msodos@megatest.UUCP (06/12/87)
I trying to sort out the rumors pertaining to the capabilities of the next release of MS-DOS, and the first release of PC/OS2. Could anyone please comment/confirm/deny the following: 1) PC/OS2 will not be compatible with the current applications written for MS-DOS. I.e., if you have a copy of Lotus 123 and wish to use the multitasking/enhanced memory capabilities of PC/OS2, you will need a new copy. 2) The next release of MS-DOS will reportedly unlock the extended memory inherent in the AT and 386 machines, but will it have multitasking? a windowing environment? both? 3) To what extent will the next release of MS-DOS use the extended or (in the case of the 386) virtual PC modes built into the processors?
luis@grinch.UUCP (06/13/87)
In article <1534@megatest.UUCP> msodos@megatest.UUCP (Marty Sodos) writes: > >I trying to sort out the rumors pertaining to the capabilities of the >next release of MS-DOS, and the first release of PC/OS2. > >Could anyone please comment/confirm/deny the following: > > 1) PC/OS2 will not be compatible with the current applications > written for MS-DOS. I.e., if you have a copy of Lotus 123 and > wish to use the multitasking/enhanced memory capabilities of > PC/OS2, you will need a new copy. > [...] Well, I went to a presentation at San Francisco given by IBM on OS/2. OS/2 *IS* multi-tasking (as we all know), but is NOT multi-user (as you have probably guessed). I got a 'manual' from IBM all about OS/2, which explains EVERYTHING about OS/2. There are some VERY strange things in OS/2, yet some nice things too... Let me give explain a few: - NO more .BAT files (Now called .CMD files) - although they still exist in PC-DOS Compatibility mode. - NO more .COM files.. EVERYTHING is .EXE. But, if you want to give a higher priority to a file, you rename it as a .COM file. - Because of the way OS/2 handles memory, you can run a 5 Mbyte program in a machine that only has 2 Mbytes of RAM. (nice, eh?) - OS/2 has a new prompt.. It's A] , but if you do a ALT-ESC (I think that's the hot keys), you get A> which means you are in PC-DOS Compatiblility mode. - OS/2 can run multi-tasking, but NOT PC-DOS compatible. While in PC-DOS Compatible though, OS/2 tasks STILL keep running. - EGA will NOT be supported AT ALL! If you have an EGA board, it becomes a CGA board. And, in version 1.1, monochrome will NOT be supported because they are going to go to a window environment. - Currently, you can NOT kill a process. When asked how the computer will know to kill an infinite loop, they replied, "The computer will sence it, and auto-maticaly kill it." (sure it will...) - You can run up to 16 processes (15 backround, 1 foreground) at one time. - Communications PROBABLY will not work due to time slices. - AUTOEXEC.BAT is called STARTUP.CMD in OS/2. - But, AUTOEXEC.BAT will still exist for when you go into PC-DOS compatibility mode. (Nice, eh?) - If you have an IBM PC or XT with an 80286 turbo board in it, OS/2 will NOT work. - OS/2 treats an 80386 like an 80286, so no extra power is given (except for maybe speed... But that has nothing to do with OS/2) - OS/2 is compatible with PC-DOS file structure, so it can read/write to PC-DOS. - The 32 Megabyte hard disk limit is still in effect. They (IBM) said though that in version 1.1 (late 88), they would have a partitioning program to allow larger hard disks (i.e. 400+megabytes). - I asked if UNIX/XENIX could still be loaded, and their reply was,"I don't see why not. If it works under PC-DOS, it will work here!!" (sure it will!! From what I saw, I doubt it folks.. Be careful!) - Time slicing is done by defining the program in to a class and level. - Classes include: Time Critical, Regular, and Idle Time. - Each level has 32 'levels' within. - BOTH Class and level are HARD CODED, and _NOT_ user defined. - OS/2 will NOT allow drivers. You _MUST_ go through function calls. - They did this because of SAA. That way, they can port a program (source of course) strait from a PC to a mainframe, compile it, and have it work. Usually, with no editing of any sort. - In PC-DOS compatible mode, it is emulating PC-DOS 3.3. So, if it will run under PC-DOS 3.3, 'chances' are that it will run under PC-DOS compatible mode. (Notice chances in quotes... Not everything!) - LAN's are _NOT_ supported by OS/2. (You heard it right....) - Communications will NOT be supported in compatibility mode. - All INT 21H are compatible. - OS/2 supports three types of programs. - Full Functions -----------------> Works ONLY in OS/2. - Family Applications ------------> Works in BOTH OS/2 and PC-DOS. - PC-DOS Application Programs ----> Works in PC-DOS ONLY. - Currently, this is where most (99.9%) of all programs fall. - Supports Dynamic Linking. - Supports multi-terminal types. (don't ask me how) I hope that this answers all of your questions about OS/2. Please don't think that this is ALL that OS/2 has to offer, because it is not. It has some very nice features, yet some dumb ones as well (i.e. can't kill a process.. yet!). On the last day of the class, we got to ask the instructor to do things in OS/2 while we watched (over satalite), and I must say that they (so far) have quite a good job. If anyone has any questions which they would like to ask me about OS/2, I will try my best to answer them. Please leave any comments/questions to me via E-MAIL. I have only taken a course in it, and am not an expert, but I will try. I hope that I answered your question. Thank you.