steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) (04/29/91)
Note: Followup-To has been changed...
Also, the following group was deleted as it was not recognized
by my mailer: "comp.os.ms.dos.misc"
In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>
>Now, I'm not trying to compare UNIX to OS/2, or PM/Windows to X Window
>System. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?.
>From ten feet back, they all kinda look the same. And with UNIX, you can
>have more than one user. Try that on OS/2, or DOS.
Most who have a PC don't need to support more than one user (at a time),
but rather want to support many applications at one time. Its for this
reason (IMO) that people are interested in OS/2. (Unix has a PR problem
- perception is reality when it comes to marketing and sales! Besides,
If you arn't going to use Unix for Unix, why would the great unwashed masses
buy it?)
Windows begins to address this issue, but not fully. I have been using
Windows 3.0 for a while now, and it is not the same as multiple X sessions
(sigh). OS/2 2.0 is supposedly more like true multitasking with windowed
sessions. I am actually thinking of getting a copy to see if it does what
I want (without crashing every 20 minutes).
Unix is great (I use it at work and have various knock-offs for my PC),
but it doesn't run DOS applications. So what you ask? The *vast* majority
of small system owners rely on DOS applications for things like reports,
spreadsheets, et. al.. If you had a Unix-based OS that could run DOS
applications in a MOTIF/X11R4 window, great - I'll buy one. The point is,
not many would.
From what little I know of OS/2 2.0, you do have a multitasking OS which can
run DOS applications in a window (even different versions of DOS itself).
This appeals to my DOS side. The only question I have is - is it still easy
to bootstrap a Unix from another partition with OS/2 like I can with DOS?
Is it possible to run one of the Unix knock-offs in a window (not MKS)?
The other question is what does OS/2 get me? I mean aside from doing what
windows 3.0 can't do - multitask (or for that matter run for more than 30
minutes before crashing)? What runs on OS/2? What would I do with it other
that treat it as an environment for running windows et. al.?
Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under
a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.).
Then again, I'd be happy with a real multitasking windowed environment that
would allow me to run DOS apps - so long as I can still boot Unix from another
partition (or, do I dare dream, run Unix in yet another window).
So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...?
Steve
--
.-------------------..-------------------------.
| Stephen C. Daukas || sdaukas@csd.harris.com |
| (617) 221-1834 || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas |
`-------------------'`-------------------------'
--
.-------------------..-------------------------.
| Stephen C. Daukas || sdaukas@csd.harris.com |
| (617) 221-1834 || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas |
`-------------------'`-------------------------'phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/30/91)
As far as running Unix along with Win or OS/2, I guess the idea of DPMI is to allow all these things to peacefully coexist. But don't think an OS/2 DOS window would let something like Unix get at the extended 286 or 386 features. Those DOS boxes are virtual 8086s! -- I'm the NRA.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/30/91)
In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: > Most who have a PC don't need to support more than one user (at a time), A network is an inherently multiuser environment. DOS on a network is a dreadful mess. Oh, they've spent (wasted) enough manpower to make it usable, but the complexities add up. You end up having to add a new multi- user operating system on top of DOS, and write special versions of applications to run on it. And even off the network, if more than one person uses the machine it's a problem. So each PC is treated like a terminal. A terminal with an 80386 and 4 Meg of RAM. > Unix is great (I use it at work and have various knock-offs for my PC), > but it doesn't run DOS applications. So get Merge or VP/IX. > From what little I know of OS/2 2.0, you do have a multitasking OS which can > run DOS applications in a window (even different versions of DOS itself). SOrt of. > This appeals to my DOS side. The only question I have is - is it still easy > to bootstrap a Unix from another partition with OS/2 like I can with DOS? No. It's not just not easy, it's not possible. You can run DOS in a window in OS/2 or UNIX because DOS doesn't do anything. > Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under > a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.). System VR3.2 or SVR4.0 with VP/IX or Merge/386 and X. It's real. We've been using it for a year. And you can dial in and run DOS remotely, even, on any terminal. > So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...? See above. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/30/91)
In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes:
Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under
a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.).
Then again, I'd be happy with a real multitasking windowed environment that
would allow me to run DOS apps - so long as I can still boot Unix from another
partition (or, do I dare dream, run Unix in yet another window).
So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...?
You can run DOS under Unix. I've seen it for the NeXT, and I know
that Sun has a version of SoftPC available too. If HP has a version
for their Snake machine, you could probably emulate a 486 DOS machine
in software. The NeXT version is suppose to be as fast as a 10MHz
286. I think the company claims that by the end of the year, it will
be as fast as a 25MHz 386 and it will support VGA.
-Mikewolf@netcom.COM (Buckskin Tech.) (04/30/91)
steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: >Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under >a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.). >Then again, I'd be happy with a real multitasking windowed environment that >would allow me to run DOS apps - so long as I can still boot Unix from another >partition (or, do I dare dream, run Unix in yet another window). >.-------------------..-------------------------. >| Stephen C. Daukas || sdaukas@csd.harris.com | >| (617) 221-1834 || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas | >`-------------------'`-------------------------' Um...just checking...Sun 386i? SparcStation w/SoftPC (I've seen this work, and even run MS-Windows 3.0)? Anyone? Anyone? And does anyone know anything about Quarterdeck's DesqView/X? Seems like it'd be a real boon to folks like Mr. Daukas -- mix and match OS's, processors, etc, under X, with windows for all. - Wolf
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (04/30/91)
In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: >From what little I know of OS/2 2.0, you do have a multitasking OS which can >run DOS applications in a window (even different versions of DOS itself). This is said to be true. >This appeals to my DOS side. The only question I have is - is it still easy >to bootstrap a Unix from another partition with OS/2 like I can with DOS? You allways be able to to this (I have tried this with OS/2 1.3 and there is no reason why OS/2 2.0 should prevent you from this). >Is it possible to run one of the Unix knock-offs in a window (not MKS)? What do you call a Unix knock-off? I run many ported Unix tools (mostly GNU, or perl, for example) already under OS/2 1.3 (of course in a Windows). >The other question is what does OS/2 get me? I mean aside from doing what >windows 3.0 can't do - multitask (or for that matter run for more than 30 >minutes before crashing)? What runs on OS/2? What would I do with it other >that treat it as an environment for running windows et. al.? OS/2 provides users with continuity in software and user interfaces when they switch from DOS. It looks all familiar to DOS/Windows users. And it provides them who need it with the full power of a 32bit system as it could no Unix system do better. It simply has a more robust base system when you compare it to DOS/Windows or even to a future 32bit Windows. >So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...? Mine looks like OS/2 2.0. Alreay 1.3 is *much* more an operating system I can use than DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0 are together. Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams (MS)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (04/30/91)
From article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com>, by steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas): > [stuff deleted] > > If you had a Unix-based OS that could run DOS > applications in a MOTIF/X11R4 window, great - I'll buy one. The point is, > not many would. SoftPC has done this for some time now and is available on many platforms. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (04/30/91)
From article <1991Apr30.150110.2745@ccad.uiowa.edu>, by cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI): >> If you had a Unix-based OS that could run DOS >> applications in a MOTIF/X11R4 window, great - I'll buy one. The point is, >> not many would. > > SoftPC has done this for some time now and is available on many platforms. Big #8-) there ... I run a suite of benchmark programs I wrote. They aren't perfect, but they do provide a way to rank the machines I've seen according to speed. The results are at least consistant (faster MHz = faster machines, etc.) Soft PC 1.2 on a VAXstation 3100 took 1466.72 seconds Soft PC 2.2 on a VAXstation 3100 took 736.87 seconds (One user) Soft PC 1.21 on a 16 Mhz Mac IIx took 1309.91 seconds Just to put that in perspective, here are some real PC times: 4.77 Mhz IBM XT computer 783.56 seconds (281.11 with 8087) 8 Mhz DEC VAXmate computer 206.62 (87.60 with 80287) 10 Mhz PS/2-60 in OS/2 1.1 DOS box 170.03 (65.07 with 80287) Same PS/2 model 60 with DOS 3.3 163.89 (60.59 with 80287) 16 Mhz Compaq 386 computer 93.07 (57.35 with 80387) 25 Mhz Sun 386i computer 73.22 (38.50) AOX 25 Mhz 386 in above PS/2 62.26 Zenith 25 Mhz 80386 computer 51.25 (20.93) Primax 33 Mhz 80386 computer 38.82 (15.06) IBM PS/2 model 70 8048625 Mhz 26.80 (10.92) So if you want to run an AT that has effective thruput about the same as an 4.77 Mhz XT, then I guess SoftPC is for you #8-) - Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) (05/01/91)
In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes: > >Unix is great (I use it at work and have various knock-offs for my PC), >but it doesn't run DOS applications. So what you ask? The *vast* majority >of small system owners rely on DOS applications for things like reports, >spreadsheets, et. al.. If you had a Unix-based OS that could run DOS >applications in a MOTIF/X11R4 window, great - I'll buy one. The point is, >not many would. > >Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under >a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.). >Then again, I'd be happy with a real multitasking windowed environment that >would allow me to run DOS apps - so long as I can still boot Unix from another >partition (or, do I dare dream, run Unix in yet another window). > >So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...? > Although far from perfect, I am running multiple DOS programs under Dell Unix V.4 and DosMerge. Bug-fixes imminent with updated Unix/Dosmerge. Not everything works smoothly all the time, but judicious placement of touchy software in a separate DOS partition mitigates most of the problems. My database, Q&A (in many ways, the best in the World), can't run effectively unless it is on the DOS partition of the HD; it thinks it is running on a network and probably denies write permission on files because of that. Printing can be laborious for some software, perhaps because of confusion in the print spooling. For most things, it is fine. Access to the 3.5" FDD when in DOS requires some custom fiddling. All in all, it provides access to the best of both worlds. With software upgrades ***almost*** in the mail, it may get even better. Another alternative is the installation of a separate hard disk for DOS sessions only; you lose the multitasking though. BTW, I am using a Dell 433TE, 80486-33MHz.
mwizard@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Craig Nelson) (05/02/91)
how about NeXT running SoftPC ? []====================================================================[] || Craig R. Nelson | CCSofD Software Inc. || || Programmer | Beaverton, OR, 97005 || || mwizard@eecs.ee.pdx.edu | (unlisted on the net) ||
steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) (05/02/91)
I wanted to say thanks to all those who have been responding to me via E-mail, as well as those keeping this thread going. I will provide a summary when this topic quiets down! My original post was somewhat rhetorical, as a few have pointed out, but I was hoping to get all sides of the issue - its working... Also, I appreciate all of the comments covering the various platforms, performance numbers, et. al.! Some have been responding in conjunction to my other article covering suggestions for a window environment wrt PCs, I thank you for that too! Anyway, just wanted to thank everyone so far and hope to see things go on for a while longer - I'm compiling a great deal of info. Steve -- .-------------------..-------------------------. | Stephen C. Daukas || sdaukas@csd.harris.com | | (617) 221-1834 || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas | `-------------------'`-------------------------'