afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (03/31/89)
Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them. After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't help but wonder. It is my feeling that Microsoft isn't so sure about OS/2 catching on like wild fire. It seems that they are protecting themselves against OS/2's demise. Here are some tidbits: - OS/2 is immature, UNIX is almost standard (most of the announced systems available for OS/2 are buggy or delayed) - 386 versions of UNIX support DOS compatibility - OS/2 has no multi-user support (imagine wanting to use the one 25Mhz 80386 with a 80387 attached in your office once in a while) - acceptance of OS/2 is slow due to 386 windowed environments which are available NOW and provide better/faster DOS compatibility windows (386 support for OS/2 is projected for 1990+ along with speed improvements) - the OS/2 acceptance timeline keeps getting pushed farther into the 90's due to lack of acceptance - the 32Mb file restriction is still in OS/2! (wasn't this one of the reasons for its existence? Oh, but the new file system that is coming real soon now will fix that) - incompatible IBM and Microsoft versions of OS/2 - bugs, bugs, and bugs - Microsoft bought a percentage (20%?) of Santa Cruz Operations (largest supplier of UNIX for PCs, 386 version of UNIX almost completed) - the OSF is considering Microsoft's proposal for the PM and UNIX - IBM is pushing AIX (AIX is the preferred OS for everything above a PC) Some may say that diversification is good, but how can people choose OS/2 over UNIX when Microsoft won't? What does OS/2 have over UNIX? (buggy PM) What does UNIX have over OS/2? (lots of installed bases, maturity, etc.) Any comments? //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2
Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) (03/31/89)
GOOD GRIEF - DEJA VUE! Didn't you send the same message with regards DOS version 2.0 back in '81 and every year since ? > Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them. > After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't > help but wonder. It is my feeling that Microsoft isn't so sure > about OS/2 catching on like wild fire. It seems that they are > protecting themselves against OS/2's demise. Here are some tidbits: Half the articles in most computer mags are just as well suited to the National Enquirer - Remember the demise of the PS/2? (reports of its doom were greatly exaggerated). I've got about the same sources as most of the computer rags...a friend whose brother-in-law has a drinking buddy whose 2nd cousin is the night watchman at MicroSoft, etc. > Some may say that diversification is good, but how can people choose > OS/2 over UNIX when Microsoft won't? What does OS/2 have over UNIX? > (buggy...etc. etc. > PM) What does UNIX have over OS/2? (lots of installed bases, maturity, > etc.) > Any comments? Every year the same argument, and every year it gets shot down for a few damn good reasons: First and foremost, the user base simply will not accept UNIX in any of its current releases (numerous, and therein lies reason 2: No standardization - compared to most UNIX's, MS/OS2 and IBM/OS2 are saimese twins). OS/2 was never designed to be a multi-user OS, and hence any comparison to UNIX is absurd to start with. Without a shell, UNIX is far too much for the average end user - and whose shell is going to be the ONE? Most UNIX based application sites (not university or development sites; application sites, where the bulk of computer use is done) still require a highly paid and trained administrator. And OS/2 is no more buggy than the first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. Admittedly, the DOS compatibility box is a 'kludge', etc. but overall it's quite useable - this missive is being typed in it (Yes, I know all about UNIX or is it XENIX or AIX or...). I could go on - your point about windows is not quite correct, as is your statement re IBM's support for AIX - only on the RT. there is NO official UNIX support in the PC arena. Software is late? Software was always and presumably will always be 'late.'- many developers were waiting for the final release of the Presenation manager, rather than vanilla OS/2; to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. I could go on, but it's all been said before, and unfortunately, will probably be said again, and again...... C:\dd Maurer > -- Ed Maurer - via FidoNet node 1:135/3 Medical Software Exchange BBS (305) 325-8709 UUCP: ...uunet!gould!umbio!medsoft!10.4!Ed.Maurer ARPA: Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org
is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (04/01/89)
In article <12878@watdragon.waterloo.edu> afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes: >Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them. >After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't >help but wonder. It is my feeling that Microsoft isn't so sure >about OS/2 catching on like wild fire. It seems that they are >protecting themselves against OS/2's demise. Here are some tidbits: [ examples deleted ] Bill Gates didn't become a billionaire by not learning when to cover his ass. cris || Gee, do you think it'd help if I plugged in both ends of this cable? || Cris Simpson Computer Engineer VA Rehab R&D Center GATech Atlanta,GA is813cs@pyr.gatech.edu ...!{Almost Anywhere}!gatech!gitpyr!is813cs
las) (04/01/89)
In article <12878@watdragon.waterloo.edu> afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes: >Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them. >After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't >help but wonder... I can't help but wonder if OS/2 isn't just too late, having missed its market window. 286 machines have become established as fast DOS machines. Even if OS/2 had been available sooner, the cost of memory might have still been an obstacle to its acceptance. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.)
