borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) (12/13/90)
In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes >belong OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360.
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (12/13/90)
In article <14887@ogicse.ogi.edu>, borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: > In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > >Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes > >belong > OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path > of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. > Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS > will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360. I think it is not too far off the mark to say that OS/2 is certainly weakening, and has a poor prognosis. Recent figures from IBM revised the sales estimates for OS/2 for 1992 from 6.5 million copies to 900,000 copies. The predictions for OS/2's success have been extraordinarily optimistic, and so far, dead wrong. Do you ever expect 80286 and 8088 based machines to go away? We will be running MS-DOS well into the next century, I think. My prediction? OS/2 will wither and die, while Windows becomes the predominant PC operating environment. Unix, of course, will rule any non-proprietary platform. -- Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 A good newspaper is never good enough, but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever. -- Garrison Keillor
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/13/90)
In article <14887@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes >belong OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360. This gentleman is probably correct. There are at least 25 million DOS users that will eventually move to OS/2. This will probably take several years, but most DOS users will migrate to OS/2. We have to suffer through DOS 5.0(early next year) and Windows 4.0 first. Then again, maybe Sun and NeXT can put Unix on the business desktop and save us all a lot of suffering, waiting, and money. -Mike
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/13/90)
In article <Fke2i1t3@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >There are at least 25 million DOS >users that will eventually move to OS/2. Uhm, not necessarily. Remember that unix is a contender in that market, as well, at least for the '386 (where you can, *right now*, run multiple DOS binaries at the same time). For the '286, it's uncertain: OS/2 takes up too much, resource-wise (processor, memory, disk), but it lets you run DOS apps, whereas the various '286 unices don't. Windows, on the other hand, will quite possibly steal the show, since it's turning out to be more popular than most people gave it credit for... -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (12/13/90)
In article <14887@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: > > OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path > of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. Most likely true, but I see no reason to assume that the survivor of this convergent evolution will be OS/2. With the possible exception of Lotus Notes, I know of no interesting application that requires OS/2, though I know of a lot that need Windows. Who knows, the survivor may actually be a bunch of DOS, Windows, OS/2 and Unix emulators all simultaneously running on top of a mach kernel with a hardware-assisted display that talks X12 or perhaps Display Postscript. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl "Typically supercomputers use a single microprocessor." -Boston Globe
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) (12/13/90)
In article <14887@ogicse.ogi.edu> borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: > > >In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >>Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes >>belong >OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path >of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. >Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS >will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360. "BRONTOSAURUS is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path of TYRANNOSAURUS/ARCHAEOPTERYX. TYRANNOSAURUS/ARCHAEOPTERYX and BRONTOSAURUS will eventually converge. Once the mammals die off, TYRANNOSAURUS will be a point in history like FISH and ALLIGATOR." Let's face it, even Unix has been obsolete for 6 or 7 years. And Unix is a saber-toothed tiger compared to OS/2 - which, after all, only runs in 80286 mode. While man has made many technological triumphs in this decade, the 286 is not one of them; the ghost of Rube Goldberg lives and breathes in every AT. When Microslosh comes out with a nice clean OS/2 for the 386, than maybe you can start talking. But right now I consider Windows MORE advanced than OS/2. Not that OS/2 is such a great achievement, even for what it is. It wants at least 2 megs to run, and costs... well, what? about $200? Which is cheap and elegant compared to SunOS, but helplessly bloated next to Windows. Its 8086 "compatibility box" is DOA, and its programming interface is mediocre. Unix isn't the operating system of the future, either. (Now if the marketdroids at AT&T would only rip the lard off their brains and SELL Plan 9... but I digress.) But it's MY favorite OS. And hopefully there are enough people like me around that it'll survive. OS/2 doesn't even have that. It doesn't appeal to the users(Windows and Macintosh are at least as slick). It doesn't appeal to the developers (how many native-80286 apps have been sold?). It doesn't appeal to the OEMs (how many systems come bundled with OS/2?). It doesn't even appeal to the hackers (CAPITAL LETTERS? I CAN'T PROGRAM IN CAPITAL LETTERS!). Face it, folks: OS/2 is surrounded on all fronts, and its hull is beginning to leak. Curtis "I tried living in the real world Instead of a shell But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths
