cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) (04/06/91)
Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS that can still run DOS apps from a shell? Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. This OS should run all DOS WINDOWS compatible programs. Couldn't that solve a lot of problems (as well as create some, I know! :-(
tmottonen@cc.helsinki.fi (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu>, cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: > Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS > that can still run DOS apps from a shell? > > Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL > machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. One correction: OS/2 is not only for MicroChannel machines. Teemu. -- _________ Teemu Mottonen | | internet: tmottonen@cc.helsinki.Fi University of Helsinki | | bitnet: TMOTTONEN@FINUH Dept.of Computer Science |_________| decnet: HYLK::TMOTTONEN
ergo@netcom.COM (Isaac Rabinovitch) (04/07/91)
In <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu> cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: >Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS >that can still run DOS apps from a shell? >Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL >machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. >This OS should run all DOS WINDOWS compatible programs. Couldn't >that solve a lot of problems (as well as create some, I know! :-( Sounds like the next version of QNX! -- ergo@netcom.com Isaac Rabinovitch netcom!ergo@apple.com Silicon Valley, CA {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo (specific statement withheld at this time for operational reasons)
hadgraft@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Hadgraft) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu>, cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: > Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS > that can still run DOS apps from a shell? > > Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL > machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. > This OS should run all DOS WINDOWS compatible programs. Couldn't > that solve a lot of problems (as well as create some, I know! :-( Microsoft and IBM are working on solving the problem the other way around. That is, OS/2 2.0 will include the ability to run Windows applications as if they were OS/2 applications. Bye bye DOS. BTW, OS/2 is not restricted to microchannel machines. -- +--------------------------------------+ | Roger Hadgraft +----------------------------------+ | Senior Lecturer | hadgraft@civeng.monash.edu.au | | Dept of Civil Engineering | phone: +61 3 565 4983 | | Monash University | fax: +61 3 565 4944 or 3409 | | Clayton, Vic. 3168. Australia. +----------------------------------+ +--------------------------------------+
eeh@Dixie.Com (Ed Howland) (04/09/91)
tmottonen@cc.helsinki.fi writes: In article <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu>, cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: > Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS > that can still run DOS apps from a shell? > > Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL > machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. I have heard a rumor that DOS 6.0 is supposed to be just that. But who knows? Its a decent idea. Ed. -- Ed Howland Internet: eeh@dixie.com uucp: ...{uunet,emory}!rsiatl!eeh "I am expressly forbidden to offer any kind of warranty. This covers ideas, thoughts, opinions, or just plain gibberish. They are only offered 'As is'."
hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) (04/09/91)
> I have heard a rumor that DOS 6.0 is supposed to be just that. But >who knows? Its a decent idea. isn't that DOS 5.0 will be the last version?
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (04/09/91)
cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: > >Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS >that can still run DOS apps from a shell? > >Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL >machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. >This OS should run all DOS WINDOWS compatible programs. Couldn't >that solve a lot of problems (as well as create some, I know! :-( > This just shows how much you know about OS/2. It doesn't require a MicroChannel machine; I've run it on an old AT clone for months. It hasn't been that buggy since release 1.2. The latest release, 1.3, is compact, fast, powerful, and VERY VERY stable. I like Windows, but it bugs me to know how much better an environment OS/2 is right now, and how little people really know about it. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (04/11/91)
In article <1037@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >I like Windows, but it bugs me to know how much better an environment OS/2 >is right now, and how little people really know about it. I do not know much about os/2 except the following: 1) os/2$ >>>> dos$ 2) where are all the applications? I would LOVE to be able to use a "real" (32 bit) os (that of course does not exclude pc unix variant), but the cost associated is beyond what mere mortals (namely me) can (or are willing to) pay. For that matter, I believe that DOS is overpriced as well if you consider years they have been working on it & how many bugs are still there ... but that is a different matter ... when the price is reasonable, then the capabilities will be seen/heard. leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com Leo Hinds (305)973-5229 Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr
bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) (04/11/91)
In article <3019@travis.csd.harris.com> leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) writes: >In article <1037@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >>I like Windows, but it bugs me to know how much better an environment OS/2 >>is right now, and how little people really know about it. > >I do not know much about os/2 except the following: > 1) os/2$ >>>> dos$ Education price for OS/2 standard edition (everything except LAN and SQL database stuff) at U-MD is < $200 > 2) where are all the applications? Excel, Pagemaker, Word, Corel Draw, Lotus 1-2-3/G, etc. WordPerfect run in text mode, as well as a bunch of other apps. Plus, (hopefully) soon one can run Windows binaries under OS/2. >I would LOVE to be able to use a "real" (32 bit) os (that of course does not >exclude pc unix variant), but the cost associated is beyond what mere mortals >(namely me) can (or are willing to) pay. For that matter, I believe that DOS >is overpriced as well if you consider years they have been working on it & >how many bugs are still there ... but that is a different matter ... when >the price is reasonable, then the capabilities will be seen/heard. HPFS is great!!! PM looks a lot like Windows. However, I wish they would port the Windows accessories and replace the control panel with the Win 3.0 equivalent. There are still finishing touches to do (I'm speaking from OS/2 vr 1.3) but in all it starting to look real good. Of course, if you run DOS apps (uck!) then it hampers you more than it helps you. I think I'm gonna change from Windows 3.0 to OS/2 1.3 for my home environment soon. I think people will start switching when OS/2 2.0 comes out (hopefully). -- Bill Chin internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu MS-Windows Programmer NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu PCIP, Computer Science Center CompuServe:74130,2714 University of Maryland, College Park *Standard Disclaimers Apply*
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (04/12/91)
In article <8414@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >In article I wrote: >>I do not know much about os/2 except the following: >> 1) os/2$ >>>> dos$ >Education price for OS/2 standard edition (everything except LAN and >SQL database stuff) at U-MD is < $200 That's great for UMD students ... but what price does "the common man" pay? >> 2) where are all the applications? >Excel, Pagemaker, Word, Corel Draw, Lotus 1-2-3/G, etc. >WordPerfect run in text mode, as well as a bunch of other apps. >Plus, (hopefully) soon one can run Windows binaries under OS/2. Mostly uSoft products (as would be expected) ... but what about the miriad of shareware/freeware stuff for DOS and/or win3? ... leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com Leo Hinds (305)973-5229 Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr
robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) (04/12/91)
In article <9383@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> eeh@Dixie.Com (Ed Howland) writes: In article <1991Apr5.215151.5455@hubcap.clemson.edu>, cballen@hubcap.clemson.edu (charles allen) writes: > Why not? Why not replace DOS with a full operating system for WINDOWS > that can still run DOS apps from a shell? > > Yes, what I'm talking about sounds like OS2, but I want it for ALL > machines, not just microchannel. Plus, it better not be as buggy. Back when IBM thought OS/2 was going to rule the world, they named it like their new machines so that the gullible would *THINK* it would have to run on PS/2s or Microchannel. Of course, OS/2 was developed on Compaqs.
cms2839@isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) (04/12/91)
In article <8414@umd5.umd.edu> bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes: >In article <3019@travis.csd.harris.com> leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) writes: >>In article <1037@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >>>I like Windows, but it bugs me to know how much better an environment OS/2 >>>is right now, and how little people really know about it. >> >>I do not know much about os/2 except the following: >> 1) os/2$ >>>> dos$ >Education price for OS/2 standard edition (everything except LAN and >SQL database stuff) at U-MD is < $200 that's _four_times_ what i paid for Win3 ... maybe microsoft will realize that this is a good strategy ... -- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @ @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@ @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu @