talk about comparing a program that is probably a total of 20 or 30 K that reads 1.44 MB of data to a program that is > 1 meg that reads 1.5M AND adds additional pointers and such so that the 1.5 meg of data is editable. This is comparing apples and oranges. Take your copy disk program, port it to the xenix system and then try. Or just use dd bs=1440K. > What I want to say is, that OS/2 is much more flexible than Unix on > machines with hardware not supporting demand paging (like the 80286, > for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386 Xenix was not designed for the 286. It was designed for larger systems and ported to the 286 because of the demand for multi-user solutions for that hardware package. > version will support demand paging too. Also, take a look on OS/2's > dynamic linking (ever heard about dynamic linking of Unix versions on > 286/386 class computers ?). And, the separate screen groups for > concurrently executing processes are fine. Of course, PC versions of > Unix also have this feature, but did you ever work on a Unix terminal > (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all > of them producing output to you ? As I write this message I am working on a unix terminal that has 10 windows all producing output to them and it works fine. In addition, some of the windows are running DOS (concurrently) programs. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/04/90)
In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: | When I tried to load about 1.5M | sources into the MicroEMACS editor on the same machine running | Xenix/286 (also having virtual memory) this lead into serious trouble, If you have a version of Xenix/286 with virtual memory, you must have modified it yourself. Xenix/286 uses all physical memory and swapping. If it doesn't fit in memory it doesn't run. | What I want to say is, that OS/2 is much more flexible than Unix on | machines with hardware not supporting demand paging (like the 80286, | for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386 | version will support demand paging too. First, IBM claims to support demand paging on the 286 in 64k pages. The hardware allows this in protected mode, it's just somewhat slow. Second, unless you have something from Microsoft or IBM stating that paging (as I think you mean it) will be supported, you should add the word "probably" to the statement, so people will realize that you have access to the same rumors as everyoine else. | Also, take a look on OS/2's | dynamic linking (ever heard about dynamic linking of Unix versions on | 286/386 class computers ?). 386 UNIX has shared libraries. It's not clear how often dynamic linking produces a benefit to the user. | 286/386 class computers ?). And, the separate screen groups for | concurrently executing processes are fine. Of course, PC versions of | Unix also have this feature, but did you ever work on a Unix terminal | (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all | of them producing output to you ? Of course. What are you trying to imply without actually saying it here? [ much stuff about limitations of UNIX as it was 8-10 years ago, why memory mapped displays are faster than 300 baud modems, and the low reliability of the VAXen at his school. ] One of the bugs in Ultrix is that something seems to wrap around if you don't cold boot every 400 days. The fact that I know about such a bug should give you an idea of the reliability available with good system management. | We in Germany say "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen | verglichen". (Do you speak German ? :-) I think your translation is incorrect. "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen verglichen" does not mean "do you speak German" in English ;-) -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL) (01/06/90)
In article <380@sixhub.UUCP>, davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: > > | We in Germany say "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen > | verglichen". (Do you speak German ? :-) > > I think your translation is incorrect. "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen > verglichen" does not mean "do you speak German" in English ;-) He didn't give a translation, Bill. He was giving an aphorism in German and parenthetically asked if the readers understood German. The gist of it is "attempting to compare apples and pears". Maybe Mr. Rommel doesn't realize that the English equivalent is practically the same. Forrest Gehrke clyde!feg
peter@ontmoh.UUCP (Peter Renzland) (01/06/90)
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel): We in Germany say "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen verglichen". (Do you speak German ? :-) davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr): I think your translation is incorrect. "Da werden Aepfel und Birnen verglichen" does not mean "do you speak German" in English ;-) clyde!feg (Forrest Gehrke): He didn't give a translation, Bill. He was giving an aphorism in German and parenthetically asked if the readers understood German. The gist of it is "attempting to compare apples and pears". Maybe Mr. Rommel doesn't realize that the English equivalent is practically the same. Readers may not realize that Kai-Uwe was paraphrasing an obscure conundrum, quoted in Spritztour Schoppenklauer's "Aphorismen zur Lebensborniertheit": "Hast Du wohl einen Pferdeapfel auf die Birne gekriegt?" -- loosely translated: "How many horses-asses does it take to change a lightbulb?"? -- Peter Renzland
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (01/10/90)
In article <1990Jan4.110834.14165@virtech.uucp> you write: >In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >> Sometimes i tried to copy a 1.44M Disk as a single piece with my own >You began this message talking about unfair comparisons and then you talk >about comparing a program that is probably a total of 20 or 30 K that >reads 1.44 MB of data to a program that is > 1 meg that reads 1.5M AND I used MicroEMACS which is about 100k in size ! My copydisk is about 60k. Is this a big difference ? Also MicroEMACS caused swapping already after reading 1M. Compare it to the copydisk which copied 1.44M. >> machines with hardware not supporting demand paging (like the 80286, >> for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386 >Xenix was not designed for the 286. It was designed for larger systems Xenix was not designed for the 286, but Xenix/286 WAS ! >> version will support demand paging too. Also, take a look on OS/2's >> (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all >> of them producing output to you ? >As I write this message I am working on a unix terminal that has >10 windows all producing output to them and it works fine. In addition, >some of the windows are running DOS (concurrently) programs. Last week I tested a SCO Unix with Xsight. OS/2 PM is about 2 times faster with painting windows and requires about 30% of the disk space for the same installation (development kit, I of course compared the RIGHT dev. kits, i.e. the Unix one WITHOUT cross compiling support ..:-) You made an unfair comparison TOO, when you compare your Unix system, which is something like a VAX or SUN (perhaps based on a 386) to the OS/2 system based on a 286 !! Did you already see the anouncement of OS/2 2.0 for the 386 ? :-) Kai Uwe Rommel Munich rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (01/10/90)
In article <380@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >| for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386 >| version will support demand paging too. > >paging (as I think you mean it) will be supported, you should add the >word "probably" to the statement, so people will realize that you have >access to the same rumors as everyoine else. Look to BYTE of January, I was told that there was to read that IBM announced OS/2 2.0 for the 386 with demand paging. >| Also, take a look on OS/2's >| dynamic linking (ever heard about dynamic linking of Unix versions on >| 286/386 class computers ?). > 386 UNIX has shared libraries. It's not clear how often dynamic >linking produces a benefit to the user. I have seen a SCO Unix 386 which supports shared libraries - but nobody uses it. All the X applications like xclock, xload and so on which I have seen, were about 250k each. Comparable OS/2 PM programs are about 20k in size. >| 286/386 class computers ?). And, the separate screen groups for >| concurrently executing processes are fine. Of course, PC versions of >| Unix also have this feature, but did you ever work on a Unix terminal >| (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all >| of them producing output to you ? > Of course. What are you trying to imply without actually saying it >here? You will have garbage and intermixed output from all programs - clear now ? Kai Uwe Rommel Munich rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (03/22/90)
Note the newsgroups and followup-to lines in the header. I'm directing this discussion to the newsgroup in which it belongs. In article <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM> lws@comm.WANG.COM (Lyle Seaman) writes: | wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: | [An example of OS/2 multi-tasking capabilties] | | These examples are not nearly as useful as the original proposed example. | So I repeat: Is it capable of keeping an accurate file transfer running | in the background using one serial port while another serial port is also | in use? 1) To whom are those examples "not nearly as useful"? For the average user, the ability to get information and use it at the same time is more important than the ability to collect information from two different sources at the same time. You've assumed a context that may not be representative of the way that most people use computers. 2) If you want to be able to, say, transfer a file and print another one at the same time, I can do that with Windows on top of good old DOS (I just did it!). Better yet, with OS/2 on a tightly-coupled multiprocessor system, I can do that and still have the _full_ capabilities of another processor available for a third application I might want to run. Neither the AT&T nor the Berkely flavors of UNIX can handle tightly-coupled multi-processors. | Besides, OS/2 is just warmed-over MS-DOS. I'd rather have TRS-DOS 4.0. Why don't you try using a system before flaming it? -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) "I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (03/22/90)
Note the newsgroups and followup-to lines in the header. This discussion belongs in c.s.i.p more than it belongs in c.b.i.p.d. In article <1990Mar21.084532.11387@utgard.uucp> chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes: | What about 3b4000's? They have tightly coupled CPU's and run SVR3. | This whole bit about tightly coupled CPU's is ridiculous... There | are plenty of manufacturers out there who use unix on machines with | tightly coupled CPU's. AT&T is *not* the last word in Unix. Nor do | they define what Unix is or isn't. That's one of the reasons that | OSF was created, to allow other manufacturers to have some say as | to what Unix "is". 1) While one can make UNIX work on a tightly-coupled multi-processor system, without multi-threading the system will not take full advantage of having multiple processors. 2) While AT&T, Berkely, Sun, and a host of others decide on a standard way to implement multi-threading in UNIX, I'll use good old standard OS/2. I prefer not to wait for committees. They are notoriously slow. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) "I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (03/23/90)
In article <4512@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes: }did it!). Better yet, with OS/2 on a tightly-coupled multiprocessor system, }I can do that and still have the _full_ capabilities of another processor }available for a third application I might want to run. Neither the AT&T nor }the Berkely flavors of UNIX can handle tightly-coupled multi-processors. Well, consider how old BSD 4.3 is.... Mach has shared memory, handles tightly-coupled multi-processors (CMU has it running on pMax and MultiMax systems), and lots of other goodies. A 386 port is in progress; a Macintosh port has been running for a while. -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? | _How_to_Prove_It_ by Dana Angluin 3. by vigorous handwaving: What's that?| Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (03/29/90)
In article <8563@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: | In article <4512@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes: | }Neither the AT&T nor | }the Berkely flavors of UNIX can handle tightly-coupled multi-processors. | | Well, consider how old BSD 4.3 is.... Mach has shared memory, handles | tightly-coupled multi-processors (CMU has it running on pMax and MultiMax | systems), and lots of other goodies. A 386 port is in progress; a Macintosh | port has been running for a while. You're correct. I should have said that neither AT&T nor Berkely UNIX can make full use of tightly coupled multi-processors without some non-standard extensions. Yes, you _can_ run UNIX on such a system, but it isn't as efficient as an OS that has multi-threading. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) "Your degree in Economics is not necessarily an aide to finding gainfull emplyoment, but at least it helps you understand why you're unemployed" --Samuel Bates
jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) (04/08/90)
In article <4549@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes:
You're correct. I should have said that neither AT&T nor Berkely UNIX can
make full use of tightly coupled multi-processors without some non-standard
extensions. Yes, you _can_ run UNIX on such a system, but it isn't as
efficient as an OS that has multi-threading.
Mach is a type of Unix, and it has multi-threading.
--
Joe Wells <jbw@bu.edu>
jbw%bucsf.bu.edu@cs.bu.edu
...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsf!jbw