windy@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) (12/13/90)
borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: >In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >>Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes >>belong >OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path >of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. >Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS >will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360. If os/2 is not yet dead, that is a pity. One is right in saying that OS2 is the logical evolutional path from DOS, the problem is that DOS is CP/M with bells and whistles --- OS/2 is what DOS should have been in terms of multi-tasking and addressing possibilities. The PC, as it was then, was capable of multitasking with the right software (just look at minix, Coherent or MP/M...) and enough hardware (more store (or RAM as people insist on misnaming it), and a hard disk. Windows and Presentation Manager are nothing to do with operating systems. They are windowing systems, just like (but not as good as) suntools MGR or Xwindows to name but a few. You could, if you wanted to, run GEM or X or MGR or MSwindows under OS/2 instead of PM. You can port them, not me! Due to networking any multitasking operating system being released today should also be multi-user, like Unix, Minix, OS9. As far as I know, OS2 is not. This means its use in networks can only be a kludge at best. This means that OS2, like MS-DOS, was a point in history at its launch! If only typical PC users understood....... Andrew Miller -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- email: windy@strange.informatik.rwth-aachen.de snail: Ruetscherstr 165 D-5100 Aachen voice: 0049 (0)241 894-355 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hate paper, especially paper with source code on it! Trees are the lungs of our planet! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- email: windy@strange.informatik.rwth-aachen.de snail: Ruetscherstr 165 D-5100 Aachen voice: 0049 (0)241 894-355
bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) (12/13/90)
In article <windy.661083071@andrej> windy@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: :borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: : :>In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: :>>Knowing OS/2 is safely dead and buried where all terrible OSes :>>belong :>OS/2 is NOT dead or even dying. It is the natural evolutionary path :>of MSDOS/WINDOWS. MSDOS/WINDOWS and OS/2 will eventually converge. :>Once the members of the 80x86 family BELOW the 80386 die off, MSDOS :>will be a point in history like RSX-11 and OS/360. : :If os/2 is not yet dead, that is a pity. Look. Will you people take this holy war somewhere else? It has nothing to do with computer architecture. -- Bob Silverman #include <std.disclaimer> Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730 "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (12/14/90)
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: >In article <14887@ogicse.ogi.edu>, borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) writes: >> In article <28775@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > Do you ever expect 80286 and 8088 based machines to go away? We will >be running MS-DOS well into the next century, I think. Well I personally will never give up my CP/M machine! (except MAYBE for an MSDOS machine) I just cant wait for X-Windows to be port to it! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) (12/14/90)
I agree that Windows and OS/2 are merging. Generally, only because programs written for Windows will be portable to OS/2 with very little effort. If you look at the stuff written for Windows 3.0 (as opposed to ported from something else or something earlier) you get some clean window handling DDE, network support and such. OS/2 is not DOS. OS/2 brings the HPFS so we can finally get rid of the DOS FAT file system and its silly file naming space. HPFS386 brings us some file system security (currently available only with LAN Manager). OS/2 brings us true multitasking. I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop workstation. Giving the input-focus window top CPU priority makes a lot of sense to me. I don't want to login to my workstation, and I certainly don't want other users logging into my workstation through the network. OS/2 1.x really is a dog. No disagreement there. But, I'll bet (any takers?) that you will see orders for OS/2 2.0 in quantities 5-10 times that of current levels. I know of several local companies ready to order hundreds of copies when it is released. For those of you convinced that OS/2 is dying, please print your prediction and leave it (signed) in a public place for about a year. -- -- Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else. ************************************************* * Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer * *************************************************
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) (12/14/90)