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Chanu "Live every day as if it were your last, UUCP: ihnp4!sun!aeras!grinch!luis because one day you will be right." UUCP: lll-crg!vecpyr!wjvax!grinch!luis -Benny Hill Disk-Claimer: That's not your disk, that's my disk. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lmg@sfmin.UUCP (06/13/87)
> > I trying to sort out the rumors pertaining to the capabilities of the > next release of MS-DOS, and the first release of PC/OS2. > > Could anyone please comment/confirm/deny the following: > > 1) PC/OS2 will not be compatible with the current applications > written for MS-DOS. I.e., if you have a copy of Lotus 123 and > wish to use the multitasking/enhanced memory capabilities of > PC/OS2, you will need a new copy. You will be able to run one (1) current MS-DOS application under OS/2. I believe it gets suspended if you put it in the background to run an OS/2 application. Only OS/2 applications - none of which exist right now - can be multitasked. TSR programs such as Sidekick may not work at all. > 2) The next release of MS-DOS will reportedly unlock the extended > memory inherent in the AT and 386 machines, but will it have > multitasking? a windowing environment? both? > > 3) To what extent will the next release of MS-DOS use the extended > or (in the case of the 386) virtual PC modes built into the > processors? I think you're confused here. "The next release of MS-DOS" will be DOS 3.4, and no one outside of Microsoft knows when it will be released, if ever, or what it will contain, but presumably it will be an incremental improvement over DOS 3.3. OS/2 will use 286 protected mode (not 386 protected mode or Virtual 86 mode). New OS/2 applications can be multitasked with the single MS-DOS application. It is really very much like AT&T's "SimulTask" or Locus' "DOS Merge": one MS-DOS program, the rest is not MS-DOS. If you're considering running OS/2 on a 386, remember that it is a 286 operating system, full of segment switching and all that 16 bit glop. I have seen 286 UNIX on a 386, and 386 UNIX on a 386, and the difference in performance is like that between a VW Beetle and a Porsche 930 Turbo. I have NOT seen OS/2, but I'm prepared to be disappointed when I do. I've seen benchmarks showing prerelease OS/2 to run MS-DOS applications more slowly than DOS 3.1 or 3.2. Larry Geary ihnp4!attunix!lmg
farren@hoptoad.UUCP (06/15/87)
In article <243@grinch.grinch.UUCP> luis@grinch.UUCP (Luis Chanu) writes: > - EGA will NOT be supported AT ALL! If you have an EGA board, it > becomes a CGA board. And, in version 1.1, monochrome will NOT > be supported because they are going to go to a window environment. Somewhat of a loss, but then, by the time OS/2 shows up, VGA will probably be the "standard". > - Currently, you can NOT kill a process. When asked how the computer > will know to kill an infinite loop, they replied, "The computer > will sence it, and auto-maticaly kill it." (sure it will...) BIG stupidity. I'm not concerned about infinite loops, but AM concerned about runaway processes - either they're gonna kill me during a long compute, or they won't when I'm unnecessarily tied up. > - Communications PROBABLY will not work due to time slices. If true, another BIG stupidity. > - OS/2 is compatible with PC-DOS file structure, so it can read/write > to PC-DOS. > - The 32 Megabyte hard disk limit is still in effect. They (IBM) said > though that in version 1.1 (late 88), they would have a partitioning > program to allow larger hard disks (i.e. 400+megabytes). Probably inevitable, but still, too bad. The 32 Meg limit is, and always has been, idiotic. > - LAN's are _NOT_ supported by OS/2. (You heard it right....) > - Communications will NOT be supported in compatibility mode. More stupidity. Well, after having fairly high hopes for OS/2 in the beginning, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a good '386 UNIX with MS-DOS partitioning using the virtual 8086 capablitiy of the 386 is gonna be the best bet. Don't know why I had my hopes up - this is, after all, a Microsoft product... -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
backman@interlan.UUCP (06/15/87)
[] This response is not meant as a flame, nor is it meant to be picky. Luis got IBM marketing information, I have the Microsoft techincal manuals. In article <243@grinch.grinch.UUCP> luis@grinch.UUCP (Luis Chanu) writes: >In article <1534@megatest.UUCP> msodos@megatest.UUCP (Marty Sodos) writes: >> >>I trying to sort out the rumors pertaining to the capabilities of the >>next release of MS-DOS, and the first release of PC/OS2. >> > > - NO more .BAT files (Now called .CMD files) > - although they still exist in PC-DOS Compatibility mode. > Yes there are! In fact they fixed the DOS .bat nonsense, where you had to say <command /c blahblah> before invoking a second batch file from within a batch file. They also allow a new batch command: <detach> that allows you to run a background process! > - OS/2 has a new prompt.. It's A] , but if you do a ALT-ESC (I > think that's the hot keys), you get A> which means you are > in PC-DOS Compatiblility mode. > Nope - Alt-ESC brings you back to the session manager from which you can switch between active processes. Yes Alt-ESC is kind of a hot key, but it has nothing to do with compatablity mode. - OS/2 can run multi-tasking, but NOT PC-DOS compatible. While in > PC-DOS Compatible though, OS/2 tasks STILL keep running. Conversely, when a progarm running in Compatablity mode is in the OS/2 background it is stopped. No timeslice, no CPU time, nada! Thus ou can kiss all of the bacground clocks and calaenders goodbe unless they are rewritten to OS/2. > - Currently, you can NOT kill a process. Yes you can!!! The following pertinent tasking calls are provided: DOSCreateThread - start another execution thread DOSExecPgm - start another program DOSKillProcess - terminate another program DOSCWait - wait for child process termination DOSSuspendThread - suspend another threads executions There are more but you get the point! > - Communications PROBABLY will not work due to time slices. correct! All drivers will have to be rewritten for OS/2! > - OS/2 is compatible with PC-DOS file structure, so it can read/write > to PC-DOS. Probably one of its biggest limitations will come from the archaic DOS file structure. 8 Character names, 3 charatcer extensions, 32 Meg. volumes don't cut it these days! > - OS/2 will NOT allow drivers. You _MUST_ go through function calls. Yes it will, but not drivers as we know it. Theres a 400 page manual telling how to write OS 2 drivers. Looks complicated, but also looks like fun > - In PC-DOS compatible mode, it is emulating PC-DOS 3.3. So, if it > will run under PC-DOS 3.3, 'chances' are that it will run under > PC-DOS compatible mode. (Notice chances in quotes... Not everything!) I quote " The following rules pertain to old programs in the MS OS/2 environemnt. * run in compatability mode * cannot execute in the background * must use the old-style DOS INT 21 interface * do not rely on undocumented MS-DOS interfaces * have IOPL (I/O privilege level) > - LAN's are _NOT_ supported by OS/2. (You heard it right....) Microsoft will release the LAN manager as an add-on to OS/2. Features are: virtual circuits datagrams protected mode NETBIOS interprocess communication distributed processing environemnt Larry Backman Micom - Interlan
luis@grinch.UUCP (luis) (06/16/87)
In article <813@sfmin.UUCP> lmg@sfmin.UUCP writes: >> >> I trying to sort out the rumors pertaining to the capabilities of the >> next release of MS-DOS, and the first release of PC/OS2. >> >> Could anyone please comment/confirm/deny the following: >> >> 1) PC/OS2 will not be compatible with the current applications >> written for MS-DOS. I.e., if you have a copy of Lotus 123 and >> wish to use the multitasking/enhanced memory capabilities of >> PC/OS2, you will need a new copy. > >You will be able to run one (1) current MS-DOS application under OS/2. >I believe it gets suspended if you put it in the background to run an >OS/2 application. Only OS/2 applications - none of which exist right now - >can be multitasked. TSR programs such as Sidekick may not work at all. > >[...Deleted Due To Size...] You say that TSR programs will NOT run at all under OS/2. Sorry, but they WILL! The only thing, is that they will only be able to be called from the environment which they were called. (i.e. If run under PC-Dos Compatible mode, it will only work and bee seen there.) At the class I went to with IBM, they had SideKick up and running just fine... So, to clear things up, they WILL run... just thought I would point that out... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Chanu "Live every day as if it were your last, UUCP: ihnp4!sun!aeras!grinch!luis because one day you will be right." UUCP: lll-crg!vecpyr!wjvax!grinch!luis -Benny Hill Disk-Claimer: That's not your disk, that's my disk. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------