wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (04/22/91)
Here's a summary of the summary of OS/2 2.0 that was presented to the media last week. The unnofficial motto is "A better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows, and a better OS/2 than OS/2." They finally got DOS compatibility big time. You can run multiple DOS boxes simultaneously, and they can even be different versions of DOS! (Need to run an old spread sheet that only runs under DOS 1.1? No 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode), and in the demo each DOS box had 620K free *after* (yes, that's AFTER) a multitude of device drivers were loaded. And of course they can be cutted from / pasted to. Not enough? How about being able to run Windows 2.x and 3.x programs NATIVELY? (ie, *without* starting up a DOS box). And of course it runs them pre-emptively and makes them look like any other OS/2 2.0 application. And no more dreaded Unrecoverable Application Errors. This gives OS/2 access to the multitude of decent apps for Windows 2.x and 3.x. And with a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more than 5%.) Not enough? How about being able to run OS/2 1.x 16-bit apps side by side with your 32 bit 2.0 apps (and the Windows and DOS apps)? Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File System) that will banish the FAT forever? It has better disk usage (blocks only 256 bytes), better allocation (idle time arranging of blocks into contiguous chunks), better error-recovery (I've shut off my machine *many* times without doing a proper shutdown and *never* lost a file), better performance (due to the above and fancy buffering). Not enough? How about a price of $150 US for the standard edition? In a box about the size of MS-DOS (no more hernias carrying OS/2 home)? How about an upgrade price of $99 for registered DOS and OS/2 1.0/1/2 users? How about a FREE upgrade for registered OS/2 1.3 owners? Big Blue has finally come home with OS/2 2.0. Time to upgrade your DOS or Windows 3.0 box! In the demo given to the media, they had OS/2 2.0 running with multiple versions of DOS running a communications program doing a transfer, a midi program playing some music, a couple Windows 2.x and 3.x apps, a couple OS/2 1.x apps, and of course some 2.0 apps, all on a 2 Meg laptop! (I haven't seen the demo or the video of it, I've only seen it described. I presume only about half of the things mentioned above were running concurrently. But I could be wrong -- ie, too conservative.) How do I know all this? I'm working as a Co-op student at IBM Canada this year (and yes, all the info above is public now so [I hope] I can broadcast it). Let me tell you it has some of OS/2's most vociferous critics INTERNALLY saying things like "I'm finally proud to be an IBMer again." IBM is admitting it's made some big blunders with OS/2 in the past, and they're really trying hard to change that. Most important is the real change that's happenning inside; but most critical to the business, it's trying to convince the world that these changes are real. Note that I don't want to start a flame war. (Oh well. At least I tried to stop it.) This is just very exciting news for a frustrated Unix user who's sick of DOS and crashing windows at home. -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (gregory d moncreaff) (04/22/91)
comercial availability? -- "A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It de- pends solely on the wisdom and self restraint of citizens ... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.135534.724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > >Here's a summary of the summary of OS/2 2.0 that was presented to the media >last week. > > And with >a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 >takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more >than 5%.) How do they do that? Magic?? What do they do with wait loops? > >Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File >System) In other words, a fatal flaw! (Unless, of course, it can be turned off.) > [lots more blather] Does it put all those DOS and Windows 3.0 programs in windows?? Including DOS graphics programs? Doug McDonald
dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) (04/22/91)
In response to the (totally objective) pre-release OS/2 2.0 announcement: It slices, it dices, it makes your bed for you too! And if you dial our 1-800 number before midnight, we will also include these free Ginsu knives .... 8-}. There is an old saying about things which appear too good to be true, and another one regarding the relative birth rates of suckers. I well remember the heralding of the original OS/2 version and how flat it fell after actual release. Many of the features promised then are (apparently) being included, but let's wait for six months after actual public release before we decide, eh? Dave. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.194928.8267@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >> And with >>a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 >>takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more >>than 5%.) > >How do they do that? Magic?? What do they do with wait loops? Actually you're right. I chose a bad example. A terminal program probably has lots of wait loops that would require near magic to detect and eliminate. My point was, how often do you try running multiple truly CPU intensive DOS applications under Windows? Whenever I do, I get significantly less than 1/n the performance of the machine. This can be (and is) fixed under OS/2 because 1) Disk *writes* can be buffered under HPFS. As far as I know, all the DOS disk cachers under FAT are write-through, so that you can turn your machine off immediately after doing a write without losing data. Since HPFS needs an official shutdown command, it can buffer writes until such time as the disk is available for non-thrashing writes. (All the time-outs and such are configurable if you so wish.) But it still has amazing recovery in the event of a power failure. You won't lose anything except stuff that was written within a few seconds of the power failure. 2) You don't share a single DOS session and there's no requirement to handle all disks requests sequentially. In other words, DOS has a single threaded file system whereas HPFS is multi-threaded. This is also the reason Windows *completely* dies during floppy access. OS/2 does not have this problem. 3) I'm not a DOS expert, but I believe there is significant overhead in task switching between two DOS sessions that are really only using the single DOS session available under Windows. OS/2 runs all DOS sessions completely independently, and thus is far more efficient at switching between them. >>Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File >>System) > >In other words, a fatal flaw! (Unless, of course, it can be turned off.) First, yes, you can "turn it off" in that you may choose not to install it in the first place, and OS/2 will use plain old FAT. But why in the world would you want to? Well-behaved DOS apps can easily have all disk accesses trapped and translated to the HPFS equivalent OS/2 calls without the DOS app's knowledge. Even some moderately-behaved apps can be handled. Only the truly nasty ones that try direct hardware access will fail, and most developers don't write those any more because they know things like that won't run even under Windows 3.0. (Yes, that *slightly* diminishes the claim of running your DOS 1.1 spreadsheet if it tries hardware access, but this feature is far more probable to be used with say, DOS 3.x, 4.x and maybe 2.x.) This is because OS/2 is running in 386 protected mode and can "see" all memory access and translate from FAT language to HPFS language. But installing HPFS means completely re-formatting your hard drive. So you back up your current partitions, and restore under the DOS box after installing OS/2. Big deal. It's well worth the massive increase in performance you'll get. I used OS/2 1.2 under FAT for a few months and then reformatted to HPFS on the advice from a co-worker. I was *amazed* at the difference. I could *feel* the system running faster. Why is this a fatal flaw? This is the computer industry. You're going to have to give up your old nasty DOS 1.x and 2.x apps eventually and look to the future. >Does it put all those DOS and Windows 3.0 programs in windows?? Including >DOS graphics programs? Like I said, I haven't seen it running yet. It *is* ready to ship, and I've ordered an internal Beta copy (probably get it Monday). The official copies will be going like hotcakes and IBM empolyees are going to have to wait for awhile before getting it. But yes, it runs DOS apps in a window, just like Windows 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode can. And you weren't listening when I said that it will run Windows 2.x and 3.x applications NATIVELY, ie WITHOUT starting up a DOS box, *side by side* with "real" OS/2 applications under Presentation Manager. I'm not sure about graphics programs; I've read so much info internally over the past 2 days. I *do* recall someone talking about a bug being fixed that allowed some graphics programs to be *displayed* under PM. In fact Windows 3.0 in enhanced mode can display DOS graphics programs in a window -- it can't *run* them all because most do direct writes to the video RAM and thus can't run concurrently with Windows. I suspect PM (Presentation Manager, the window manager for OS/2) has similar limitations. You probably wouldn't want to do this anyway. Trapping I/O instructions for writing out blocks of data to disk and translating to OS/2 calls can be done fairly efficiently. But trapping individual machine language instructions that access video memory would be incredibly slow no matter how smart you did it. Windows 3.0 can simulate CGA on my SuperVGA screen, but the graphics run 11 times slower (I just timed it using Fractint). -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jason Merrill) (04/22/91)
>>>>> On 21 Apr 91 19:49:28 GMT, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) said: > In article <1991Apr21.135534.724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: >> And with >>a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 >>takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more >>than 5%.) > How do they do that? Magic?? What do they do with wait loops? Ever compared DESQview's background comm performance to that of Windows 3? DV's is infinitely better, but I use Windows anyway because I like to use some windows programs. If OS/2 2.0's comm multitasking is even as good as DV's, I'll be happy. >>Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File >>System) > In other words, a fatal flaw! (Unless, of course, it can be turned off.) 1) You can turn off HPFS in OS/2 1.2, or have multiple partitions, one HPFS, one not. I ASSUME they haven't turned this off in 2.0. 2) Microsoft planned to add HPFS to DOS 6.0, I had heard...so there must be some way to reconcile old programs and new filesystems. 3) I'm real tired of eight dot three. > Does it put all those DOS and Windows 3.0 programs in windows?? Including > DOS graphics programs? Why would you want Windows 3.0 programs in a window? Why not make them look like native OS/2 programs, which is what I've heard it does? Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/22/91)
> > There is an old saying about things which appear too good to be true, > and another one regarding the relative birth rates of suckers. I well > remember the heralding of the original OS/2 version and how flat it fell > after actual release. Many of the features promised then are (apparently) > being included, but let's wait for six months after actual public release > before we decide, eh? Agreed. Too little too late. I already bought a NeXT. I will keep my DOS machine running Windows 3.0 quite happily, with all of it's limitations, and let my NeXT carry me into the world of multitasking and truly brilliant GUI design with grace and ease. ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (King of Sunset Town) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.194928.8267@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >In article <1991Apr21.135534.724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: >> >> >>Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File >>System) >In other words, a fatal flaw! (Unless, of course, it can be turned off.) It can't be turned off. Then again, it doesn`t need to be. IBM has been saying for months and months that OS/2 2.0 supports *multiple* file systems. That way, you can have both DOS and OS/2 hard drives mounted, along with, say, a CD-ROM, etc. >Doug McDonald +-----------------------------+-------------+---------------------------+ | UCSB NeXT Campus Consultant | Mark Dadgar | 6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | +-----------------------------+-------------+---------------------------+ | Do you remember chalk hearts melting on a playground wall? | | Do you remember dawn escapes from moon-washed college halls? | | Do you remember cherry blossoms in the market square? | | Do you remember I thought it was confetti in our hair? | +-------------Would UCSB write anything this intelligent?---------------+
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (04/22/91)
I don't know much about it myself (i.e. don't write to me about it), but it's not really here until the 4th quarter so don't rush out and expect to find it at your dealers... -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.135534.724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > >Here's a summary of the summary of OS/2 2.0 that was presented to the media >last week. > >The unnofficial motto is "A better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than >Windows, and a better OS/2 than OS/2." > >They finally got DOS compatibility big time. You can run multiple DOS >boxes simultaneously, and they can even be different versions of DOS! >(Need to run an old spread sheet that only runs under DOS 1.1? No > Ah, but how well does it run on my Super-Yanqui 33MHz 80486 clone with the RAM-Zap 1280x1024x256 color video card, the Really Scuzzy hard disk and interface card, with Joe's Live Bait and Printers 7000 DPI laser printer? In other words, how do we get it to run on non-IBM hardware, and will they support same? IMHO, I think not. And really, I am not abusing (nor am I embracing) OS/2 2.0, just being a careful consumer. As another post stated, let's wait and see. -- Jeff Rife P.O. Box 3836 | "Because he was human; because he had goodness; College Station, TX 77844 | because he was moral they called him insane. (409) 823-2710 | Delusions of grandeur; visons of splendor; jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.175529.2386@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > In article <1991Apr21.194928.8267@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > >> And with > >>a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 > >>takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more > >>than 5%.) > > > >How do they do that? Magic?? What do they do with wait loops? > > Actually you're right. I chose a bad example. A terminal program > probably has lots of wait loops that would require near magic to > detect and eliminate. Don't be so hard on yourself - it isn't a bad example at all. Doug, you just don't know what you're talking about. Writing communications software is one of the things I do for a living; people pay me lots of money to get these things to talk to each other. Doug's claims struck me as just blowing so much smoke, so on a whim I fired up a 9600 baud download on the MicroVAX II class machine I was running on, and found it took just about 25% of the CPU. Now the MicroVAX II is nowhere near a 33MHz 386 - it's probably not even the equivalent of a 16MHz 386SX in terms of raw CPU power; it doesn't even have a memory cache. I'm not sure offhand what the proper figure ought to be (most of my comm software is written for VAX machines), but 30% of the CPU is way too high. Properly written communications software on a modern operating system doesn't _have_ any "wait loops" in the sense of the traditional DOS busy wait polling loop - it goes to sleep waiting for an event of some kind to happen (the details will depend on the communications application and the OS it's written for). DOS doesn't have this in its vocabulary; comm programs written for DOS often _do_ have some kind of polling loop for this reason, and if you were sufficiently perverse to run such a beast under OS/2 or some other modern OS you'd get just about what you deserve (though a reasonably intelligent schedular can often detect what's happening and reduce the comm program's priority). In order to really take advantage of the new OS you'd have to get a program that would support it - whether this is worth it is something that only the user can decide, but it's definitely technically _possible_ to write comm software that doesn't take such a big percentage of the CPU. > 2) You don't share a single DOS session and there's no requirement to > handle all disks requests sequentially. In other words, DOS has a > single threaded file system whereas HPFS is multi-threaded. This is > also the reason Windows *completely* dies during floppy access. OS/2 > does not have this problem. This is also a good point - you don't realize how much you could be losing because of single-threading unless you've used an OS that supports multi-threading I/O operations on different drives. In many cases even multi-threading a _single_ drive can be beneficial if you can overlap several types of operations (such as overlapping actual disk I/O with inspections of in-memory file structure cache information). > >>Not enough? How about a new file system (HPFS == High Performance File > >>System) > > > >In other words, a fatal flaw! (Unless, of course, it can be turned off.) > > First, yes, you can "turn it off" in that you may choose not to install > it in the first place, and OS/2 will use plain old FAT. But why in the > world would you want to? Well-behaved DOS apps can easily have all disk > accesses trapped and translated to the HPFS equivalent OS/2 calls without > the DOS app's knowledge. I don't understand why HPFS should be a fatal flaw - there has never been any statement that the FAT file system will be removed from OS/2 at any time in the near future; if anyone really needs it for compatibility then they can use it. But there is some really neat stuff in HPFS - it's a significantly better file structure, in features, performance, and reliability. And the vast majority of apps aren't going to be aware of whether they are on FAT or HPFS - only things like the Norton Utilities or the like; and the major ones in that category are going to become HPFS-aware over time. All of this glosses over the question of whether OS/2 will succeed in the _marketplace_; from everything I've heard about the new version it probably will succeed _technically_ but that's only a small part (some cynics would say not even a very relevant part) of what it takes to succeed in the marketplace. OS/2 has been hailed as the PC OS of the future so many times that it's become sort of like the boy that cried wolf - at this point it may be very difficult to convince the marketplace that the system has finally grown up. Its reputation is that it is overhyped, overpriced, oversized, undercapable, and incompatible; even if _all_ of these (real) problems are addressed, the perception will still remain in many people's minds. I'm not at _all_ sure I'd bet anything on it winning in the end, but not for reasons that have much to do with Doug's comments. Bruce C. Wright
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (04/22/91)
From article <15057@helios.TAMU.EDU>, by jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife): > Ah, but how well does it run on my Super-Yanqui 33MHz 80486 clone with the > RAM-Zap 1280x1024x256 color video card, the Really Scuzzy hard disk and > interface card, with Joe's Live Bait and Printers 7000 DPI laser printer? > > In other words, how do we get it to run on non-IBM hardware, and will they > support same? IMHO, I think not. From what I've heard, IBM has or will soon be publishing specs for microcomputer manufacturers which specify exactly what is required for hardware compatibility with OS/2. As long as the machines conform to these specs, everything should be fine. Anyone with machines that do not follow the specs can also write their own device drivers into an OEM version of the operating system. They've also announced about 20 clone makers that are currently using these specs, including companies like Compaq, Zenith, and even Olivetti. DISCLAIMER: I'm repeating this from memory from a message I read in the Fidonet OS/2 echomail area written by someone who attended the press conference. You heard of fuzzy logic? That's nothing compared to my fuzzy memory #8-) - Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (04/22/91)
So, what's it take to run all of this. Can my 286 run it? bruce -- | Bruce O'Neel | internet : oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov| | Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel | | NASA/GSFC Bld 28/W281 |compuserve: 72737,1315 | | Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-4585 | Thats me in the corner, thats me in the spotlight, losin' my religion -- rem
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/22/91)
In article <F0wR11w164w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes: > > > > There is an old saying about things which appear too good to be true, > > and another one regarding the relative birth rates of suckers. I well > > remember the heralding of the original OS/2 version and how flat it fell > > after actual release. Many of the features promised then are (apparently) > > being included, but let's wait for six months after actual public release > > before we decide, eh? > > Agreed. > > Too little too late. I already bought a NeXT. The other major problem with OS/2 (besides its dismal perception in the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything less than a 386 SX, so it will be in the unhappy position of having to fight off MS-DOS and Windows on the smaller 386's (and not even being able to touch the majority of Windows machines which are still running on fast 286's), and having to fight of Unix and Motif on the high end machines (big 386's and 486's). The other systems have their problems too, but they're already _there_, and a new & much improved Motif is due out just about the time that OS/2 V2.0 becomes commercially available. And the Unix/Motif combination is _already_ portable to RISC - no need for the "portable OS/2". If they had come out with this a year or two ago it could have been very different, but at this point the system's success is very problematic - but for reasons that have little to do with its technical merit (or lack thereof). Bruce C. Wright
cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) (04/22/91)
jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife) writes: >Ah, but how well does it run on my Super-Yanqui 33MHz 80486 clone with the >RAM-Zap 1280x1024x256 color video card, the Really Scuzzy hard disk and >interface card, with Joe's Live Bait and Printers 7000 DPI laser printer? >In other words, how do we get it to run on non-IBM hardware, and will they >support same? IMHO, I think not. It's my understanding that OS/2 2.0 includes heaps and heaps more device drivers than did previous versions, and if IBM is planning on the darn thing taking off in the marketplace, I'll guarantee that they'll make available the information necessary to write device drivers for really weird stuff like a 1280x1024x256 video system. --------------- SubThread 2: OS/2 is a typical IBM product. The first few versions are buggy and awful, and only barely give you an idea of what the product WILL be capable of. The next couple releases begin to fix bugs. After a year or four in the second or third MAJOR revision (eg, 2.0), the damn thing works like a charm. Of course, OS/2 is mostly Microsoft, but perhaps Microsoft is catching the bug from IBM... If OS/2 can overcome all the really nasty negative press that resulted from the first couple (shitty) versions, I'm betting it'll do well. Personally I'm going to run it (when I graduate and can afford to replace my non- upgradeable 1M 286 motherboard. And by the way (to he who asked), yes OS/2 2.0 will run on a 286--they recommend 4M, but 2M will do it. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! Adam Goldberg ! * ! "It's simple! Even a PASCAL ! ! cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu ! * ! programmer could do it!" ! +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
sitze@nmsu.edu (Richard Sitze) (04/23/91)
>The other major problem with OS/2 (besides its dismal perception in >the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, >and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything >less than a 386 SX, so it will be in the unhappy position of having >to fight off MS-DOS and Windows on the smaller 386's (and not even >being able to touch the majority of Windows machines which are still >nrunning on fast 286's), and having to fight of Unix and Motif on the >high end machines (big 386's and 486's). The other systems have >their problems too, but they're already _there_, and a new & much >improved Motif is due out just about the time that OS/2 V2.0 becomes >commercially available. >[stuff deleted] > > Bruce C. Wright Yes, but on the OTHER hand I bought into a DOS machine in the first place strictly for developing software products targeted towards the small business... And I'd DO ALMOST ANYTHING for a decent DOS development platform. I'm sorry, single DOS windows under earlier versions of OS/2 (and UNIX flavors) just don't do it for me. Windows 3.0 is 'close' but to slow for most things. I think any system that can provide the developement environment will (sooner or later) find it's place in almost any market, take a look at UNIX from that viewpoint... I'm still going to look real close before I really invest in any OS. <ras> -- +-------------------------- | Richard A. Sitze | sitze@nmsu.edu, phone: (505) 646-6228 SH 163
janeri@Lise.Unit.NO (Jan Eri) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.175529.2386@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: |> |> But yes, it runs DOS apps in a |> window, just like Windows 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode can. And you weren't |> listening when I said that it will run Windows 2.x and 3.x applications |> NATIVELY, ie WITHOUT starting up a DOS box, *side by side* with "real" |> OS/2 applications under Presentation Manager. I'm not sure about graphics |> programs; I've read so much info internally over the past 2 days. I |> *do* recall someone talking about a bug being fixed that allowed some |> graphics programs to be *displayed* under PM. In fact Windows 3.0 in |> enhanced mode can display DOS graphics programs in a window -- it can't |> *run* them all because most do direct writes to the video RAM and thus |> can't run concurrently with Windows. I suspect PM (Presentation Manager, |> the window manager for OS/2) has similar limitations. You probably wouldn't |> want to do this anyway. Trapping I/O instructions for writing out blocks |> of data to disk and translating to OS/2 calls can be done fairly efficiently. |> But trapping individual machine language instructions that access video |> memory would be incredibly slow no matter how smart you did it. Windows 3.0 |> can simulate CGA on my SuperVGA screen, but the graphics run 11 times |> slower (I just timed it using Fractint). NO, OS/2 Presentation Manager does not have the same limitations as Windows 3.0 in Enhanced mode. You can RUN several dos programs with graphic output at the same time without problems. Jan Eri - - - The Norwegian Institute of Technology janeri@lise.unit.no
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/23/91)
In article <cs352a41.672333249@zippy>, cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) writes: > And by the way (to he who asked), yes OS/2 2.0 will run on a 286--they > recommend 4M, but 2M will do it. Has this been changed? For many months now the official word has been that OS/2 V2.0 would require a 386 (at least an SX) because it required the use of some of the 386's modes that a 286 doesn't have. If it does run on a 286 then it may have less trouble competing with Windows, but on the other hand it may have more trouble competing with Unix/Motif - it could be perceived as more of a lower-end product, and having to accommodate the 286's 64K segments could mean that many products and applications would find it a less attractive platform. Bruce C. Wright
oivindt@bio.uio.no (Oivind Toien) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.175529.2386@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > the DOS app's knowledge. Even some moderately-behaved apps can be handled. > Only the truly nasty ones that try direct hardware access will fail, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > most developers don't write those any more because they know things like > that won't run even under Windows 3.0. (Yes, that *slightly* diminishes Although the direct hardware access mentioned above probably references to hard disk drives this poses the question: Real-time data-acquisition systems generally tends to use things like interrupt handling, DMA-access, reprogramming of PC-timers and direct interaction with A/D card buffers. Will this work, and if not: Does OS2 provide library routines that replaces these kind of functions? -- Oivind Toien <oivindt@ulrik.uio.no> Div. of General Physiology, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Oslo P.O. Box 1051, N-0316 Oslo 3, NORWAY Phone+47-2-454732 Fax+47-2-454726
eb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric James Bales) (04/23/91)
Does anyone know how device drivers work in OS/2? For instance, I use WinQVTnet in order to access my Unix and VMS accounts. From what's been said, OS/2 should be able to run WinQVTnet native. But what about device drivers for the network card? CluMan - Hunt -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- eb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu -Eric Kirkbride- atreis@anduin.compsci.liverpool.ac.uk -The second dolphin- Dolphins. Soon you will be one of us, and then you will understand.
meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) (04/23/91)
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >In article <cs352a41.672333249@zippy>, cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) writes: >> And by the way (to he who asked), yes OS/2 2.0 will run on a 286--they >> recommend 4M, but 2M will do it. >Has this been changed? For many months now the official word has >been that OS/2 V2.0 would require a 386 (at least an SX) because >it required the use of some of the 386's modes that a 286 doesn't >have. No, it has not changed -- Mr. Goldberg is obviously thinking of version 1.3 when he mentions the '286 and 2 megs of memory. OS/2 2.0 requires that a non-brain dead cpu be used, for real memory management -- which rules out the '286 and leaves us with `386 class or `486 cpus. Frankly, the reason OS/2 isn't already like v2.0 will be, is that a certain company with a three letter name wanted the `286 supported. I've heard that the programmers at Microsoft threw conniption fits when they heard this. Now Microsoft is pushing systems for `286s and up, while that other company is pushing the systems for the more advanced systems. How the world turns, eh? Don +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Don Meyer internet: dlmeyer@uiuc.edu "He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to any crime committed because of the lack of self defense."
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/23/91)
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, >and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything Get real. Who do you think will have shrink wrapped software first, OS/2, which MS is pushing, or Unix, which (somebody?) is pushing. Of course, real programmers use troff, but real users don't. -- It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr23.002101.14336@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >>the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, >>and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything > >Get real. Who do you think will have shrink wrapped software first, >OS/2, which MS is pushing, or Unix, which (somebody?) is pushing. > >Of course, real programmers use troff, but real users don't. > >-- > It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Isn't the purpose of the SPARCstation to provide a compatible hardware platfore which would enable the use of shrink-wrap software? Vive la SPARC if this is true. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Draper "College is supposed to prepare you for the future, cps.msu.edu but all my future's behind me." draper@cps.msu.edu -- My GrandPa, age 85, Fall 1990 graduate of Western Michigan University ------------------------------------------------------------------------
neves@duvel.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K) (04/23/91)
OS/2 1.3 is a 16 bit version of OS/2 that runs on 286/386/486 based computers and requires very little memory. OS/2 2.0 is a 32 bit operating system. As such its platform is limited to 386/486 based computers. Note: Since OS/2 2.0 takes advantage of the 386/486 32 bit architecture, it allows a *flat* memory model. This is a big plus to Unix developers who wouldn't go near dos with its insistence on a segmented memory model.
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (04/23/91)
In reply to various: Yes, OS/2 2.0 will (should) run on *any* 386 or 486, not just a PS/2. (And no, not on a 286. This is a 32 bit OS) In regard to compatibility at *all* levels (DOS x.y, hardware access by DOS, etc, etc): the statement coming from the developers is that from now on, any compatibily problem will be considered a problem with OS/2, and not a "well you should use a more modern version of your DOS app" reply. I'm about to say something that anyone who knows me thought they'd never hear me say: For a single user, multitasking system, OS/2 has the capability to blow the pants off any Unix system. (I'm usually a DOS and OS/2 critic and Unix flag waver.) This is because of the phrase "single user". Since there is only one user on OS/2, there is the concept of _THE_ foreground process, which is of course the process that is currently taking user input. This allows OS/2 to take advantage of this and give this process a unique, higher priority, so that no matter how busy the machine is in the background, whatever the foreground process is, it nearly always responds immediately, as if it was the only task running. (This foreground process is given priority over everything except processes that declare themselves as requiring real-time processing.) This has an amazing effect on perceived performance. This type of handling cannot be provided under Unix because there *is* no single "foreground" process; even if you're running X-windows and you see that window A is obviously your "foreground" process, there may some flunky logged in over the serial port running a nuclear reactor simulator that is not nice(1)'d. This happens even on the high end Unix boxes running X-windows. -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
cur022%cluster@ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) (04/23/91)
In article <10738@hub.ucsb.edu>, 6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (King of Sunset Town) writes: > > It can't be turned off. Then again, it doesn`t need to be. IBM has > been saying for months and months that OS/2 2.0 supports *multiple* > file systems. That way, you can have both DOS and OS/2 hard drives > mounted, along with, say, a CD-ROM, etc. I find this hard to believe. OS/2 1.2 and 1.3 support multiple disk partitions (like DOS), and any partition can be FAT or HPFS. The HPFS partitions aren't limited to 32MB. I have heard nothing to suggest that OS/2 2.x won't support FAT too (and find it highly improbable that FAT won't be supported). -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Bob Eager | University of Kent at Canterbury | +44 227 764000 ext 7589 -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
yev_g@athena.mit.edu (Yevgeny Gurevich) (04/23/91)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1991Apr21.135534.724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <15057@helios.TAMU.EDU> <cs352a41.672333249@zippy>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Keywords:
---------
I believe that the minimum hardware requirements for OS/2 v2.0 are a
386 or 386/SX and 2Meg RAM. (with ~16 megs of Hard Drive space for the OS)
I had thought that MicroSoft and IBM had invisioned OS/2 v1.x for 286 while
v2.x would only run on 386's. This is due to the fact that v2.0 is pure
32 bit OS and needs a 32bit cpu.
BTW, I use OS/2 v1.2 where I work. HPFS is transparent to DOS. i.e., when
I execute a DIR or COPY command IN THE "DOS BOX" on files in an HPFS drive,
OS/2 intercepts the commands the processes them accordingly. This means that
if I create the directories
DATA
More Data
Even More Data
DOS will be able to access the DATA directory, while the other two (notice
the long filenames, upper/lower caps) are not visible to DOS. Executing a
DIR will only make the DATA directory appear.
This is a very clean and efficient system which allows for some degree of
upward compatability of DOS with the HPFS.
[============================================================================]
[ Yevgeny Gurevich | yev_g@athena.mit.edu \.\...]...........// ]
[ 500 Memorial Drive | \.\..]..........// ]
[ Cambridge, Mass. 02139 | \.\.].........// ]
[ ========================| \.\]__......// ]
[ "Tech is Hell!" |.]__\..../| ]
[===========================================================|.]...\../.|=====]
|_]____\/__|cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) (04/23/91)
oivindt@bio.uio.no (Oivind Toien) writes: >Real-time data-acquisition systems generally tends to use things like >interrupt handling, DMA-access, reprogramming of PC-timers and direct >interaction with A/D card buffers. Will this work, and if not: Does >OS2 provide library routines that replaces these kind of functions? >-- >Oivind Toien <oivindt@ulrik.uio.no> >Div. of General Physiology, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Oslo Looks like Dr. Toien (?) is trying to adjust a watch with a sledgehammer. Real-time data-acquisition systems are 'REAL TIME SYSTEMS', and real time systems generally _are_not_suited_to_ multi-tasking. If you want real time data acquisition, you should use an operating system more conducive to real-time programming. Pardon me if I seem harsh, but each operating system has its purpose, and has things that it is and is not suited for. OS/2 is multi-tasking, and therefore is not suited for (very many) real-time problems. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! Adam Goldberg ! * ! "It's simple! Even a PASCAL ! ! cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu ! * ! programmer could do it!" ! +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr23.002101.14336@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, > >and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything > > Get real. Who do you think will have shrink wrapped software first, > OS/2, which MS is pushing, or Unix, which (somebody?) is pushing. I'm not so sure Microsoft is pushing OS/2 all that hard. But not too many years ago they were pushing Xenix as a high end solution ... which didn't make very many shrink wrapped apps appear for it 8-). It's possible that talking about which of these systems will have shrink wrapped software first is talking about the null set. I'm not at all sure that whether software is shrink wrapped is the be-all and end-all, especially for high-end software. Even now for DOS, there are plenty of high-end packages that you rarely or never see on the shelf - the things you see on the shelves tend to be the very most popular (and relatively inexpensive) packages. The problem with OS/2 is that that niche may become permanently occupied by enhanced versions of Windows, which we know are going to appear over the next couple of years. From what I've heard of Windows 4.0, (due out in around a year or 18 months or so), it's not clear that there will be much room left for OS/2 between the Windows and Xwindows territory. In other words, the rest of the world - even within Microsoft - isn't sitting still waiting to see what's going to happen with OS/2. If it takes OS/2 (or any other product for that matter) too long to get its act together, other products will take its place and it will miss its market window. Permanently. I don't know if it's too late for OS/2, but it's getting late, and it will have to overcome both whatever technical problems may remain (it appears to be doing this, just taking a long time doing so), and overcome its poor perception in the market before something else comes along that doesn't have its bad reputation. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on the outcome either way. Bruce C. Wright
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/23/91)
In article <1103@opus.NMSU.Edu>, sitze@nmsu.edu (Richard Sitze) writes: > Yes, but on the OTHER hand I bought into a DOS machine in the > first place strictly for developing software products targeted > towards the small business... And I'd DO ALMOST ANYTHING for > a decent DOS development platform. I'm sorry, single DOS windows > under earlier versions of OS/2 (and UNIX flavors) just don't do > it for me. Windows 3.0 is 'close' but to slow for most things. > > I think any system that can provide the developement environment > will (sooner or later) find it's place in almost any market, take > a look at UNIX from that viewpoint... I'm not so sanguine that any OS with a reasonable development environment will make it. There's more than that that's required to make it in the marketplace. Maybe I've seen too many "nice development environments" fail miserably because of one reason or another ... Concurrent CP/M, Concurrent DOS, CTOS, ... the list goes on and on. OK, so they may not be very nice by modern standards, but at the time they came out they were, by comparison with many of the alternatives, very attractive systems. But it was the alternatives that succeeded - often for reasons that had relatively little to do with narrow issues of technical merit. John Dvorak recently (PC magazine, 30 April 1991, p. 83) made the comment that systems that were successful were easy for the end-user and hard for the developer. I think this is looking at things the wrong way: I think that the issue, at least for mass-market items, is how easy things are for the end-user; how easy (or hard) they are for the developer is not very relevant - the market doesn't really care how easy or hard it is. If anything, a nicer system for development can promote nicer end-user products, but it doesn't guarantee them and it's hardly required for making them. There's also no reason that software has to be run on the system used to develop it - but whether a system is popular with developers is hardly a guarantee of success. But this is just talking about technical issues, which I feel are only a part of the equation. Bruce C. Wright
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (04/23/91)
>This has an amazing effect on perceived performance. This type >of handling cannot be provided under Unix because there *is* no single >"foreground" process; even if you're running X-windows and you see >that window A is obviously your "foreground" process, there may some >flunky logged in over the serial port running a nuclear reactor >simulator that is not nice(1)'d. This happens even on the high end >Unix boxes running X-windows. Unless you're running a Next, which does give the foreground priority. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
merrill@cs.arizona.edu (Darren J. Merrill) (04/24/91)
Ok, I have a question that I have not seen addressed... With all this talk about font management (ATM especially) and now OS/2, I pose the question: What is built into OS/2 ver 2.0? Is it like ver 1.3 where they include ATM or does it contain the long awaited (please, please, cross-my-fingers-please) TrueType built in? Perhaps not as technologically interesting as handling interrupts, scheduling or HPFS, it is little things (or big) like this that will make or break OS/2 in the non-techie end-user mind. /* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Darren Merrill merrill@cs.arizona.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
barry@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Barry Lay) (04/24/91)
There was a suggestion that real time hardware management should not be done with a multi-tasking operating system. While I perhaps understand the reasons for this (mainly to do with interrupt performance and timeliness), I would like to point out that there are cases where real time stuff is useful under a multi-tasking system, and in fact is already being done. There is a company called Inotek which markets CIMple Data, a real time data collection program which interfaces with an ARTIC card in the PC that in turn interfaces with a variety of data collection terminals such as the IBM 7527. This program runs under OS/2 and will communicate with other programs such as Excel and SAS via DDE. This last facility allows for the user to create data handling scripts in a familiar language. By the way, I don't work for these guys, I just saw a demo at the last SUGI. My understanding of the way that device drivers are dealt with in OS/2 is that you can install them at different levels depending on your requirement. If all you want to do is take over port n and use it in a single program (even under DOS compatiblity), you can issue a MODE command which will give you exclusive control and do whatever you want with it. If you want to provide many simultaneous programs with access to the device, you will have to write a driver which lives a little closer to the kernel. One thing to remember while evaluating OS/2: it is much better than Windows at interrupt handling and task switching because it doesn't need to switch back to real mode every time it needs DOS-like facilities. As for allowing OS/2 to step out of the way when games are being played, if the game will absolutely not run in compatibility mode one can always install dual boot and switch back to native DOS (or boot from a floppy :-). Barry
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/24/91)
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) writes: >Isn't the purpose of the SPARCstation to provide a compatible hardware >platfore which would enable the use of shrink-wrap software? Where is all this great, cheap, software going to come from? Sun? ha ha. Interactive, who wants about $2,000 just for an operating system? SCO, who wants even more? Some places it won't come from: Microsoft, DEC, HP, MIPS, Apple, etc. -- It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
nataraj@celebrity.Eng.Sun.COM (Nataraj) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr23.025053.956@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) writes: |> In article <1991Apr23.002101.14336@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: |> >bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: |> >>the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, |> >>and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything |> > |> >Get real. Who do you think will have shrink wrapped software first, |> >OS/2, which MS is pushing, or Unix, which (somebody?) is pushing. |> > What is OS/2 2.0 and what is OS/2 NT which MS is supposedly developing. Is it like the Unix split (SysV and BSD )?? nataraj/.
daly@ecs.umass.edu (Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst) (04/24/91)
In article <12097@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, nataraj@celebrity.Eng.Sun.COM (Nataraj) writes: > <stuff deleted> > What is OS/2 2.0 and what is OS/2 NT which MS is supposedly developing. > Is it like the Unix split (SysV and BSD )?? > > nataraj/. OS/2 was originally planned (and still might be?) as the successor of DOS, and was to deliver capabilites similar to more powerful OS's like UNIX (things like preemptive multitasking, which DOS/Windows does not deliver), along with a GUI environment. Early versions of OS/2 failed to deliver all they promised, and never took a strong market position. OS/2 v2.0 claims to rectify many earlier problems and deliver what was promised several years back (finally). Most people are saying "We'll see". From what I've heard the NT in OS/2 NT stands for New Technology and is MS's plan for the future of OS/2 / DOS. It is supposed to be high end stuff, with miraculous unheard of new features. OS/2 2.0 is just a step along the way towards NT. I wouldn't start lining up in software stores for it quite yet, though (to understate the fact). -Bryon daly@ecs.umass.edu
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/24/91)
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >I'm not so sure Microsoft is pushing OS/2 all that hard. But One thing I should point out is that I am talking about OS/2 as the same thing as the next generation of Windows. Not the lame OS/2 1.1 or even OS/2 2.0, but the "NT" OS that MS talks about. >The problem with OS/2 >is that that niche may become permanently occupied by enhanced >versions of Windows, which we know are going to appear over That won't hurt MS NT, it will run Win binaries too. >the next couple of years. From what I've heard of Windows 4.0, >(due out in around a year or 18 months or so), it's not clear >that there will be much room left for OS/2 between the Windows >and Xwindows territory. That's the point, that Win and OS/2 will become the same thing. -- It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr22.043548.13530@rti.rti.org> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >Don't be so hard on yourself - it isn't a bad example at all. Doug, >you just don't know what you're talking about. Writing communications >software is one of the things I do for a living; people pay me lots >of money to get these things to talk to each other. Doug's claims >struck me as just blowing so much smoke, so on a whim I fired up a >9600 baud download on the MicroVAX II class machine I was running >on, and found it took just about 25% of the CPU. Now the MicroVAX II >is nowhere near a 33MHz 386 - it's probably not even the equivalent >of a 16MHz 386SX in terms of raw CPU power; it doesn't even have a >memory cache. I'm not sure offhand what the proper figure ought to >be (most of my comm software is written for VAX machines), but 30% >of the CPU is way too high. > >Properly written communications software on a modern operating system >doesn't _have_ any "wait loops" in the sense of the traditional DOS >busy wait polling loop - it goes to sleep waiting for an event of Well Bruce, windows 3.0 is NOT an OS, it is a message-passing window manager FOR DOS!!! By definition it is not as efficient as a true multitasking system. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about :-) P.S. Note the smiley, it is used to indicate humour, you should learn to use it. Your remark in the second sentence above sounds very condescending (net-etiquette is important...) > > Bruce C. Wright -Phil -- * Phil Pranno | | /\ Shred your * * gumby@cs.mcgill.ca | "I feel a song | | \ head 'till * * gumby@emf1.lan.mcgill.ca | coming on." | _\__\__, your dead *
oivindt@bio.uio.no (Oivind Toien) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr23.180427.15016@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> barry@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Barry Lay) writes: > There was a suggestion that real time hardware management should not be done > with a multi-tasking operating system. While I perhaps understand the reasons > for this (mainly to do with interrupt performance and timeliness), I would like > to point out that there are cases where real time stuff is useful under a > multi-tasking system, and in fact is already being done. > There is a company called Inotek which markets CIMple Data, a real time data > collection program which interfaces with an ARTIC card in the PC that in turn > interfaces with a variety of data collection terminals such as the IBM 7527. > This program runs under OS/2 and will communicate with other programs such as > Excel and SAS via DDE. This last facility allows for the user to create data > handling scripts in a familiar language. By the way, I don't work for these > guys, I just saw a demo at the last SUGI. > My understanding of the way that device drivers are dealt with in OS/2 is that > you can install them at different levels depending on your requirement. If > all you want to do is take over port n and use it in a single program (even > under DOS compatiblity), you can issue a MODE command which will give you > exclusive control and do whatever you want with it. If you want to provide > many simultaneous programs with access to the device, you will have to write > a driver which lives a little closer to the kernel. One thing to remember > while evaluating OS/2: it is much better than Windows at interrupt handling > and task switching because it doesn't need to switch back to real mode every > time it needs DOS-like facilities. As for allowing OS/2 to step out of the > way when games are being played, if the game will absolutely not run in > compatibility mode one can always install dual boot and switch back to > native DOS (or boot from a floppy :-). > Barry The kind of application I am presently considering porting to windows (and which later may then run under OS2) uses *one* real-time procedure; an interrupt procedure that reads an A/D converter and stores the data in a buffer. It is the triggering of this interrupt procedure that needs to have priority in real-time. I am here talking about sampling rates of 1-200 Hz, but in a few instances up to 2000Hz for short periods of time. The rest of the program then do the data-processing, graphic display, and input of comments. This part do not need to be real time, it only needs to catch up with the actual sampling over a time period of a few seconds to prevent overrun of the data-buffer. The little I have seen of windows-programming up to now, gives me too the impression that this latter part can work better with an object-oriented graphic interface. The data then could be processed in different ways in different windows. One window could calculate and display averaged data, while another could display graphics of each sampled point. And the program would be much easyer to use. What concerns me a little is that the timer-ticks in windows in some cases stops (for instance when pressing the title-bar to move a window). So it may be risky (and to slow) to use these. If interrupt procedures works under OS2 and windows, the whole thing might be possible. If high-resolution timers which could be given priority exists in OS2, it would be even better. From the foregoing discussion it seems to mee that Unix is not the environment to do this kind of stuff (except the Next). Oivind -- Oivind Toien <oivindt@ulrik.uio.no> Div. of General Physiology, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Oslo P.O. Box 1051, N-0316 Oslo 3, NORWAY Phone+47-2-454732 Fax+47-2-454726
news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System) (04/24/91)
>From what I've heard the NT in OS/2 NT stands for New Technology and is MS's >plan for the future of OS/2 / DOS. It is supposed to be high end stuff, with >miraculous unheard of new features. OS/2 2.0 is just a step along the way >towards NT. I wouldn't start lining up in software stores for it quite yet, >though (to understate the fact). The NT OS/2, which will be OS/2 3.0, is to run on other machines. I believe the first will be MIPS based systems and then RS 6000, Sparcs and so on. Bill Yow yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov My opinions are my own.
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr24.032647.16025@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes: > In article <1991Apr22.043548.13530@rti.rti.org> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >Properly written communications software on a modern operating system > >doesn't _have_ any "wait loops" in the sense of the traditional DOS > >busy wait polling loop - it goes to sleep waiting for an event of > > Well Bruce, windows 3.0 is NOT an OS, it is a message-passing > window manager FOR DOS!!! By definition it is not as efficient > as a true multitasking system. Maybe you don't know what you're > talking about :-) You can (and probably should) conclude from my remark that I don't consider Windows (even V3.0) to be a particularly "modern" operating system (possibly not an operating system at all, though the distinction can become somewhat philosophical when you're talking about things that so completely change the behavior of the underlying (overlying?) system - consider HASP or VM for the IBM mainframes). Windows still betrays its roots from the early 80's - even then, in many respects, it wasn't really very sophisticated for its time. > P.S. Note the smiley, it is used to indicate humour, you should learn > to use it. Your remark in the second sentence above [deleted - bcw] > sounds very condescending (net-etiquette is important...) The previous thread had struck me as rather rude, and came from someone who has somewhat of a history of being rude. I was feeling somewhat annoyed at that point and decided to be rude back ... in other words the condescension was purely intentional. I don't bite very often ... only when I have a specific purpose in mind. Bruce C. Wright
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr24.015441.11392@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >the next couple of years. From what I've heard of Windows 4.0, > >(due out in around a year or 18 months or so), it's not clear > >that there will be much room left for OS/2 between the Windows > >and Xwindows territory. > > That's the point, that Win and OS/2 will become the same thing. It's not quite so clear from I've seen that Windows and OS/2 will become the same thing. There is talk of incorporating some things from OS/2 into Windows (HPFS, pre-emptive multi- tasking, etc), but I've not seen anything from any source that I'd consider very reliable that they would become the _exact_ _same_ _thing_. If they did, then the OS would be in the rather difficult position that it would be cutting off the 286's entirely. Now I'd be the first to agree that the 386 is a better chip, but if support is to be dropped for the 286, it seems to me that this is just cutting off your nose to spite your face - dropping the 286 is OK for a higher-end OS, but many Windows machines are fast 286's, not 386's; Windows is aimed more at medium-level systems (though it will work on the low and high ends as well). I'm not sure this would be such a great idea. Bruce C. Wright
neves@anchor.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K) (04/24/91)
re: OS/2 1.2 and 1.3 support of FAT file system Yes, OS/2 1.2 / 1.3 support both HPFS and FAT (both with large partitions). Someone else already mentioned this but... OS/2 1.2 and newer supports 'installable' file systems. If a new media comes along (like CD-ROM), write your own file system and stick it on OS/2 yourself. re: OS/2 is easy for developers and hard for users Yes. OS/2 is a great development environment simply because it is multitasking. Windows doesn't cut it as a multitasker. If you are a developer of software that is DOS/Windows based, OS/2 is your system. No. OS/2 is just as user friendly for users as Windows is. Rich
brian@king.csd.mot.com (04/24/91)
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) writes: >>>the marketplace). The high end is already owned by things like NeXT, >>>and Unix with Xwindows and Motif. OS/2 V2.0 won't run on anything >>Get real. Who do you think will have shrink wrapped software first, >>OS/2, which MS is pushing, or Unix, which (somebody?) is pushing. >Isn't the purpose of the SPARCstation to provide a compatible hardware >platfore which would enable the use of shrink-wrap software? No, the purpose of the SPARCstation is to sell Sun computers. :-) Really, the 88open consortium is way ahead of MIPS, SPARC International, Intel, ACE, et al, in creating platform and application standards which enable shrink-wrapped UNIX software which is independent of hardware and system architecture. This isn't to say that the new OS/2 will or will not be successful, or anything else for that matter. It's just a plug for 88open and a slam for SPARC. :-)
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (04/25/91)
<1) Disk *writes* can be buffered under HPFS. As far as I know, all < the DOS disk cachers under FAT are write-through, so that you can < turn your machine off immediately after doing a write without losing Most DOS disk cachers I have used include staged/delayed writes to disk, including re-ordering for optimal access in some, and elimination of redundant writes in others. But perhaps HPFS has other benefits besides this. <OS/2 applications under Presentation Manager. I'm not sure about graphics <programs; I've read so much info internally over the past 2 days. I <*do* recall someone talking about a bug being fixed that allowed some <graphics programs to be *displayed* under PM. In fact Windows 3.0 in <enhanced mode can display DOS graphics programs in a window -- it can't <*run* them all because most do direct writes to the video RAM and thus <can't run concurrently with Windows. I suspect PM (Presentation Manager, <the window manager for OS/2) has similar limitations. You probably wouldn't <want to do this anyway. Trapping I/O instructions for writing out blocks <of data to disk and translating to OS/2 calls can be done fairly efficiently. <But trapping individual machine language instructions that access video <memory would be incredibly slow no matter how smart you did it. Windows 3.0 The "smart" method, used by DesqView-386 and perhaps others, is to simply use the 386 virtual memory to remap "normal" memory in place of the task's apparent "video memory", and let it write away at will. The supervisory code periodically refreshes the window on the "real" screen from the virtual windows of each such nasty program. -- MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario *** Personal views only *** begin 644 NOTSHARE.COM ; Free MS-DOS utility - use instead of SHARE.EXE MZQ.0@/P/=`J`_!9T!2[_+H``L/_/+HX&+`"T2<TAO@,!OX0`N1(`C,B.P/.DS <^K@A-<TAB1Z``(P&@@"ZA`"X(27-(?NZE@#-)P#-5 `` end
jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife) (04/25/91)
I'm posting the following for Larry and his broken news-reader. My system has two ways to follow-up on the net, RN and GNEWS. Both are currently broke. As a result I am replying directly to you. If you think this is of interest could you post it? With Borland Pascal for Windows, Borland C++, and Borland ObjectVision there are several under $500.00 ways to develop for Windows. What is the price and options for OS2 V2? Much higher? Fewer tools available? +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | | | | Larry Maturo | Opinions expressed herein must be | | Applied Research Laboratories | yours, neither I nor my employer have | | University of Texas at Austin | any. | | P.O. Box 8029 +----------------------------------------+ | Austin, Texas 78713-8029 | | | | When you're as great as I am it's hard | | larry @titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu | to be modest, but I succeed where | | | others fail. | +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ -- Jeff Rife P.O. Box 3836 | "Because he was human; because he had goodness; College Station, TX 77844 | because he was moral they called him insane. (409) 823-2710 | Delusions of grandeur; visons of splendor; jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
jbhuber@IASTATE.EDU (Huber Joseph Blaine) (04/25/91)
In article <cs352a41.672418953@zaphod>, cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) writes: > oivindt@bio.uio.no (Oivind Toien) writes: > > >Real-time data-acquisition systems generally tends to use things like > >interrupt handling, DMA-access, reprogramming of PC-timers and direct > >interaction with A/D card buffers. Will this work, and if not: Does > >OS2 provide library routines that replaces these kind of functions? > > >-- > >Oivind Toien <oivindt@ulrik.uio.no> > >Div. of General Physiology, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Oslo > > Looks like Dr. Toien (?) is trying to adjust a watch with a sledgehammer. > Real-time data-acquisition systems are 'REAL TIME SYSTEMS', and real time > systems generally _are_not_suited_to_ multi-tasking. If you want real > time data acquisition, you should use an operating system more conducive > to real-time programming. > > Pardon me if I seem harsh, but each operating system has its purpose, and > has things that it is and is not suited for. OS/2 is multi-tasking, and > therefore is not suited for (very many) real-time problems. > -- I disagree with Mr. Goldberg. In our particular setting the pc is used for many purposes: taking real time data, data analysis, writing reports, publishing graphs, spreadsheets, MS-windows, etc. Essentially, the same uses as any body elses pc, except for the addition of real time data acquisition. Hence, we can benefit from multitasking as well as the next user. However, what a drag it would be if we had to carry two operating systems on the machine simply because OS/2 can't handle real time data acquisition. In fact, in our research, the experiment may take up to an hour to come to steady state. It would be great to have the data acquisition program running in one window so that I could periodically monitor the progress of the experiment, while performing data analysis or some other task in another window. Joe Huber Dept. of Mech. Egr. Iowa State University jbhuber@iastate.edu
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/25/91)
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >The "smart" method, used by DesqView-386 and perhaps others, is to simply use >the 386 virtual memory to remap "normal" memory in place of the task's >apparent "video memory", and let it write away at will. The supervisory code >periodically refreshes the window on the "real" screen from the virtual windows >of each such nasty program. Except that they refuse to support Super-VGA. Not that it couldn't be done, they're just too lazy. -- It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
dagln@msa3b.UUCP (David Anglin) (04/25/91)
Although it is a little early to start selling the benefits of OS/2 2.0 over
Windows 3.0, I would like the nets input on the following issues. I believe
these issues are related to OS/2, since OS/2 is being touted as solving these
problems.
1. Running DOS applications under Windows.
We have experienced mixed results in running DOS applications under
Windows. When we run a mix of Windows/DOS applications it is not
unusual to experience the dreaded "Unrecoverable Applicatons Error".
In addition, the machine is likely to hang with an "internal stack
overflow message. (WordPerfect, Kermit, Procom, SPFPC, dbase, PC3270
Entry Level Emulation, etc.)
2. Networking
Although we have Windows working in a networking environment, it was not
easy to set up or maintain. Windows 3.0 may be "network aware", but it is
certainly not very friendly. When using Windows on network workstations, we
have experienced problems maintaining a long term connection with the server Some of these problem cleared up with an upgrade disk from Microsoft, but
sporadic problems still occur.
3. Memory Management
Well, what can I say. The underlying DOS limit of 640k is still a problem
under Windows if you are trying to do any significant networking. We are
running multiple protocol stacks at the worksation in order to connect to
the company LAN and RS/6000 database serverss (LAN Server & TCP/IP). The
Windows software for TCP/IP (Novell LAN Workplace) works great, but we
are hard pressed for DOS memory. It really starts getting interesting
when you try to add things like fax gateways, modem pools and client
server computing.
4. Performance
I heard a few gripes about moving to HPFS, but not all change is bad.
Although disk drives are getting faster, we are running them in a brain
n damaged condition with the FAT table. In addition, is really necessary
to get an hour glass when you send a document to print.
These are a few of the issues we have with Windows. If OS/2 solves or makes
these issues go away, I'm interested.
rob@pcad.UUCP (Ralph Brown) (04/25/91)
In article <6567@bwdls58.bnr.ca>, mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: > <But trapping individual machine language instructions that access video > <memory would be incredibly slow no matter how smart you did it. Windows 3.0 > > The "smart" method, used by DesqView-386 and perhaps others, is to simply use > the 386 virtual memory to remap "normal" memory in place of the task's > apparent "video memory", and let it write away at will. The supervisory code > periodically refreshes the window on the "real" screen from the virtual windows > of each such nasty program. For graphics this doesn't really work since EGA and VGA use 4 (or more for SVGA) bits per pixel and a simple graphics processor to load the data. Thus what appears to be a simple memory write to a memory manager is really more like an IO operation to a device register. It's necessary to know how the graphics processor is set up to know what is actually being done with a write to graphics memory. Each memory address is really affecting several color planes and/or a mask of bits, so just mapping the video memory into another RAM block won't capture what is happening on the screen. Ralph
neves@chimay.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K) (04/26/91)
David, 9 months ago I spent the summer interning at Microsoft when Microsoft was the primary developer/tester of OS/2 2.0. Having used OS/2 2.0 for the summer, there might be some merit to my comments. If you want to know more about the design philosophy behind OS/2 you should take a look at Gordon L.'s book "Inside OS/2". >1. Running DOS applications under Windows. > We have experienced mixed results in running DOS applications under > Windows. When we run a mix of Windows/DOS applications it is not > unusual to experience the dreaded "Unrecoverable Applicatons Error". > In addition, the machine is likely to hang with an "internal stack > overflow message. (WordPerfect, Kermit, Procom, SPFPC, dbase, PC3270 > Entry Level Emulation, etc.) When I used/developed on OS/2 2.0 9 months ago (when it was less stable) I had very little problems with dos applications crashing. When a dos app did crash, it *never* brought the whole machine down. Windows is faking a multitasking environment. It's just another application running on top of a single tasking DOS. It is very difficult for Windows to insure protection among tasks. OS/2 is a real protected OS. Services are organized into rings of protection. The kernel is allowed services in ring 0 and the hierarchy continues up. For example, the programmer can't modify OS services like you can under DOS. While I ran OS/2 that summer, the machine crashed maybe 3 or 4 times. Since this was 9 months ago, you can bet things are much more stable. I don't mean to be repetitive, but OS/2 is a real operating system like unix or VMS. Virtual memory, protection, process (heavy and light weight - not that unix or vms has threads), etc. >2. Networking I'm very pc network ignorant so I won't even try to react to this in detail. I can say that OS/2 integrates *very well* with Microsoft LAN manager. ( to be expected :). I've also read in many of the rags that network managers like OS/2 for its ability to function as a LAN server operating system. The machine (server) doesn't have to be dedicated since OS/2 is a protected, multitasking operating system. You can use the server for other things, you don't have to worry about crashing the server since crashing a process won't bring the whole machine down (like UAE's in windows). OS/2 also makes it easier to interactively monitor network performance. >3. Memory Management > Well, what can I say. The underlying DOS limit of 640k is still a problem > under Windows if you are trying to do any significant networking. We are > running multiple protocol stacks at the worksation in order to connect to > the company LAN and RS/6000 database serverss (LAN Server & TCP/IP). The > Windows software for TCP/IP (Novell LAN Workplace) works great, but we > are hard pressed for DOS memory. It really starts getting interesting > when you try to add things like fax gateways, modem pools and client > server computing. In OS/2 the 640k limit is only applicable in DOS applications running in the DOS boxes (emulators). Since the networking packages (and other drivers) would be native to OS/2, they wouldn't/don't impose 'core' memory limitations since OS/2 2.0 memory is flat, 32 bit memory. There' ain't no 64k segments. Keep in mind that the magic 640k is purely a DOS invention. One bad item: At the time I used 2.0, to get decent performance out of 2.0 you had to have around 8 meg of ram at least. Supposedly IBM has cranked this down to 4 meg for 2.0 now. >4. Performance > I heard a few gripes about moving to HPFS, but not all change is bad. > Although disk drives are getting faster, we are running them in a brain > n damaged condition with the FAT table. In addition, is really necessary > to get an hour glass when you send a document to print. HPFS is fast and wonderful. There's no issue there. Changing to a new file system is not expected to be painless, but HPFS does the best you can expect: DOS apps don't know there running on HPFS (as long as they aren't doing direct reads/writes). One of the things I thought was annoying was that you'd get use to HPFS and start creating these super long file names, and then you'd pull out a dos app and the dos app would only understand a truncated version of the filename. Printing was, for a while, the painful flaw in OS/2. IBM fixed it in 1.3 and has probably fixed it in 2.0 also. Having to wait for something to finish printing in a multitasking environment is silly and that isn't the way it works in OS/2 1.3. What will you like about the feel of OS/2? Multitasking in Windows is very "clunky". This is one of the things you'll like about OS/2 2.0 is that the multitasking is smooth. Another thing you'll like about using/developing with OS/2 is that it is very much a protected operating system. One bad application won't bring the whole system to its knees. No UAE's. You'll love having a flat memory model. It is a dos programmer's dream come true. NO MORE MEMORY MODELS!!!!! Yuck. Hope this has been helpful, Rich btw, the one reason I wouldn't use OS/2 is that there aren't so many neat wizzy applications for it. This is no longer even an issue since OS/2 2.0 runs windows apps natively. One other reason I might not use OS/2 is that the drivers I might have for video hardware, networks, printers, fax cards, or whatever else you can think are not available for OS/2. Depending on how long it takes manufactures to come out with drivers for OS/2, this could be a problem.
jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (04/27/91)
The best way for Micro$oft/IBM to guarantee acceptance of OS/2 2.0 is
to avoid calling it OS/2. Why not just call it Windows 4.0?
--
Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems
UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway
Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134
Help stamp out vi in our lifetime. (408) 432-6200kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (04/27/91)
In article <4837@gumby.Altos.COM> jerry@altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) writes: > >The best way for Micro$oft/IBM to guarantee acceptance of OS/2 2.0 is >to avoid calling it OS/2. Why not just call it Windows 4.0? The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is to bring the price in line with competitive OS's. If OS/2, MSC, and SDK were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes. Compare ESIX S5R3, which includes a development system (compiler, assembler, libraries, include files), TCP/IP networking, the X Window System, and too much more to mention here, with OS/2. I don't know current prices, much less student discounts, so, these are from memory, and they're old. OS/2, $300. PM SDK, $1500. MSC, $350. Or, DOS, $75-100. Windows, $125. MSC, still $350. Windows SDK, $325. ESIX, at $825, is the clear winner. 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. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov Meep Meep Roadrunner Veep veep Quayle
bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is >to bring the price in line with competitive OS's. If OS/2, MSC, and SDK >were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes. >Compare ESIX S5R3, which includes a development system (compiler, assembler, >libraries, include files), TCP/IP networking, the X Window System, and >too much more to mention here, with OS/2. [prices deleted] >... ESIX, at $825, is the clear winner. Okay: *r = retail price, *s = "street" price, or what one would expect to pay, *e = edu price, and ~ means best guess. Prices from vendors in latest PC Rag and local campus computer store. All below probably "need" a 386 w/ 4mb RAM and 60mb HD's. OS/2 Dev cost: OS/2 SE 1.3 $150 *r ~$90 *e MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e OS/2 SDK ~$400 *s $350 *e ----------- total: $850 $705 edu Windows Dev cost: DOS 4.0 $75 *s $75 *s Windows 3.0 $90 *s $80 *e MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e MS Windows SDK $325 *s $260 *e ----------- total: $790 $680 edu Alt Win Dev cost: DOS 3.3 $60 *s Windows 3.0 $90 *s Borland C++ $325 *s ----------- total: $475 (edu pricing N/A) What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like would probably be built in Windows first. Also, most of the companies that build such apps need the *large* installed base right now to stay afloat. However, for big programs and those that need the multi-threaded, protected VM, and multitasking of a real OS, (ie. PageMaker, SAS, Mathematica, Excel, etc.) it would probably make sense to build these in OS/2 instead of stuffing and pounding it into Windows. The prices above do not take into account the fact that ESIX has TCP/IP. However, ESIX currently needs seamless integration into Novell and other PC based LAN systems to penetrate the PC market, while TCP/IP is available in many forms to DOS/Windows and OS/2 users. Also, while the target audience of the Windows-OS/2 products and that of X-Windows/UNIX systems on 386's do intersect, they are mostly different. I could not recommend X-Windows/UNIX systems to most people. Until implementations like the NeXT become mainstream UNIX, UNIX is too cryptic and cumbersome. Many people do not *need* are *want* to have multi-user capability on their 386's; it would be dead weight. DOS/Windows and OS/2 on the otherhand, I can envision on most anybody's desk. -- Bill Chin internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu PC/IP, Computer Science Center NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu U-Maryland, College Park *Standard Disclaimers Apply*
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (04/27/91)
>> That's the point, that Win and OS/2 will become the same thing. >It's not quite so clear from I've seen that Windows and OS/2 >will become the same thing. There is talk of incorporating >some things from OS/2 into Windows (HPFS, pre-emptive multi- >tasking, etc), but I've not seen anything from any source >that I'd consider very reliable that they would become the >_exact_ _same_ _thing_. Well, Windows is supposed to be the new front end (or "environment") to OS/2, as it is for DOS. So it'll run Windows for DOS binaries under OS/2. I even heard a Microsoft sales rep say that they were dropping Presentation Manager in favor of Windows for OS/2.. though what the difference is I can't say (the old Windows 2.2 was actually called "Pre- sentation Manager" on the installation disks). How about this rumor that OS/2 will be ported over to the 68000 series processors? That even- tually we'd be running Windows binaries on Macs? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (04/29/91)
Regarding: 1) OS/2 2.0 will run independent DOS boxes with lots of free memory (lots == usually more than 600K); it'll even run different *versions* of DOS concurrently. 2) OS/2 is very networkable. You can "mount" remote disks and make them look local, just like NFS. You can also write you're own device drivers. It would be relatively easy to write an NFS client for OS/2. 3) Of course since OS/2 2.0 is a real flat memory model OS, you won't have these memory problems. 4) HPFS gives far better performance than FAT, even FAT with disk caching. And you can print concurrently. (I've never used anything earlier than OS/2 1.2, so I never even knew there was a version that didn't allow concurrent printing.) -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (05/02/91)
bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >In article <1991Apr26.211100.7830@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >>The absolute best way to guarantee acceptance of any version of OS/2 is >>to bring the price in line with competitive OS's. If OS/2, MSC, and SDK >>were $400, total, it'd sell like proverbial hotcakes. >Okay: >*r = retail price, *s = "street" price, or what one would expect to pay, >*e = edu price, and ~ means best guess. >Prices from vendors in latest PC Rag and local campus computer store. >All below probably "need" a 386 w/ 4mb RAM and 60mb HD's. > OS/2 Dev cost: > OS/2 SE 1.3 $150 *r ~$90 *e > MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e > OS/2 SDK ~$400 *s $350 *e > ----------- > total: $850 $705 edu > Windows Dev cost: > DOS 4.0 $75 *s $75 *s > Windows 3.0 $90 *s $80 *e > MS-C 6.0 $300 *s $265 *e > MS Windows SDK $325 *s $260 *e > ----------- > total: $790 $680 edu > > Alt Win Dev cost: > DOS 3.3 $60 *s > Windows 3.0 $90 *s > Borland C++ $325 *s > ----------- > total: $475 (edu pricing N/A) Alt Win Dev cost: DOS 3.3 $60 *s Windows 3.0 $80 *e << Borland C++ $95 *e << -------------------------------------- TOTAL (with ed prices) $235 edu In fact, DOS 3.x is often bundled with a clone, at no additional charge, giving an effective educational price for Win development at $175. -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc (404) 239-2347 ...gatech!nanoVX!msa3b!kevin English Lesson: THEIR home is over THERE. THERE is one house. THEY'RE not home. "Its" & "their" are like 'his'. "They're" == "they are." "It's" == "it is." If you can do regular expressions, you can handle a natural language. Syntax!
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) (05/03/91)
In <8493@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: > What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, > Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps > *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like > would probably be built in Windows first. On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. I know which one *I'd* buy. (My only problem with OS/2 2.0 is that I don't have any Windows applications to try out under it. Everything I use runs native OS/2. :-) Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (csnet)
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (05/03/91)
> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >> What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, >> Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps >> *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like >> would probably be built in Windows first. margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: > On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, > since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments > and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on > OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on > Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. > I know which one *I'd* buy. That's from a user's viewpoint, though. When you consider that there will soon be 5 million Windows machines out there, and that OS/2 2.0 will only run on a 386 or better, you can bet that the number of OS/2 users will be between 10% and 20% of the Windows users. If I was starting development on a new piece of software, I certainly would think twice about ignoring 80-90% of the market just for a small ("much faster"? Well, everything is relative, I guess) performance gain. I could probably achieve at least a similar gain by spending some time designing and optimizing the code well. This is not to say that OS/2 isn't good, but market realities will dictate that most development effort will be concentrated on Windows apps, especially since they will now also be able to run on OS/2. [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.115757.508@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >run on a 386 or better, you can bet that the number of OS/2 users will be >between 10% and 20% of the Windows users. If I was starting development One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? Wim. -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS | 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339 | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu> wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but >definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How >many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified >DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? ...or paper weight/book end. How many of us have multiple copies of Windows that we don't use? I got four copies included with new machines. It's getting harder to find a machine that doesn't get a MS mouse and Windows 3.0 tacked on to it. Sure, there are X million copies of Windows 3.0 sold to date, but how many of them were sold by 'force'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kyler Laird I'm the NRA/NRA-ILA lairdkb@mentor.purdue.edu
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/06/91)
In <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu>, wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but >definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How >many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified >DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? I don't think anyone could hope to avoid this. However, the point that OS/2 2.0 is trying to make is that you don't HAVE to give up your (sometimes quite large) DOS investment to switch to the new system. As more and more OS/2-only applications come out, more people will start using them. Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any indication, watch out Bill Gates... ...Now, I don't want to hear anyone start whining about this ;) , but (internally) there are 688 packages for OS/2 (a package can be anything: application, toolkit, etc.) which do various things. This is from a company that has traditionally been mainframe oriented. I strongly suspect that companies are going to look harder at OS/2 than before when 2.0 is released (if for no other reason) for the advanced capabilities that it provides over DOS and Windows. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/07/91)
In article <19910502.141008@the-village> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: >In <8493@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >> What does this mean? Clearly, for small developers and hackers, >> Windows is currently the way to go. With OS/2 2.0, Windows apps >> *should* be able to run, so small programs and stuff of the like >> would probably be built in Windows first. > >On the other hand, the company writing for OS/2 might hit the market sooner, >since with the flat model they don't have to worry about dealing with segments >and 64k limits. Not to mention the fact that the native OS/2 app (running on >OS/2) will be much faster than the Windows app (running either on OS/2 or on >Windows). Not to mention long filename support, extended attributes, etc. >I know which one *I'd* buy. However, OS/2 running Windows applications removes a lot of the pressure to write strictly OS/2 apps. If you write a Windows version, it can be run by the miniscule amount of users who run OS/2 (currently) _and_ the huge market of Windows users. The big companies can afford to write one of each, but for someone with limited resources, I know which one I'd write for maximum return on investment. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/07/91)
I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested in Windows development tools. Mike -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/07/91)
I'm using Win/3 right now. I expect to switch completely to OS/2 v 2.0 when it is commercially available. I *do* wish IBM would add a KillThread system call, though. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: netcom.com
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/09/91)
In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: > >I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. > >I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 >a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >in Windows development tools. Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. Oh...I didn't think so. Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're upgrading. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop >strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any >indication, watch out Bill Gates... If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might become available to the users. If you're not, I still don't think that internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much of an indicator. On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised way back in 86/87 (?). If it's decent, the applications will start appearing, inexorably. I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any usable parallel for the real world. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Chris Kinsman) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> >>I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >>the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >>unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >>nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >>company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. >> >>I'll start believing in the magic of OS/2 2.0 if it's as hot as Windows 3.0 >>a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >>for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >>few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >>in Windows development tools. > >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. > ACtually I believe the $95 price is also the educational price. The books may have been more and he probably got Win3 with his machine so I would say he isn't to far off. Chris -- Chris Kinsman KINSMAN@WSUVM1 Washington State University 22487863@WSUVM1 Computing Service Center ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu Computing Resources Laboratory 76701.154@compuserve.com
swyatt@chopin.udel.edu (Stephen L Wyatt) (05/09/91)
Ok... all this theory about which is better is really neat and all, but how about real world questions? I use turbo c++, procomm, word perfect, etc. for school. I also use some window's applications like qvt4.55 term thingy to call into the mainframe. I would use window's all the time, since I'd love to me able to switch from one task to another, but the whole thing is just too slow compared to running it outside the window's environment (btw- I have a 386-33 4 megs w/ memory cache and 25ms HD) ... now 2 questions-- will running os/2 allow me to run all the previous stuff I have and windows stuff at the same time? what is the speed comparison between a normal application under dos (standalone) and with os/2 with some other task in memory also? and since I bought dos 4.01 last fall, can I get an upgrade? how much? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- swyatt@udel.edu !!! no disclaimer...I blame everything I say on someone else ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com>, larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) says: > >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, >smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> >>I dunno, IBM's always been hot on OS/2. Last summer, when I co-oped for them >>the rage was OS/2 1.3, which was gonna come in and sweep away all the >>unbelievers. IBMers have always had a very pro-IBM point of view. There's >>nothing wrong with this (in fact, I think it's one of the reasons why the >>company can do such great things), but, at the same time, I don't trust 'em. Actually - I worked in an OS/2 development division last summer, and the people there weren't all that excited about 1.3. It's faster than Windows, and has less reliability problems - but we all knew Windows was better marketed, and even a kludgy DOS multitasking is still multitasking. I really didn't see anyone "hot on OS/2" at that time, since 2.0 was very far from completion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Dahmus MXD118@PSUVM / dahmus@endor.cs.psu.edu 504 Beaver Hall Phone 862-5141 UNIX is for EUNUCHS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. Of course Turbo Pascal for Windows is only $99 for people who have owned any other Borland language product, so for the $50 that many of us paid for Windows under MS's extremeley generous upgrade plan (I used the 1.1 runtime with Balance of Power for my upgrade) plus $99, you could have a pretty nice Windows development platform. For those in higher education, wasn't there a $99 offer for Actor too at one time. Personally I don't even see why we are discussing OS/2 2.0 until it's finally released... I am sure it will be really great, but why don't we all wait until it's released before saying what it will or won't include and how it will perform. Perhaps we could prune the newsgroups line too to take this out of comp.os.msdos and any windows group too. -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.190947.12194@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >In <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) writes: >> [my original post cut] >>a year after its release. I'll develop for it when I can get a C++ compiler >>for it, with complete libraries, Petzold's "Programming OS/2", and another >>few inches of documentation for $95+plus tax, which is what I've got invested >>in Windows development tools. > >Yeah, right. I suppose that you think I'll believe that you got Dos, >Windows 3.0, the compilers, and all of the books you have for $95+tax. >Oh...I didn't think so. > >Borland C++ for Windows by itself costs that much, AND only if you're >upgrading. > >Cheers, >Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET >OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Note that I did NOT say that I had a complete environment for $95. I got DOS for free with my PC, and I spent $135 on Windows (but I got the MS mouse with it). I _did_ spend only $95 for my complete development, and I didn't upgrade. The $95 is Borland's educational price for BC++, available from any university. To start developing for OS/2, I'll have to but OS/2 2.0 SE for what, $150? Ok. Now, I don't need to buy PM, so we're at about the same price for DOS+Windows as we are for OS/2. Fine. Execpt the OS/2 SDK, plus MSC 6.0a is gonna add a few hundred (thousand?) onto that. I don't have that kinda money, sorry. To spend that money for what, an installed user base of 300,000 or so? I'd rather write for the Amiga and the Atari ST, they've both got a bigger userbase. Until OS/2 PROVES itself, by selling like hotcakes, and some _affordable_ development tools come out for it, I'll "just say no." Of course, this is all moot, as I'm running a 12MHz '286. And no, I don't have $400 for a 386sx-16, either. :-) Mike -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
smustain@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mike Mustaine) (05/10/91)
> >Actually - I worked in an OS/2 development division last summer, and the >people there weren't all that excited about 1.3. It's faster than Windows, >and has less reliability problems - but we all knew Windows was better >marketed, and even a kludgy DOS multitasking is still multitasking. I >really didn't see anyone "hot on OS/2" at that time, since 2.0 was very far >from completion. Well, we were mainly using them as glorified 3270's to connect to 3090's (IMS [ugh!] System Test) but a lot of the folks there loved it, and I remember reading one of the IBMnet newsgroups (OS2GOSPEL?) where there was a lot of pro-OS/2 stuff, and of course, the OS/2 disciples would raid the Windows newsgroups and start OS/2 vs. Windows flame wars. -- Mike Mustaine |"I did what I did, and I do what Starving College Student (tm) | I do, because I'm Evel Kneivel, smustain@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | and I don't question that." smustain@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu |
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com> rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing >of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- >mares about DisplayWrite) The new DisplayWrite is being written by XyQuest, makers of XyWrite - that wonderfully quick and powerful word processor with the loyal (and wierd) following. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kyler Laird I'm the NRA/NRA-ILA lairdkb@mentor.purdue.edu
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/11/91)
In <1991May8.210437.24333@qualcomm.com>, rdippold@lajolla.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > >In article <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >>Okay, so Mr. G.I. Luvwindows says, "But no one is going to develop >>strictly for OS/2." My reply is that if the internal IBM response is any >>indication, watch out Bill Gates... > >If my previous experiences with IBM software is any indication, I want nothing >of applications software written by them (to name just one, I still have night- >mares about DisplayWrite), if you're talking here about things that might >become available to the users. If you're not, I still don't think that >internal OS/2 applications developed by a company where OS/2 is gospel is much >of an indicator. DisplayWrite is a gross application, I'll agree. But it is NOT indicative of other OS/2 applications. Internally, OS/2 is not gospel, even though it appears that way. More people use AIX and DOS than OS/2. So, my point is still valid. There ARE applications/toolkit/etc. being developed internally, showing that people are starting to recognize it as a good environment for development work. >On the other hand, I seriously want to try OS/2 2.0 (I almost got a beta >version when you had it available on your BBS, before the damned lawyers >messed things up again), which looks like it's finally what we got promised >way back in 86/87 (?). If it's decent, the applications will start appearing, >inexorably. I just don't think that internal use of OS/2 at IBM provides any >usable parallel for the real world. Legal issues are a pain, aren't they? I don't like it any more than you do, and I have talked to many other IBM'ers who don't like it either. We are pushing and pushing to get it back on the BBS, but until those issues are addressed, there's nothing we can do. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously. ------------------------- Note headers follow -------------------------- From larrys@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Fri May 10 13:53:31 1991 Received: from sequoia.watson.ibm.com by ibmman.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.2.1/) id AB0028; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:31 -0700 Received: by SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL 1.1.4/) id AA0039; Fri, 10 May 91 13:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <9105102053.AA0039@SEQUOIA.watson.ibm.com>