OS/2 will probably be more interesting when they finally finish writting it. Someday, it will have all the things unix has had for some years now. It will be 32 bit (that is mostly done now). It will run on machines that don't look extraordinarily similar to IBM PC/ATs. (can you say risc?) Perhaps they will finaly free themselves from the Intel 80x86s. It will have working printer drivers someday. The problem is that it was released some years ago, long before they had finished writting it. If they'd just written a nice graphical shell for unix, they'd have been done writting it a long time ago. But IBM and Microsoft don't like standards. So while everything from workstations to supers runs something that looks like unix, they'll keep working on OS/2. Someday, it might be as good as unix, probably better in some areas. But unix will be the standard for workstations on up. (What's the ``P'' is PC stand for? Proprietary.) -- Michael Pereckas * InterNet: m-pereckas@uiuc.edu * just another student... (CI$: 72311,3246) Jargon Dept.: Decoupled Architecture---sounds like the aftermath of a tornado
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (12/14/90)
by gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould): | I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop | workstation. Giving the input-focus window top CPU priority makes a lot of | sense to me. I don't want to login to my workstation, and I certainly don't | want other users logging into my workstation through the network. I agree that these desktop boxes should be primarily designed as single- user platforms but the ability to have other logins can be very valuable. I agree that the user with the mouse in his hand should get most of the cpu cycles but I don't know why allowing a limited multiuser capability should detract from this. Just let it be known that "other" users online are the low priority scuzz. :-) -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm a newcomer here, but does the |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | net every lay any argument to rest?" | U | - Ackphtth | -- dan herrick
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.13.15.26.01.1990.22374@pilot.njin.net>, gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: |> I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop |> workstation. Giving the input-focus window top CPU priority makes a lot of |> sense to me. I don't want to login to my workstation, and I certainly don't |> want other users logging into my workstation through the network. I've used workstations and am currently using an X terminal talking to a bunch of large UNIX machines in a locked computer room. I find it harder and harder to understand why one would want a general purpose computer on the desktop at all. But -- this has very little to do with computer architecture. -- Robert Claeson |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB | Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se Jakobsberg, Sweden | Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com Any opinions expressed herein definitely belongs to me and not to my employer.
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.13.15.26.01.1990.22374@pilot.njin.net>, gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: > I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop > workstation. Giving the input-focus window top CPU priority makes a lot of > sense to me. I don't want to login to my workstation, and I certainly don't > want other users logging into my workstation through the network. Logging in to my workstation gives me some assurance about what happened while I was away from the workstation. Allowing another to login over the network permits the class of solutions represented by UUCP. There may be other solutions to that set of problems, but UUCP is a well established, mature solution that probably has half its security holes closed. Even DECnet nft uses login machinery to establish my right to see the files that I am copying out or my right to write files where I want to put them. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/15/90)
In article <5074@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: |> Do you ever expect 80286 and 8088 based machines to go away? We will |> be running MS-DOS well into the next century, I think. Well, lets look at it this way, my Atari 800 is 4 years older than the first IBM PC. So, 2000 (the next century) - 4 = 1996. So, by that argument, those few people left who know what an 800 looks like will still be using it in 1996. (Probably yes, but not to do CAD, desktop pub, etc. Of course it makes a great electronic fish bowl) -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (12/15/90)
In article <Fke2i1t3@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > There are at least 25 million DOS >users that will eventually move to OS/2. This will probably take >several years, but most DOS users will migrate to OS/2. We have to >suffer through DOS 5.0(early next year) and Windows 4.0 first. I don't think so....I think you'll be lucky to see 1/5 those users move to OS/2, because A) It's very complex in its current form and B) Relatively resource-intensive. >Then again, maybe Sun and NeXT can put Unix on the business desktop and >save us all a lot of suffering, waiting, and money. Brrrrrrr..."business users" have enough trouble suffering through MS-DOS and LAN networks. %%%%% Signature v2.0 %%%%% Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * If Apple's pricing strategy had been as exciting as their commercials, * * Windows 3.0 would have never been written *
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (12/15/90)