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (04/02/89)
In article <12878@watdragon.waterloo.edu> afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes: |Microsoft claims that OS/2 is "priority one, two, and three" for them. |After reading that recent issues of various PC magazines, I can't |help but wonder. |- Microsoft bought a percentage (20%?) of Santa Cruz Operations (largest | supplier of UNIX for PCs, 386 version of UNIX almost completed) There are several UNIX's out for generic 80386 machines, so long as you want System V. Xenix is the best performer amongst them according to recent comparisons by UNIX World, although Interactive's UNIX has a much better price/performance ratio. |Some may say that diversification is good, but how can people choose |OS/2 over UNIX when Microsoft won't? Several of the trade rags have been asking the same question. Even though Microsoft keeps claiming that OS/2 is it, they're buying in on a UNIX operation that they'd decided to get out of before. Most people take this as handwriting on the wall. Additionally a lot of historically PC-oriented applications developers have been advertising in UNIX rags recently, and Pheonix Technologies seems to be going full-tilt into UNIX. Time will tell, but I'm not putting my cash on OS/2. jim frost Associative Design Technology madd@bu-it.bu.edu
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (04/02/89)
In article <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp> Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) writes: |Every year the same argument, and every year it gets shot down for a few |damn good reasons: First and foremost, the user base simply will not accept |UNIX in any of its current releases (numerous, and therein lies reason 2: |No standardization - compared to most UNIX's, MS/OS2 and IBM/OS2 are saimese |twins). Users will accept whatever is necessary to run their applications. If this were not the case, IBM would never have made money on the System/3x line. I suspect the winner will be the OS which supports the most applications the fastest. This is the first time you really had a choice in the PC world; it could go either way. |OS/2 was never designed to be a multi-user OS, and hence any |comparison to UNIX is absurd to start with. Without a shell, UNIX is far |too much for the average end user - and whose shell is going to be |the ONE? I think you mean something like a friendly interface. There are several standard shells under UNIX which are pretty close the the same environment for the uneducated user, and which behave remarkably like the MS-DOS command interpreter until you get to functions which MS-DOS cannot perform, such as multitasking. Most users can handle logging in and typing an application's name, much as they can handle turning the machine on and typing an application's name. What's the problem? |Most UNIX based application sites (not university or development sites; |application sites, where the bulk of computer use is done) still require a |highly paid and trained administrator. You will find that this is changing very fast. How many application sites must now have a PC expert? Whenever you go to networked PC's you *need* such a person. Few standalone UNIX boxes require much more than the initial setup and some simple instructions to run applications; it's when you have a lot of them interconnected that things become hairy, or when your disk gets fried. Same problem under OS/2. |And OS/2 is no more buggy than the |first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. You sure must not be trying to run 10Mb in 8Mb of memory. Under UNIX it's painless. Try it under OS/2 and watch what happens. |(Yes, I know all about UNIX or is it |XENIX or AIX or...). Some people would say that an operating system supported by multiple vendors is one which is likely to be around for awhile. Incompatibilities between UNIX's almost always result from supersets of UNIX, provided by specific vendors, except in the case of System V versus BSD or research UNIX's. You'll see most of those differences going away soon. From a user's point of view there's no real difference (except job control and general utility availability, not topics for the beginner anyway). |your point about windows is not quite |correct, as is your statement re IBM's support for AIX - only on the RT. IBM has announced that AIX for the high-end PS/2 lines is right on schedule, although it's slipped for some of the higher-end machines, and that they intend to support it on a very wide range of machines. Perhaps we don't read the same rags. |there is NO official UNIX support in the PC arena. You have me there. IBM is supporting it. AT&T has been supporting it for years. Microsoft is supporting it. Sun Microsystems is supporting it (providing you call the 386i a PC, which is arguable). Dell is supporting it. Pheonix Technologies is hiring UNIX people like they're going out of style. Toshiba is shipping a laptop 80386 UNIX machine aimed specifically at executives. Bell Technologies is supporting it. And we won't even get into all the smaller companies that are producing versions. What do you consider official? |to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. OS/2 isn't dead, but neither is COBOL. Take 'em if you want 'em and let the rest of us get some work done. jim frost Associative Design Technology madd@bu-it.bu.edu
composer@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jeff Kellem) (04/02/89)
In article <29182@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buit4.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >In article <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp> Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) writes: >|your point about windows is not quite >|correct, as is your statement re IBM's support for AIX - only on the RT. > >IBM has announced that AIX for the high-end PS/2 lines is right on >schedule, although it's slipped for some of the higher-end machines, >and that they intend to support it on a very wide range of machines. >Perhaps we don't read the same rags. Well, last I knew .. mind you, this was during last summer .. IBM was planning on supporting AIX for most (if not all) of their major machines. And, this includes everything from the PS/2 line to the 360s to the 3090 series. I have *not* heard anything to the contrary since then, though. I understand that they may not be on schedule for all their machines. But, their support for AIX is there. An, remember, OSF is supposedly also basing their version of Unix on IBM's AIX. (Yes, as I understand it, that was the only way IBM would join OSF, but they are still using it.) Jeff Kellem INTERNET: composer@bu-cs.bu.edu (or composer%bu-cs.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu) UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!composer
Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) (04/03/89)
>>Every year the same argument, and every year it gets shot down for a >>few >>damn good reasons: First and foremost, the user base simply will not >>accept >>UNIX in any of its current releases (numerous, and therein lies >>reason 2: > Users will accept whatever is necessary to run their applications. I'd love to have your users -are they for sale? I would guess you've never worked in end-user support. The issue is how much of a fight will they put up? What's the cost in productivity during the learning phase? The PC arena is a far cry from system 3X, where in the old days (yesterday?) there was simply no alternative to mini-applications. Given the choice, many users would prefer a c-64 (it do word processing, don't it?). Theses users must be supported in the same environment as the multi-tasking hot-shot who has used computers since he was a lad in prep school. For most novice and advanced users, however, 'ease' (perceived as much as real) will win over power hands down. >>OS/2 was never designed to be a multi-user OS, and hence any >>comparison to UNIX is absurd to start with. Without a shell, UNIX is >>far >>too much for the average end user - and whose shell is going to be >>the ONE? > I think you mean something like a friendly interface. There are > several standard shells under UNIX which are pretty close the the same > environment for the uneducated user, and which behave remarkably like > the MS-DOS command interpreter until you get to functions which MS-DOS > cannot perform, such as multitasking. Most users can handle logging > in and typing an application's name, much as they can handle turning > the machine on and typing an application's name. What's the problem? Pretty close just doesn't cut it when you're also trying to support the advanced users in the same environment. The MS-DOS command interpreter is a dead issue. The issue is the Presentation Manager and SAA. To date, UNIX simply doesn't fit within the grander scheme of SAA - which is partly the rationale behind the delay in IBM official support, insofar as the corporate response to the concept of SAA has been overwhelmingly positive. (their DP managers, responding to senior management, are still hung up on interconnectivity, remember.) >>Most UNIX based application sites sites.. still require ..[an administator] > You will find that this is changing very fast. How many application > sites must now have a PC expert? Whenever you go to networked PC's > you *need* such a person. Few standalone UNIX boxes require much more > than the initial setup and some simple instructions to run True. But the PC expert is often the secretary who'se been delegated the task. This works with DOS, OS/2 and even Novell, to a point far greater than current UNIX based systems. And look at the exposion in LAN'ed DOS, often implemented despite existing UNIX systems, cost and software availabilty/choice part of the criteria. > You sure must not be trying to run 10Mb in 8Mb of memory. Under UNIX > it's painless. Try it under OS/2 and watch what happens. No, and neither does the average user. Where can you find 10Mb of DOS applications you'd want to run concurrently? > Some people would say that an operating system supported by multiple > vendors is one which is likely to be around for awhile. I heard that argument used as a reason for the imminent demise of APPLE. Most management is well aware that APPLE's single, consistant interface has proven itself in terms of productivity, despite the lack of software. > IBM has announced that AIX for the high-end PS/2 lines is right on > schedule, although it's slipped for some of the higher-end machines, > and that they intend to support it on a very wide range of machines. Although this may have changed, there is no official release date. IBM states very clearly that unless they have specified a release date, they should not be held to any 'intention'. Release dates for all versions of OS/2 have been specified and (wonder of wonders) met. > You have me there. IBM is supporting it. AT&T has been supporting it > supporting it. And we won't even get into all the smaller companies > that are producing versions. What do you consider official? Taken out of context. My statement was specifically meant for IBM. 'Official' is when IBM wants the same standards of AIX support from it's dealers that they expect in DOS/OS2, minimal as they may be. Remember, that since most users, including Fortune 500, are equipped by retail vendors such as Computerland, Entre or Inacomp, it's there that the trench war will be fought. When I can find UNIX or AIX on the shelf at these, or when I spot the first 3-piece on the subway with his 40Mb portable running UNIX I'll buy the argument that there's a real reason to consider it for applications. As of now, you'll find it's OS/2 - not UNIX on the shelves and strap hanging. > OS/2 isn't dead, but neither is COBOL. Take 'em if you want 'em and > let the rest of us get some work done. If by work, you mean CAD, Statistics, or Programming, sure. But for the stand-alone spreadsheets, word processing and database that make the PC world turn, who needs UNIX? If anything, the market is going in the opposite direction - witness the growth of Apple in the fortune 500. Yes, unfortunatly, Cobol is alive and well- and still producing (If it works, who cares?). The question isn't one of UNIX v OS/2 (I think we'll see both for a long time) but rather is UNIX the only/best way to go - so far, I see nothing to indicate validity today any more than 2 years ago, when the same arguments were presented by both sides regarding the proposed OS/2 standards. -- Ed Maurer - via FidoNet node 1:135/3 Medical Software Exchange BBS (305) 325-8709 UUCP: ...uunet!gould!umbio!medsoft!10.4!Ed.Maurer ARPA: Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org
afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (04/04/89)
In article <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp> Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) writes: >GOOD GRIEF - DEJA VUE! Didn't you send the same message with regards >DOS version 2.0 back in '81 and every year since ? No. In case you haven't noticed it is 1989; portability is important, machines are faster, and more and more businesses are using PCs. People do not want PCs to be dedicated word processors or 1-2-3 engines, anymore. Integration with existing mainframe/mini computers is mandatory. >Every year the same argument, and every year it gets shot down for a few >damn good reasons: First and foremost, the user base simply will not accept >UNIX in any of its current releases (numerous, and therein lies reason 2: >No standardization - compared to most UNIX's, MS/OS2 and IBM/OS2 are saimese >twins). How about comparing OS/2 to operating systems available on other systems? Which PC operating system will be most similar to the installed UNIX bases on other systems, OS/2 or some version of UNIX? > OS/2 was never designed to be a multi-user OS, and hence any >comparison to UNIX is absurd to start with. Herein lies a big problem with OS/2: multi-user capability (you're right there is no comparison between UNIX and OS/2) My example of a office that has ONE super PC with the latest/fastest Intel chip and floating point co-processor installed. How is this machine going to be used effectively without multi-user capabilities? What about portability of the operating system? Can the industry afford to wait while Microsoft ports/re-writes its kernel (written in assembler) for new architectures? Microsoft doesn't even know that it is a good thing to write OS kernels in a high-level language yet they are in charge of shaping the industry's future into the 90's. (we could have had a 386 version of OS/2 by now if Microsoft knew this) >Without a shell, UNIX is far too much for the average end user Hmmm, with your logic MS-DOS is too much for the average user. > And OS/2 is no more buggy than the >first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. So we should stick with buggy first versions rather than something that has been around since the 70's? >I could go on - your point about windows is not quite >correct, as is your statement re IBM's support for AIX - only on the RT. Sorry, you're wrong. The OSF is considering Microsoft's proposal for windows. IBM has made it clear that AIX will be available on everything above a PC (in their advertisments) which leaves the PC all alone with OS/2. >Software was always and presumably will always be 'late.'- many developers >were waiting for the final release of the Presenation manager, rather than >vanilla OS/2; to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. But your point that OS/2 will prosper is equally unknown. I don't claim to know the future but I posted what I thought was an educated guess. //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (Max Kislik) (04/04/89)
In article <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp> Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) writes: >highly paid and trained administrator. And OS/2 is no more buggy than the >first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. Admittedly, the I worked with a pre-released version of OS/2 extended 1.0 this summer. Was it slow. YES. Very slow. Why? To measure of how fast/slow an is a certain OS, the most critical part is response time: how fast does it react to whatever you typed on the keyboard. OS/2 simply failed (that's my opinion of course) there. With about 5-6 sessions open, one of which is a Communication package connecting a mainframe to the PC, and another being a network management package, I sometimes had the computer locked. The cursor on the screen simply did not move when I pressed the arrow keys. And, it did not move for 5-10 seconds. Not to mention compiling a 1000-1500 line C program, with admittedly large include files, takes about 3-6 minutes. Believe me, it is slow if you have a large, multi-thread process running in the background (something like a comm. package). As to being buggy, it's not too bad. It crashed a few times, but that had to do with applications what had I/O priveleges being buggy more than the OS itself. >DOS compatibility box is a 'kludge', etc. but overall it's quite useable - Yeah, I'll accept that. For a DOS literate person, OS/2 is almost a natural transition. For someone who isn't, it's still more user friendly than a non-windowing UNIX. >there is NO official UNIX support in the PC arena. Software is late? Neither is there an OS/2 support. Unix simply is a more logical migration path to computer literate people: OS/2 is almost as expensive, and as to having a full time system admininstrator, well it depends what size Unix system we're talking about? Is it a single user Unix on separate PC's on a small LAN. No full time sys admin is required there if the LAN is reliable enough. Most people can take care of their own computer, whether it's Unix, Dos or OS/2. Sometimes, you need some time and effort, but mostly it's manageable. >vanilla OS/2; to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. I could go OS/2 isn't dead, but it is destined to die sooner or later. If someone wants an OS to replace dos, he'll purchase something like Desq-view for his 286 or a Unix system for his 386. OS/2 wastes the 386, and is too expensive for the average 286 user.
kevinf@infmx.UUCP (Kevin Franden) (04/04/89)
I think that one thing we are ALL forgetting is this:
That which drives a market is not necessisarily the BEST
but that which is in demand.
Witness the migration from CPM (admittitly before I was heavily involved w/
computing) to DOS. Users by the droves (so I read) decided they HAD to have
lotus on their computer (which HAD to have DOS) forsaking the well established
base of CPM stuff.
My observation of the PC marketplace (a VASTLY different place that the
mini/mainframe market) is that "if it looks good and goes fast, I'll take
it (yes this is oversimplified but...) Kinda like the soggy potato chip
theroie:
A kid will eat a potatoe chip.
He'd prefer a nice crisp one but if all he has is a soggy one,
it'll get eaten anyway.
Which brings us back to lotus 1-2-3. Even though we have LOTS of "soggy"
applications fro the DOS world, _I_ see no "crisp" applications for OS/2.
No, I am not advocating DOS as the os for all seasons (in fact I REALLY
dislike it...I'd prefer an os w/ the GUTS of unix but the pretty pictures
of a mac) I am just saying IMHO Joe "I_think_I'm_a_computer_stud" Pankowitz
won't let go of his 1000's of $$$ in DOS stuff until there is a REAL good
reason to. I don't think OS/2 is it and I think alot of people think the
same thing.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kevin Franden UUCP: {backbones}!pyramid!infmx!kevinf
Informix Software Inc
disclaimer("I said what I said and not my employer");
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (04/04/89)
Despite being a UNIX lover and MSDOS hater, I can't resist a couple of responses to the following: afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) <13002@watdragon.waterloo.edu> : - [ ... ] -People do not want PCs to be dedicated word processors or 1-2-3 engines, -anymore. Integration with existing mainframe/mini computers is mandatory. SOME people. I know some who want it to be exactly a dedicated word processor. Even making it run 1-2-3 as well confuses them. ->Without a shell, UNIX is far too much for the average end user -Hmmm, with your logic MS-DOS is too much for the average user. Depending on the "average user", MSDOS IS too much. Why do you think packages like Wordperfect have disk-formatting and directory-changing options built in? Because many (most?) of their users can't really handle doing things like this from the command line. It's scary, it really is. ...that said... I object to OS/2 partly because it doesn't really try to do anything different from what Unix does, it just does some of the same things in cripplingly inferior ways. Some two decades after Unix opened up a lot of new territory, Microsoft is still trying to stretch out CP/M.
hsu@kampi.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) (04/05/89)
In article <29180@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buit4.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >though Microsoft keeps claiming that OS/2 is it, they're buying in on I read microsoft ad about jobs available in some major magazine few months ago. They wanted ms-dos and unix-experience. What catched my eyes was that there was not a word of Os/2 in that ad. Long time since an advertisement gave me that good feeling :-) - hsu@fingate.BITNET ..!mcvax!santra!hsu Heikki Suonsivu @ 2:504/1 2:504/7 hsu@santra.hut.fi hsu@kampi.hut.fi Kuutamokatu 5 A 7/02210 Espoo/FINLAND voice +358-0-171377 fax -628948 v22bis -171558 Nngh,squeak,splat,core dumped.
neff@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Dave Neff) (04/06/89)
I've said this before and not all people agreed with me, but I think OS/2 is Microsoft's misguided effort to continue to hold a "lock" on the OS market for PCs and consequently reap more profits (which is not bad of course). I also think the effort will fail. There are versious of Unix that run on 286/386 processors that give multitasking, multiusers, optional (X) windowing and BETTER support for old style DOS programs than OS/2. With OS/2 Microsoft is re-inventing the wheel in order to keep a lock on the OS market. Originally, Microsoft (Bill Gates) claimed DOS would slowly evolve into UNIX. Instead, OS/2 became their feeble attempt to keep the big big big profits that Microsoft has gained via DOS. UNIX is inherently portable and open, hence has less profit potential than OS/2 -- if OS/2 succeeds. Since OS/2 has little to commend itself I expect it will go the way of the dinosaur. Dave Neff att!hpfcla!hpvcla!neff
dave@norsat.UUCP (Dave Binette) (04/07/89)
excerpt from a conversation I had recently
He: "I can't wait to get rid of 'windows'"
Me: "What? i thought you liked 'windows' and the AMIGA too?"
He: "Yeah, but that was before I got used to the MKS toolkit."
Me: "ahhhh.. so NOW you know why there isn't a fancy window package on our
unix box!"
He: "<grin>"
Me: "<grin>"
--
---
usenet: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!norsat!dave (Dave Binette)
bbs: (604) 597 4361 3/12/24/PEP
voice: (604) 597 6298allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (04/08/89)
As quoted from <29182@bu-cs.BU.EDU> by madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost): +--------------- | In article <267.2434BA33@medsoft.uucp> Ed.Maurer@p4.f10.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Maurer) writes: | |And OS/2 is no more buggy than the | |first release of most OS's and it certainly is not slow. | | You sure must not be trying to run 10Mb in 8Mb of memory. Under UNIX | it's painless. Try it under OS/2 and watch what happens. +--------------- That, of course, assumes demand paging. Log into ncoast some time.... +--------------- | |to read into this that OS/2 is dead is ridiculous. | | OS/2 isn't dead, but neither is COBOL. Take 'em if you want 'em and | let the rest of us get some work done. +--------------- There *is* a good point here... many people use COBOL because the applications exist for (in) it already. Ditto FORTRAN in the scientific arena. However, it's questionable whether COBOL-85 will hold its own against 4GL's *and* COBOL-74, and equally questionable that OS/2 will make any headway aginst UN*X *and* MS-DOS. I personally think that OS/2 would have taken the market by storm... if it had come out two years earlier than it did. By now, it's far too late. If only because those two years have seen products come out 286 and *native* 386 UNIX that were originally DOS-only (how long will it be before native 386 OS/2 comes out?) -- and, once ported to 386 UNIX, they can be trivially ported to other UNIX bases on 680x0/88000, 32x32, RISC processors, etc. (trivially compared to porting direct from DOS at least). By the time native OS/2 (rather than compatibility box) applications come out, they will already be available under UNIX. Shells? sh, csh, and ksh are historical, and therefore considered to be the only shells by many. But there exists at least one DCL (VMS "shell") for UNIX and several CP/M shells... and the latter are easily converted to MS-DOS shells. Not to mention the "WIMP" environments. Desk accessories? Consider either (a) job control or (b) JSB Multiview (as shipped by SCO, Altos, and almost certainly others)... neither of which requires fancy terminals like the windowing environments do. Multiview even comes with a selection of SideKick-like accessories, available from anywhere with a few keystrokes, and information on how to add your own (try *that* with SideKick!). Not to mention that, since Multiview is a kind of windowing environment for ASCII terminals, *any* program can be used as a desk accessory.... Everything OS/2 promises (but doesn't yet deliver, at least not well) is available on the AT386 I use at work under Unix... and in 3MB of memory. It's even got WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, SCO Professional, and FoxBase+, and *not* under VP/ix. OS/2 has a *lot* of catching up to do. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (04/09/89)
As quoted from <19206@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> by bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante): +--------------- | I object to OS/2 partly because it doesn't really try to do anything | different from what Unix does, it just does some of the same things in | cripplingly inferior ways. Some two decades after Unix opened up a lot of | new territory, Microsoft is still trying to stretch out CP/M. +--------------- Worse yet, Microsoft is still trying to stretch out CP/M *even though it's already been done*. Check out Concurrent DOS XM. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (04/20/89)
In article <45900221@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: }I have not used OS/2. I don't intend to. I agree that it looks to be, }in its present incarnation, at best a niche product. } }Multithreaded programs - better than the way you have to do it in Unix. Depends on what Unix you're running. Mach (a 4.3 BSD derivative developed here at CMU, and apparently the de facto 5.0 BSD) supports threads ("light- weight processes"). -- 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 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011) (04/22/89)
Uh-oh, another Microsoft person rises to the bait of OS/2 bashing ... well, it's not my fault, this guy said so many nice things, then dropped this non-sequitur (sp?) ... In article <45900221@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: [ favorable comments on OS/2 deleted ... ] > >The big minus is that it was originally decided to run it on the >genuinely brain-dead 286. This is, unfortunately, fatal. Nothing >else really matters. > >Doug McDonald This is no more fatal to OS/2 than the PDP-8 was to UNIX. UNIX didn't appear full-blown on the 386 or any othe processor from some developer's forehead, nor did it's humble original platform invalidate the architecture. Now you COULD argue that the current OS/2 is closely tied to segmented architecture. That should provoke someting more akin to a fair fight, givne that this is the PC forum. But that's hardly fatal and there are a lot of other things that really matter, in contrast to what you claim. And now that you've got me started ... I do appreciate the points you made in favor of OS/2. Though I did not develop or design it, I have done a lot of development ON it and FOR it. I must agree that the threaded system is much better than forcing a process-creation for each execution path -- fork() is very costly and can be awkward. UNIX flavors are now appearing which have threads of sorts under various guises. Those whom I have talked to, who have used these "mini-processes" to handle intra-process multi-tasking, have had only good things to say. The OS-defined UI is also a plus. It has helped me quite a bit, speaking as a long-time micro developer. I well remember writing termcap entries and such for CP/M and UNIX. Maybe XWindows will be the saviour of portable UNIX UI, beyond the command-line that techies like to use. Paul Canniff Microsoft Speaking wholly unofficially, as an OS/2 user and developer.