In article <windy.661083071@andrej>, windy@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: >Due to networking any multitasking operating system being released >today should also be multi-user, like Unix, Minix, OS9. As far as I >know, OS2 is not. This means its use in networks can only be a kludge >at best. Huh? Why should you want to run multiple users on a PC box? Sure, you could be perverse and run X-terms off a '486, but why bother? Just buy a couple of '386 boxes and be ahead of the game. You don't have to be multi-user to be in a network; just spin off network services as a background task. >If only typical PC users understood....... There's nothing "typical" in making a PC a multiuser system. You add Unix/Xenix, plus networking or RS-232 cards. %%%%% Signature v2.0 %%%%% Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * If Apple's pricing strategy had been as exciting as their commercials, * * Windows 3.0 would have never been written *
jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) (12/15/90)
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >Huh? Why should you want to run multiple users on a PC box? > > Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park The fact that the PCs are on a network is one reason. Basically you want to be able to configure your network anywhere in the range of 'each machine is only used by one specific person' to 'every user has full access to all the machines'. A simple and direct way of giving every user complete access to all machines at all times is having multi-user machines. John McKernan. Windows and Graphics Software, Sun Microsystems. jmck@sun.com
pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) (12/15/90)
In article <Fke2i1t3@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > .... There are at least 25 million DOS > users that will eventually move to OS/2. This will probably take > several years, but most DOS users will migrate to OS/2. .... I am willing to bet that the vast majority of these 25 million+ users do not have the foggiest idea of what OS/2 is or any notion of how to "move" to it (not an insult: it's not their job to worry/know about these things). It's the computer people supporting these machines who will have to a) con- sider the "move" and b) implement it. When these people sit down to serious- ly contemplate what has to be done to accomplish this for what it will yield, the decision will be made to leave good ol' DOS (and Windows) on most of the machines for a long time to come. And when OS/2 is, in fact, installed, the primary reason in the majority of those cases will be system management, e.g., factors that affect the efficiency of the people managing these systems greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny pavlov@stewart.fstrf.org
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (12/15/90)
In article <4565@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes: >sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>Huh? Why should you want to run multiple users on a PC box? >> >> Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park > >The fact that the PCs are on a network is one reason. Basically you >want to be able to configure your network anywhere in the range of 'each >machine is only used by one specific person' to 'every user has full >access to all the machines'. A simple and direct way of giving every >user complete access to all machines at all times is having multi-user >machines. In that case, you no longer have a "PERSONAL" computer, but a workstation. Ergo, if you are running a workstation, you need UN*X, not OS/2. Sounds like Apples and Walnuts to me... %%%%% Signature v2.0 %%%%% Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * If Apple's pricing strategy had been as exciting as their commercials, * * Windows 3.0 would have never been written *
pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) (12/15/90)
In article <windy.661083071@andrej>, windy@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: > > Windows and Presentation Manager are nothing to do with operating > systems. They are windowing systems, ........ > Given that DOS provides the rudimentary set of "operating system" services and Windows supplements them a bit, I don't think that this statement is completely true in this context. And most PC users couldn't give a damn one way or another. > > If only typical PC users understood....... > Why should they ? Will it really make a significant difference for most of them ?
pete@csc-sun.mckinsey.com (Peter Gaston) (12/18/90)
Ok, there's been lots of religious ramblings against OS/2. Personally I feel that most people aren't keen for IBM for whatever reason. What I'd like to know, does anyone have a fact base pro/con for OS/2, esp. w/ regard to it's prime competitor, Unix (and future derivatives). From personal experience: - OS/2 appears slow, even on a 386 machine, but that may be more an artifact of PM and the file system - it supports both 'normal' and real-time priorities, is the real-time as useful as it claims? - writing a device driver is a bear Any comments or additions to a fact base welcome. pete gaston
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/18/90)
In article <PETE.90Dec17141012@csc-sun.mckinsey.com> pete@csc-sun.mckinsey.com (Peter Gaston) writes: | From personal experience: | - OS/2 appears slow, even on a 386 machine, but that may be more | an artifact of PM and the file system That's my impression. Running programs which have multiple processes and little screen activity seems to work reasonably well. Someone here measured total CPU spent in user processes as 85% of clock time under load, so the overhead is not much higher than numbers I see on a loaded UNIX system, also measured as "anything not given to the user is overhead." | - it supports both 'normal' and real-time priorities, is the | real-time as useful as it claims? It looks good as a process control o/s. Someone posted about comparing it with Venix in an application which needed real time data aquesition and control. I believe the evaluation showed both would do the job but the Venix user interface was better. If you don't need realtime capability, you may actually get an increase in kernel overhead caused by forcing preemptable points in the logic. I plan on trying V.4 capabilities in this area sometime before spring. | - writing a device driver is a bear I'm happy to say I don't know about that! -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias) (12/21/90)
In article <PETE.90Dec17141012@csc-sun.mckinsey.com> pete@csc-sun.mckinsey.com (Peter Gaston) writes: > >Ok, there's been lots of religious ramblings against OS/2. Personally >I feel that most people aren't keen for IBM for whatever reason. > >What I'd like to know, does anyone have a fact base pro/con for >OS/2, esp. w/ regard to it's prime competitor, Unix (and future >derivatives). > I have worked on a product that is an I/O subsystem and maintenance processor for a mainframe processor. We have two versions of the product, one that uses OS/2 and the other Unix. The following comments to your specific remarks relate back to this product. >From personal experience: > - OS/2 appears slow, even on a 386 machine, but that may be more > an artifact of PM and the file system For our application running on the same machine, there is no significant difference in speed. > - it supports both 'normal' and real-time priorities, is the > real-time as useful as it claims? We found writing code for OS/2 to be much easier due to the real-time support in the OS/2 kernel. > - writing a device driver is a bear > Amen!!! >Any comments or additions to a fact base welcome. > In general the OS/2 programming environment is much richer than Unix when attempting to do real-time applications. The use of threads and DLLs makes life alot easier. Unix's 1 second resolution for delays is not adequate. I believe that I would not have any complaints with Mach-based Unix's, since it adds OS/2 features like threads and has better real-time support. -- Robert J. Mathias, Jr uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!uis-oc!ns.UUCP!bob Unisys Corporation voice: (714) 727-0323 A and V Series Systems Engineering fax: (714) 727-0350 Irvine, California
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) (12/21/90)
>>>>> Regarding Re: OS/2 is dead?; bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias) adds: bob> I believe that I would not have any complaints with Mach-based Unix's, bob> since it adds OS/2 features like threads and has better real-time bob> support. WOA! Hold it! Time-out! Mach didn't "add" OS/2 features, Mach came first by a long shot. I don't know if people should spread rumors that OS/2 is dead or not (probably just wishful thinking), but for God's sake don't imply that there is *anything* innovative about OS/2! -- ====================================================================== domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach, FL 33444 +==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+ | (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...) | +====================================================================+
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/21/90)
In article <38@ns.UUCP> bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias) writes: | In general the OS/2 programming environment is much richer than Unix when | attempting to do real-time applications. The use of threads and DLLs makes | life alot easier. Unix's 1 second resolution for delays is not adequate. Sounds like when you say UNIX you mean BSD. V.3.2 and V.4 have nap() in ms resolution. And I think BSD does fine resolution thru select(), although I don't have the man page handy. V.4 has some support for real time, other than the kernel being more preemptable, I don't have the right manuals handy. I haven't tried doing any r/t on it yet. Anything you saw about the need for threads or other lightweight process implementations sounds like the right idea, although I might want to discuss the interface. I have done a lot of hacks to get the effect of threads, with mixed results and poor portability. Maybe POSIX should get into this area. | I believe that I would not have any complaints with Mach-based Unix's, since | it adds OS/2 features like threads and has better real-time support. I agree with the need for the features, but I'm not sure that Mach is the best solution. I'm waiting to see how various implementations work over the next few years before forming an opinion. It may be that the ideas from mach and other versions will be used to do another implementation. For evaluating the usefulness of an o/s implementation, no amount of research can substitute for some solid experience in production use (and vice versa, of course). -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (12/23/90)
In article <PETE.90Dec17141012@csc-sun.mckinsey.com> pete@csc-sun.mckinsey.com (Peter Gaston) writes: >Ok, there's been lots of religious ramblings against OS/2. Personally >I feel that most people aren't keen for IBM for whatever reason. >What I'd like to know, does anyone have a fact base pro/con for >OS/2, esp. w/ regard to it's prime competitor, Unix (and future >derivatives). I don't think OS/2's prime competitor is Unix, but rather Windows 3.0 and its successor... ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias Jr.) (12/24/90)
In article <TOM.90Dec21073246@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >WOA! Hold it! Time-out! Mach didn't "add" OS/2 features, Mach came first by >a long shot. I don't know if people should spread rumors that OS/2 is dead >or not (probably just wishful thinking), but for God's sake don't imply that >there is *anything* innovative about OS/2! There are very few things in new O/S'es that haven't been around for years. I wasn't try to imply that OS/2 created these features but that V5 and BSD are not adequate OS's for real-time environments. As to "*anything* innovative about OS/2", I disagree. What makes OS/2 different from other commercial OS's is that it is geared for a single user workstations. Yes a multi-user OS (like Unix) can do the similar things, the emphasis is different. -- Robert J. Mathias, Jr uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!uis-oc!ns.UUCP!bob Unisys Corporation voice: (714) 727-0323 A and V Series Systems Engineering fax: (714) 727-0350 Irvine, California
bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias Jr.) (12/24/90)
In article <3083@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > Sounds like when you say UNIX you mean BSD. V.3.2 and V.4 have nap() >in ms resolution. And I think BSD does fine resolution thru select(), >although I don't have the man page handy. V.4 has some support for real >time, other than the kernel being more preemptable, I don't have the >right manuals handy. I haven't tried doing any r/t on it yet. The version of Unix I have been using is V.3. As far as I know, there is no nap() function in this version. We use the sleep and alarm functions which have resolutions of 1 second (if you are lucky). We just got our version of V.4 but I haven't had time yet to explore it. > I agree with the need for the features, but I'm not sure that Mach is >the best solution. I'm waiting to see how various implementations work >over the next few years before forming an opinion. It may be that the >ideas from mach and other versions will be used to do another >implementation. For evaluating the usefulness of an o/s implementation, >no amount of research can substitute for some solid experience in >production use (and vice versa, of course). I agree with your statements about Mach, and yes there may be better solutions in other implementations but the this thread started on OS/2 being dead and that Unix was going to rule the world. I was only responding that OS/2 seems to be a better real-time environment than the main stream Unix's (V and BSD). Or I should say that in our case OS/2 met more our needs and was an easier environment to use. -- Robert J. Mathias, Jr uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!uis-oc!ns.UUCP!bob Unisys Corporation voice: (714) 727-0323 A and V Series Systems Engineering fax: (714) 727-0350 Irvine, California
jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) (12/24/90)
In article <3083@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: In article <38@ns.UUCP> bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias) writes: | In general the OS/2 programming environment is much richer than Unix when | attempting to do real-time applications. The use of threads and DLLs makes | life alot easier. Unix's 1 second resolution for delays is not adequate. Sounds like when you say UNIX you mean BSD. V.3.2 and V.4 have nap() Of course you have been able to do sub-second delays with BSD at least since 4.2. Though they didn't provide a library call for it, the SIGALRM timer could be set to the resolution of the system clock (or 1microsecond, whichever was greater :-) -- -- Jeremy Webber ACSnet: jeremy@chook.ua.oz Digital Arts Film and Television, Internet: jeremy@chook.ua.oz.au 3 Milner St, Hindmarsh, SA 5007, Voicenet: +61 8 346 4534 Australia Papernet: +61 8 346 4537 (FAX)
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (12/25/90)
In article <TOM.90Dec21073246@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >>>>>> Regarding Re: OS/2 is dead?; bob@ns.UUCP (Robert J. Mathias) adds: (posting from Unisys' Orange County operation, about his experiences using Unix & OS/2 to do the same task, and finding OS/2 easier for some tasks.) > >bob> I believe that I would not have any complaints with Mach-based Unix's, >bob> since it adds OS/2 features like threads and has better real-time >bob> support. > >WOA! Hold it! Time-out! Mach didn't "add" OS/2 features, Mach came first by >a long shot. I don't know if people should spread rumors that OS/2 is dead >or not (probably just wishful thinking), but for God's sake don't imply that >there is *anything* innovative about OS/2! I'm not certain of all of the chronology, but I think that Mr. Horsley is a bit uninformed. I believe that the development of OS/2 and Mach occurred in a similar timeframe; the early Mach work may have preceded the early OS/2 work by a year or two. It is likely that any features they have in common were independently derived, perhaps from similar sources. Certainly concepts like lightweight processes (threads), etc predate Mach. Multi-tasking predates VM; compared to today's tasking, nearly all pre-VM 'tasks' were lightweight. Mr. Mathias may have used a poor choice of words when he said that Mach "adds OS/2 features". However, from the point of view of a commercial applications developer, these features were certainly usable in OS/2 first. >domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley >+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+ >| (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...) | To deny the worth of a given product, merely because it comes from a particular company in the commercial world rather than academia, is a form of censorship. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}
aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) (01/02/91)
gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: > Date: 13 Dec 90 20:26:01 GMT > Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. > > I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop > workstation. I have frequently welcomed this on networked systems. (a) Every now and again the program I am interacting with gets into a state in which I can't do anything from the keyboard. By logging in "round the back" I can kill the offending process, and continue normally. Without this I'd have to re-boot, a slower procedure that would also kill other background jobs, that were running quite happily on my machine, etc. (b) My secretary, who needs only to access a text editor, read mail, give print commands, etc. can plug a VDU into the back of my machine, log in, and work happily without my even noticing any disturbance. (c) In a team where we are developing software on networked machines of different sorts, it is convenient for me to log in to my colleague's machine upstairs without leaving my desk, in order to check out how something runs on his machine and not mine. (d) When I log into our network via a terminal from home, it enables me to log into the machine on my desk in order to work from home. (e) One of my colleagues has a workstation that is quite a bit faster than mine. When he is not using it, I can log through to his machine and do some things faster. One of my students normally uses a slower machine than mine. I let him log into my machine when I am not using it, without having to give him the key to my office. (f) When I have a problem I can't sort out, I can sometimes phone or email a member of our systems support staff who then logs in to my machine via the network and fixes it, without having to leave his/her office. etc. etc. (Some of these points assume an integrated file-store accessible from several machines via NFS.) In my experience the people who can't imagine why they would want a multi-user machine on their desk are mostly people who have never had the good fortune to have one. However, I agree with the previous commentator (from Sweden?) who implied that for most multi-user networked environments the cost-effective way of the future (taking into account hardware costs, management costs, and the cost over several years of giving all users more and more speed and memory as the technology improves) is NOT going to be based on workstations, but on something like X terminals linked to very powerful, easily upgradeable, symmetric multi-processor CPU/memory/file servers. There will be a few kinds of users for whom workstations are a better solution, but only a minority in most organisations. However, the arguments in support of this view are somewhat complicated, and in my experience many people don't understand them because they are hung up with memories of time-sharing in the 1970s, or they complain that network traffic will be too high because they are hung up with problems of diskless workstations doing too much swapping, paging and context switching over their existing network! I suppose this is relevant to comp.arch only in the sense of being concerned with the architecture of a computing service? Aaron Sloman, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, Univ of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, England EMAIL aarons@cogs.sussex.ac.uk
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/03/91)
gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: > Date: 13 Dec 90 20:26:01 GMT > Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. > > I can't understand why someone would want multi-user support on their desktop > workstation. Security is one reason. Not only the security of having a login password required, but the security of being able to have several logins, all for myself, which represent various things I'm doing on that computer, each protected from the other to an extent *I* determine. For someone who never makes a mistake, this feature is useless. If you always keep every file in the correct subdirectory, never delete the wrong file, etc, then multiuser support will only get in your way. If you are a normal human being you may appreciate having some serious protection from yourself, and an ownership attribute attacted to the file, not determined by the file or directory name. So on most of my "single user" machines I am: root for backups and major stuff uumaint for configuring uucp stuff news for configuring news local owns /usr/local/bin and source bill for general stuff testit for testing new software and then extra logins for any large projects which might need to be handled separately from my general work. And it is comforting to test new software in a separate login, knowing that stupidity and malice will both effect only the test id (unless it uses a gaping hole in the system). The ability to have the o/s keep things separate is a highly useful feature, and just multitasking is not enough. Unless the filesystem and processes are protected against bad behavior, there is always the possibility of a small problem turning into a disaster. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
jcb@frisbee.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) (01/03/91)
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) writes: In article <PETE.90Dec17141012@csc-sun.mckinsey.com> pete@csc-sun.mckinsey.com (Peter Gaston) writes: >Ok, there's been lots of religious ramblings against OS/2. Personally >I feel that most people aren't keen for IBM for whatever reason. >What I'd like to know, does anyone have a fact base pro/con for >OS/2, esp. w/ regard to it's prime competitor, Unix (and future >derivatives). I don't think OS/2's prime competitor is Unix, but rather Windows 3.0 and its successor... ;-) Windows 3.0 runs along with OS/2, so I don't see how they can compete. I also don't see how UnixWorld (Current) and the New York Times (Sept24th) can show Windows competing against DOS and OS/2 for market share, but who am I to question journalists.. :-) (this is from elsewhere) >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New >York Times) show operating system market share as: >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 It seems that OS/2 is going to be positioned against Unix, and it's odds of success are probably increasing as time goes on. (Personal opinion.) -Jim Becker -- -- Jim Becker / jcb%frisbee@sun.com / Sun Microsystems
davel@booboo.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David Lord) (01/04/91)
Various people write: << I don't think OS/2's prime competitor is Unix, but rather Windows 3.0 << and its successor... ;-) << < Windows 3.0 runs along with OS/2, so I don't see how they can compete. This remains to be seen I think. Microsoft seems to be hedging a bit lately on Windows compatiblity mode under OS/2. I'm not considering running Windows in a DOS window here. < I also don't see how UnixWorld (Current) and the New York Times < (Sept24th) can show Windows competing against DOS and OS/2 for market < share, but who am I to question journalists.. :-) They are, in a way, competing environments, that is a program is written to run under DOS, or Windows, or OS/2. Admittedly since Windows requires DOS you might want to think of it more as a competition between a parasite and its host. (-: < >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In < >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New < >York Times) show operating system market share as: < < >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 < >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 < >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 < >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 It seems hardly fair to compare number of systems between Unix and these others since Unix supports more users per system. Better comparisons might be number of users, costs of systems, or total amount of useful work done on the system (try to calculate that!). < It seems that OS/2 is going to be positioned against Unix, and it's < odds of success are probably increasing as time goes on. (Personal < opinion.) This as been said before but there is only a portion of the Unix market that OS/2 can compete for. Unix is first and foremost a multiuser operating system and OS/2 can't touch that market. An advantage Unix has over OS/2 in the single user market is that it allows you to run the same system on your little machines as on your big machines. To me that seems like a fairly significant advantage.
schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (01/04/91)
In some article, someone quoted from the NY Times: > the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New >York Times) show operating system market share as: >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 Interesting projections. Windows sales went up by over a factor of 6 in 2 years, but is project only to grow a factor of 2 in the next 5 years. On the other hand, Unix *drops* 10% in 2 years, but is projected to grow a factor of almost 3 in the next 5 years. Does this mean they expect spectacular Unix sales in 1994 - the tenth running year of "this is the year when Unix takes off?" Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) (01/11/91)
In article <5150@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jcb@frisbee.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) writes: >ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) writes: > >Windows 3.0 runs along with OS/2, so I don't see how they can compete. > >I also don't see how UnixWorld (Current) and the New York Times >(Sept24th) can show Windows competing against DOS and OS/2 for market >share, but who am I to question journalists.. :-) > I think I saw the UnixWorld article, or something like it. One possible way of understanding this is to remember that lots of DOS people were exposed to pre-3.0 Windows, and thus might not want to have anything to do with Windows, ever again. Then there are the people who have, use, and like such things as Desqview. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com (uunet!?)uw-beaver!ssc-vax!carroll
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (01/12/91)
In <3859@bnr-rsc.UUCP> schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes: >>operating system market share... "Market share" is a dangerous term. If you compare n systems running a multiuser OS, each supporting 50 users, and m systems running a single-user OS, each supporting 1 user, how do you define market share? I have 4 different machines at home, running various combinations of MS-DOS and UNIX. How do you calculate my contribution to "market share"? Do you count me as four systems, or as one? One user, or four? Those statistics can prove anything. Don't forget: 80% of people surveyed believe that they are above average in intelligence. -- History never | Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> becomes obsolete. | UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/15/91)
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In <3859@bnr-rsc.UUCP> schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes: >>>operating system market share... >"Market share" is a dangerous term. [..] >I have 4 different machines at home, running various combinations of >MS-DOS and UNIX. How do you calculate my contribution to "market >share"? Do you count me as four systems, or as one? One user, or >four? Messy-dos proponents count you as four users; Unix proponents count you as four users. >Those statistics can prove anything. Don't forget: 80% of people >surveyed believe that they are above average in intelligence. ^^^^^^^ mean, mode, or median ??? (sorry, couldn't resist that -- just shows another way of lying with stats) Ps. I'm one of the 80%, but i won't tell you what kind of average (:-) -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots