keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/19/90)
Here's a question for the net: I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, from memory) figures: OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 MS-DOS: $ 65 ---- ---- $295 $194 A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful small price to pay. This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but why didn't they before? And will they in the future? Disclaimer: I have used both OS2 and Windows 3.0, and they are both (in my eyes) good products. I am not Windows bashing here.
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/19/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> I wrote: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 > MS-DOS: $ 65 > ---- ^^^^^^ ---- > $295 |||||| $194 \ / And this is for 3.3, add another $50 for 4.0, and who know show much for 5.0?
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (09/20/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 > MS-DOS: $ 65 > ---- ---- > $295 $194 > >A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead >of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful >small price to pay. > >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? While the quality of the OS is an important consideration (and OS/2 is a much better OS than Windows + DOS), the quality of available applications is an even bigger factor. Things like Ami Pro, Corel Draw, Winword, and such don't exist for OS/2. Yet. >Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would >be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but >why didn't they before? And will they in the future? If OS/2 2.0 runs Windows binaries like MS claims, I think you'll see a *very* big push when it comes out. Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the (empty) bag with no Windows 3 products... Aaron Wallace
twagner@baobab.berkeley.edu (Tim Wagner) (09/20/90)
John Keating writes:In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: |> Here's a question for the net: |> |> I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, |> from memory) figures: |> |> OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 |> MS-DOS: $ 65 |> ---- ---- |> $295 $194 |> |> A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead |> of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful |> small price to pay. |> |> This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows |> when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? |> |> Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would |> be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but |> why didn't they before? And will they in the future? |> |> Disclaimer: I have used both OS2 and Windows 3.0, and they are both (in my |> eyes) good products. I am not Windows bashing here. People I have spoken to suspect that MS is waiting for version 2.0, and possibly another hardware base before really marketing OS/2 with a vengeance. The 1.x versions thus playing a sort of "extended beta-test" role in their mind (though probably not in IBM's). Also, they seem to have an evolutionary goal for current DOS/Windows users, rather than a throw-away strategy. Speaking of which, net-readers, does anyone know whether 2.0 has been officially announced/released? Tim Wagner UC Berkeley twagner@sequoia.Berkeley.EDU Programming Environments Research Group * Standard Disclaimers apply to this posting
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (09/20/90)
In article <27980@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> twagner@baobab.berkeley.edu (Tim Wagner) writes: > >Speaking of which, net-readers, does anyone know whether 2.0 has been >officially announced/released? > In join announcements Monday (Sept 17) IBM and Microsoft redefined their respective roles in the development of OS/2. Included in the press releases was a statement that OS/2 2.0 would be released by IBM to "selected customers" before the end of this year and would be generally available in 1991. Other parts of the announcement included that IBM now has primary development responsibilty for OS/2 1.x and 2.0, with MS doing the future portable OS/2. Also announced cross-licensing for OS/2, DOS, and Windows. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@staff.ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-228-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5 | Fax: 604-228-5116
bnathan@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM (Bob Nathan) (09/20/90)
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? How about because DOS programs work under WIN and DONT under compatibility box? (n.b. this from a guy who just had his disk trashed by WIN!? what am I saying?) (At least OS/2 never trashed my disk.)
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (09/21/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> I wrote: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >OS2 SE/PM: $295 Windows: $129 > MS-DOS: $ 65 > ---- ^^^^^^ ---- > $295 |||||| $194 > Only two problems with this argument. There is lot's of Windows and DOS programs. And OS2 is full of bugs, and the up and coming OS/2 version 2.0 is going to change all the rules. So, take your pick. Regards, ## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ ... also at: pnl@hpfipnl.HP.COM Singapore 0410. SPLAT ! #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/22/90)
In article <1990Sep19.171840.9384@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote >resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the >(empty) bag with no Windows 3 products... This isn't true. For seven years, a group of people at Microsoft have been pushing Windows. More recently, another group of people at Microsoft started pushing OS/2. Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the long run, this is still true. Although people convulsed with laughter whenever they saw Windows 1.X and 2.X, version 3.0 is good enough it has caught on. But this caught Lotus and WordPerfect by surprise; they never thought Windows would amount to anything. For now, at least, Windows is selling very well, so they are scrambling to get products ready. There never was a secret plan to trick Microsoft's rivals. Microsoft has been developing for both platforms all along, and encouraging everyone else to do the same -- but for six years, everyone considered Windows to be a joke. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (09/22/90)
In article <624@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM>, bnathan@ncratl.Atlanta.NCR.COM (Bob Nathan) writes: > How about because DOS programs work under WIN and DONT under compatibility > box? (n.b. this from a guy who just had his disk trashed by WIN!? what am > I saying?) (At least OS/2 never trashed my disk.) Please be careful with blanket statements like this. I have many, many DOS programs that work just fine in DOS mode (a.k.a. the compatibility box). The OS/2 documentation clearly spells out which programs are most likely to fail in DOS mode, such as communications programs, but I'd like to note that ProComm works just fine in DOS mode. True, I have encountered DOS programs that do fail in DOS mode, but they're in the minority. Incidentally, I believe that the compatibility of the "compatibility box" will be improved in OS/2 version 2.0, which will utilize the virtual 8086 capabilities of the 80386 processor. At least ill-behaved DOS programs won't bring down the whole system, as they can under version 1.X, which has to put the processor into real mode to run DOS programs.
pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) (09/22/90)
>From: steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) > >In article <1990Sep19.171840.9384@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >>Right now, though, MS basically got rivals Lotus and Wordperfect to devote >>resources to OS/2, then came out with Windows 3 and left them holding the >>(empty) bag with no Windows 3 products... > >This isn't true. For seven years, a group of people at Microsoft have been >... >long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the >long run, this is still true. > >There never was a secret plan to trick Microsoft's rivals. Microsoft has > ... Forget rivals, What about IBM? ... I have used and programmed serious windows applications for 3.5 years. I have been very impressed with the look of win3 and performance. But, after several months of new development and usage, I must say that there are still a lot of bugs win win3. I say a lot because when my system crashes when using normal apps (winword, pagemaker, ami) who am I to blame? I can never reproduce the errors. Just suddenly a stupid unrecoverable error appears and boom! I don't recall this problem in win386. And my systems are 100% IBM. (btw, I am now experimenting with Actor development. I don't need to buy additonal video hardware to debug it and I get the benefits of OO programming. So I got OS/2 1.3 (I think, version?) with PM and its sdk and I like it. Why? Because I don't have a DOS machine sitting there. No matter how nice windows gets, DOS is still there. When win4 or 5 comes out maybe you will boot them but not DOS; but this is what OS2 IS! I am now getting smalltalk for PM development. What really interesting with a whimsical tone is seeing a non-computer scientist buy a machine and try to configure windows. HA! now way. Especially with some of the less popular hardware manufactures. I guess what I am trying to say is that my tires are loosing air on the window 3 ride. I have paid + $1500 for msc 6.0, SDK, win3, QuickC, winword and others per machine. In addition, I find that anything less than 20-25mhz is just too slow to do 6.0 compiles. Also, 3mb seems to be a good minimum for memory to keep from swapping so much. Plus $250 for a video card and debugging monitor. That ends up being about $5000 to develope windows applications! Yes, I have tried similar 16mhz and less memory but I hate waiting. (Note: actor was only $99 and supports all SDK calls). No one at micrsoft told me that I need additional hardware to debug win apps when I ordered the upgrade. No one told me what I have to do to upgrade my old apps. No one told me that I would have to PAY FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT!!!!! In fact the whole 'mums the word' mood about windows 3 unoffical development pisses me off in retrospect. But I jumped on the bandwagon. I think the marketing reps at microsoft are amazing and deserve a raise. I sure would want them working for me. I wish there were more critical reviews about win3 vs. Deskview vs. PS2 PM vs. DOS vs... Reviews including productivity measures. But no, what do we have. Well I have yet to talk to anyone about win3 at microsoft. I have made numerous 20 minute calls but had to hang up. I have been an avid windows developer for 3.5 years now, but I feel micrsoft has abandoned their faithful developers through cost and lack of tech. support. GO OS2 PM, GO OS2 PM. Give me the look and feel of Unix and Motif !!!!! But please (IBM) don't leave me out in the cold. Do us right, like sell PM sdk for < $100 with each OS2.
keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) (09/22/90)
In article <15114@rouge.usl.edu> pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >GO OS2 PM, GO OS2 PM. Give me the look and feel of Unix and Motif !!!!! >But please (IBM) don't leave me out in the cold. Do us right, like >sell PM sdk for < $100 with each OS2. Here, here! JWKIII -- **************************************************************************** * \|/ John William Keating, III >Ragnorak< keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu \|/ * * --*========================= //////\\\\\\ =========================*-- * * /|\ "Wands don't kill people, people kill people." /|\ * ****************************************************************************
CCMK@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) (09/22/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: > Here's a question for the net: > ... > This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows > when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? > > Also, why doesn't Microsoft try to push OS2 more? I can see how they would > be afraid to at this time, considering how Windows 3.0 has taken off, but > why didn't they before? And will they in the future? Windows is a DOS program, and as such is supported on the zillions of DOS machines out there with little trauma. Plus, it works with a piddly amount of memory (as little as 1MB), has quite a large number of existing Windows programs that are compatible with it (sort of), and the 386 mode uses the 386 to run virtual DOS windows more effectively than OS/2 does, which is still a 286 program. When OS/2 version 2.0, the 386/486 version, is released things might move a bit more quickly. Anyway, I hope so! Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-2767 Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au La Trobe University, ACSnet: ccmk@lure.lat.oz.au Bundoora, 3083 X.25 (PSI): 2347300000::ccmk Australia
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (09/22/90)
In article <15114@rouge.usl.edu> pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >... I can never reproduce the errors. Just suddenly a stupid >unrecoverable error appears and boom! I don't recall this problem in >win386. That's because win386 didn't run in trap memory writes out of bounds, so buggy applications weren't caught when they did nasty things. I consider this to be a benefit of Win3, not a bug. Most of those "Unrecoverable Application Errors" are programs referencing pointers that point to lalaland. Serves 'em right! >What really interesting with a whimsical tone is seeing a non-computer >scientist buy a machine and try to configure windows. HA! now way. >Especially with some of the less popular hardware manufactures. What is extremely funny is watching a computer scientist trying to set up OS/2! At work this summer most people (real live computer programmers) had enormous problems just trying to set up OS/2. Windows is much easier. >I guess what I am trying to say is that my tires are loosing air on >the window 3 ride. I have paid + $1500 for msc 6.0, SDK, win3, QuickC, >winword and others per machine. Ha, if you think OS/2 is going to be cheaper, have I got news for you. >... Plus $250 for a video card and debugging monitor. huh? you are being duped. I bought a debugging monitor AND card for windows last week for $100. Oh, you are using Microchannel, you say? ha ha ha ha ha. Didn't everybody tell you when that came out that it would be non standard and in the long run much more expensive? Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu Silence = Death
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/23/90)
In article <57630@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: |Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the |long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the |long run, this is still true. But Steve, haven't you heard? MS and IBM are close to filing divorce. IBM is going to get OS/2. In retaliation, MS has threatened to revoke the planned crippling of Windows that would have been required to avoid embarassing OS/2. Namely, Windows could get a high performance filesystem and real multitasking. At that point, what would be the difference between the two as far as the user is concerned? |There never was a secret plan to trick Microsoft's rivals. Microsoft has |been developing for both platforms all along, and encouraging everyone else Hm. Where's Word for OS/2? Where's Powerpoint for OS/2? Where's Project for OS/2? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Freedom is dead, long live privacy!
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (09/24/90)
In article <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John W. Keating) writes: >Here's a question for the net: > >I was looking through some magazines lately and came up with these (rounded, >from memory) figures: > >A difference of only $101. For an operating system that leaps as far ahead >of MSDOS as OS2 does, and for a better integrated GUI, that seems an awful >small price to pay. > >This brings up a few questions in my mind. Why would anyone buy Windows >when such a better alternative is available for a comparative price? Well, the difference is not only in the price of the software. In order to effectively run OS/2 you'd need a 386 with, oh, lets say 3 Meg of memory and at least 20 Meg of disk space. Windows would probably run as well in 2 meg of memory and it needs only 6 meg of disk space. (I'm basing this on running both on a 3 Meg Compaq Portable and seeing the speed differences). The other issue to look into is support for said systems. The last I knew, printer driver (and other hardware driver) support for OS/2 was rather limited. Software availability is somewhat limited as well, though you will be able to find programs to support the major things on PM, such as desktop publishing, word processing, spreadsheet operations, and data-base support. I'm sure there are other issues that I've not mentioned, but I believe that OS/2 and PM are still a "rich mans" game. -- "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." William Shakespeare Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 328-3800 (Please note there are both a patrick and a patrickd at this site)
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (09/25/90)
In article <1990Sep23.065916.10069@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <57630@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >|Lotus, WordPerfect, and some others looked at the >|long run and said "Forget Windows. OS/2 is going to blow it away." In the >|long run, this is still true. >But Steve, haven't you heard? MS and IBM are close to filing divorce. >IBM is going to get OS/2. In retaliation, MS has threatened to revoke >the planned crippling of Windows that would have been required to avoid >embarassing OS/2. Namely, Windows could get a high performance filesystem >and real multitasking. At that point, what would be the difference >between the two as far as the user is concerned? Actually, this isn't what I've heard recently. I understand that MS and IBM have "made up" and come up with a coordinated plan. That plan is to push Windows as the standard platform. Look for IBM to start bundling Windows with its PS/2's and the like. You'll probably still see OS/2 on the high-end systems, but IBM has finally realized that they can't singlehandedly push something completely big and bloated (like OS/2) beyond something only mildly big and bloated (like Windows) in today's marketplace. Now, maybe Steve has some inside information that we don't (how about it, Steve?), but everything I've heard supports Windows dominating over OS/2. Not to mention what you see by just comparing the sheer numbers of units sold... -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/26/90)
In article <1990Sep23.065916.10069@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Hm. Where's Word for OS/2? Where's Powerpoint for OS/2? Where's Project >for OS/2? I have no authority to comment on unreleased products, but I think I might point out to you that there is a Software Migration Kit that allows Windows products to be ported to OS/2, but there is no kit that works the other way around. Also, I have read in _PC Week_ that OS/2 2.X will run Windows binaries. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) (09/26/90)
For those interested, the October issue of BYTE has an article titled
"Through the OS/2 Porthole" by Martin Heller. The article is in a section
"Beyond DOS: Windows and OS/2" which looks like it will be a regular feature in
the magazine. The article talks about the various options that are available
for getting Windows 3.0 applications to run under OS/2 version 2.0. It looks
although developers will be able to do a quick and dirty port by the use of
OS/2 code which emulates Windows functions. The port can then be speeded up
and made less cumbersome by replacing selected portions of the code with OS/2
code.
--
Did you hear the joke about the scientist whose wife had twins?
- He baptized one and kept the other as a control.
Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada a752@mindlink.UUCPballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (09/26/90)
In article <57717@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >I have no authority to comment on unreleased products, but I think I might >point out to you that there is a Software Migration Kit that allows Windows >products to be ported to OS/2... If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. I realize the people from Microsoft who respond in this newsgroup don't get to control these decisions (and really appreciate your participation by the way...), but Microsoft's credibility with respect to OS/2 is getting less day by day. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@staff.ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-228-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5 | Fax: 604-228-5116
Hubert Lai <LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (09/27/90)
In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP>, ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) says: > >If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it.
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (09/27/90)
In article <4966@hsv3.UUCP> jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman) writes: >Now, maybe Steve has some inside information that we don't (how about it, >Steve?) Sorry, but no. I don't have any inside information. I formed all my opinions by reading _PC Week_, _Infoworld_, and that press release. If I did have inside information I would not post it -- I signed a nondisclosure agreement. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (09/27/90)
In article <90269.183207LAIH@QUCDN.BITNET>, LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Hubert Lai) writes: > Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it. I'd like to have seen it. Microsoft had a counter at a computer fair held on campus recently, and I asked the representative about Word for PM. He wouldn't comment about an unannounced product. Microsoft also had a booth at a local computer show about a week later. Once again I asked about Word for PM, but the representative claimed ignorance and referred me to their 800 number. I haven't tried the 800 number yet, but I fully expect to be told that they won't comment about an unannounced product. In contrast to Microsoft's zippered lips, the representative from WordPerfect said, without hesitation, that their PM version should be out by next summer.
ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (09/27/90)
(On a long thread connected with OS/2) In case you haven't heard the news yet, OS/2 is dead. Microsoft is "putting all it's wood behind one arrow" (to borrow a phrase from Scott McNeally) and putting everything into Windows 3.1, 4, 5... Expect two windows releases for every Intel microprocessor! IBM is going to extend OS/2 on intel hardware (Why!!!!????). Microsoft plans to eventually redo OS/2 in C in a architecture independent way, so as to keep it's foot in the OS door. Considering it took 3 years for 'em to get a barely acceptable OS/2 v2 running, I'm not holding my breath. I think 2 years more is too much time given competition from NeXT (especially NeXTStep) and SPARC-MIPS Unix boxes. IBM has started offering NeXTSTEP as an option on PS/2.. interesting world, ain't it?? >Did you hear the joke about the scientist whose wife had twins? > - He baptized one and kept the other as a control. Good one! -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (09/27/90)
In article <12206@chaph.usc.edu>, ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: |>(On a long thread connected with OS/2) |> |>In case you haven't heard the news yet, OS/2 is dead. Microsoft |>is "putting all it's wood behind one arrow" (to borrow a phrase |>from Scott McNeally) and putting everything into Windows 3.1, 4, 5... |>Expect two windows releases for every Intel microprocessor! |> No, I hadn't heard, but that's probably just because it's not true. From everything I've seen, OS/2 is moving right along. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (09/28/90)
*>> How about because DOS programs work under WIN and DONT under compatibility *>> box? (n.b. this from a guy who just had his disk trashed by WIN!? what am *>> I saying?) (At least OS/2 never trashed my disk.) Hmm... How about: "because there's only ONE compatibility box??? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (09/28/90)
In article <12206@chaph.usc.edu> ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >(On a long thread connected with OS/2) > >In case you haven't heard the news yet, OS/2 is dead. Microsoft >is "putting all it's wood behind one arrow" (to borrow a phrase >from Scott McNeally) and putting everything into Windows 3.1, 4, 5... That seems like a pretty stupid plan if you ask me. Any DOS based multi-tasking system is going to stink. It's not that MS DOS is a "bad" operating system, but an OS based on a single-tasking, 1MB chips, designed ten years ago is silly. MS DOS has serious problems with dealing with multi-tasking. This is very evident when running programs like DESQview, or Windows. Windows 3 is neat, it looks good, and it's slow as hell in comparison to OS/2 and PM. I run a BBS, and I can run the BBS under DOS/Windows, and under OS/2. I can't do much, however when running under Windows, because the system performance degrades by half. Under OS/2, I can run the BBS, call another BBS, run my C compiler, read mail, and do other things without killing my performace much. The VMM is a lot better under this 80286 operating system, versus the 80386 version of windows - the reason? MS DOS. You can't force a volkswagon to perform like a ferarri, unless you put a farrari engine and suspension into the volkswagon. This is what OS/2 does. When the time comes that I can no longer get OS/2 and supported products for it, I will run something else. Until then I will continue to use, and praise OS/2 - a product from a company I otherwise have little respect for. - Steve -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- steve.resnick@f105.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG - or - apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick Flames, grammar errors, spelling errrors >/dev/nul ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (09/28/90)
In article <90269.183207LAIH@QUCDN.BITNET> LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Hubert Lai) writes: >In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP>, ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) says: >> >>If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >>an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >>released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. > >Microsoft has been showing Word for PM for over a year. I've seen it. I don't see how that qualifies as being released. -- Computer Science Center Richard Oppenheimer University of Maryland oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) College Park, Maryland ,USA richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. ********
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (09/28/90)
I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very small degradation. Regards, -turgut
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (09/28/90)
In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn >megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and >it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >small degradation. >Regards, -turgut Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 "compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the DOS box like Windows does. That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a 386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to Windows.... Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu Silence = Death
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (09/28/90)
spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >>.. >>it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >>to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >>small degradation. >>Regards, -turgut >Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 >"compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no >attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the This is not true. The OS/2 compatibility box (i.e. the DOS box) does not switch off OS/2. OS/2 tasks continue to run while you are in the DOS box. On the other hand, the DOS box task does not run while it is iconized. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (09/28/90)
Joel: Not quite - I have seen background tasks run in the OS/2 sessions while you are tinkering in the DOS box. For example, I can view the results in the DOS page of a ray traced picture, and have the ray tracer start working on the next picture in an OS/2 partition. Similarly, I can print while working in the DOS page. OS/2 only stops the DOS box when you switch away from it - it doesn't stop OS/2 processes while you are in the DOS box. (I think I read this in Gorton Letwin's book too).. Regards, -turgut
db3l@ibm.com (David Bolen) (09/29/90)
In article <26395@cs.yale.edu> spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >>I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn >>megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and >>it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >>to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >>small degradation. >>Regards, -turgut > > >Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 >"compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no >attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the >DOS box like Windows does. I can't argue that having "multiple windowizable DOS boxes" with OS/2 2.0 won't be better than the current DOS box, but OS/2 is definitely multitasking when you are running in the DOS box. True, you can have only a single DOS box on an OS/2 1.x system, but any OS/2 applications will continue to execute in the background. Only the DOS box itself is required to be in the foreground to run. > That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a >386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you >can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS >box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 >has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to >Windows.... Cut and pasting doesn't really have anything to do with multitasking, but more with how the window manager controls the input to applications. In terms of multitasking, OS/2 has the better tasking model, with a fully preemptive scheduler (it *actively* takes the CPU away from tasks when they use up their timeslice). Windows, on the other hand, requires cooperation on the part of applications to periodically yield the CPU. True, if you are simply comparing how many DOS windows you can run at once for Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.x, Windows comes out ahead. But OS/2 is built on a better base, and with 2.0 will catch up in the multiple DOS task area. -- David
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) (09/29/90)
In article <15114@rouge.usl.edu> pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >>From: steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) >> >>In article <1990Sep19.171840.9384@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: [ muchly left out ] >I have been very impressed with the look of win3 and performance. But, >after several months of new development and usage, I must say that >there are still a lot of bugs win win3. I say a lot because when >my system crashes when using normal apps (winword, pagemaker, ami) who >am I to blame? I can never reproduce the errors. Just suddenly a stupid >unrecoverable error appears and boom! I don't recall this problem in >win386. And my systems are 100% IBM. (btw, I am now experimenting with ^^^^^^^^ [ muchly more left out ] | +-----+ | Well, there's your problem right there! Everybody ought to know by now that IBM makes products inferior to at least half the clone products on the market! Get rid of those silly letters and get yourself a REAL machine! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I got protection for my | Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain affections, so swing your | Natch, nobody'd be *fool* enough to have bootie in my direction!" | *my* opinions, 'ceptin' *me*, of course! -=--=--=--"BANDWIDTH?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BANDWIDTH!!"--=--=--=- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I got protection for my | Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain affections, so swing your | Natch, nobody'd be *fool* enough to have bootie in my direction!" | *my* opinions, 'ceptin' *me*, of course! -=--=--=--"BANDWIDTH?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BANDWIDTH!!"--=--=--=-
bobt@microsoft.UUCP (Bob TANIGUCHI) (09/29/90)
In article <9738@ubc-cs.UUCP> ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes: >If the SMK works as well as it is supposed to ("a few days" to port >an application is the claim), I really have to ask why there is still no >released Word for PM, a year after WFW was released. > The SMK is currently in prerelease. Really, it hasn't hit what would be considered "beta" release even now. I'd feel bad about this comment if the SMK were truly released, given it's state of prerelease, and hence the non-release of PM Word are all fairly related events. Bob Taniguchi Systems Product Marketing
CCMK@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) (09/29/90)
In article <2486@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: > In article <12206@chaph.usc.edu>, ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > |>(On a long thread connected with OS/2) > |> > |>In case you haven't heard the news yet, OS/2 is dead. Microsoft > |>is "putting all it's wood behind one arrow" (to borrow a phrase > |>from Scott McNeally) and putting everything into Windows 3.1, 4, 5... > |>Expect two windows releases for every Intel microprocessor! > |> > No, I hadn't heard, but that's probably just because it's not true. From > everything I've seen, OS/2 is moving right along. Okay - but we want it SOONER and BETTER! Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-2767 Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au La Trobe University, ACSnet: ccmk@lure.lat.oz.au Bundoora, 3083 X.25 (PSI): 2347300000::ccmk Australia
jack@cscdec.cs.com (Jack Hudler) (09/30/90)
In article <26395@cs.yale.edu> spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a >386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you >can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS >box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 >has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to >Windows.... Personally, I have no need for the DOS box in OS/2 and don't even have in enabled. I do all of my development,editing, and network administration from and only OS/2. DOS is dead. -- Jack Computer Support Corporation Dallas,Texas Hudler Internet: jack@cscdec.cs.com
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (10/01/90)
From article <26395@cs.yale.edu>, by spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky): > In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >>it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch >>to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very >>small degradation. > > Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2 > "compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no > attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the > DOS box like Windows does. That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a > 386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you > can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS > box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0 > has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to > Windows.... I wish people would get their facts straigt before posting. Your facts are 100% backwards and incorrect. OS/2 is always going. In OS/2 as it currently runs, the DOS BOX stops when you switch to AN OS/2 SESSION, however, OS/2 does NOT stop when you start a DOS session. From the DOS point of view, this is basically like interrupting your program with a TSR program (except that DOS interrupts are not processed when you are in OS/2, so comm programs will die. Even this limitation has been overcome on 80386 machines in OS/2 2.0 (beta out now) which DOES multitask OS/2 AND DOS programs together, with the cut and paste options, multiple DOS boxes, and all the other things you say that OS/2 doesn't have. There are also rumours that it will run Windows 3.0 programs directly in the Presentation Manager (similar to how Family Applications run under both MS-DOS and OS/2 full screen). I run OS/2 1.2 on an IBM PS/2 model 60 (286 system) and the multitasking is quite robust. Just as an example, I had 5 ray-tracing sessions going on at the same time once. The CPU was so busy, that the lower priority "bouncing Lines" style screen blanker didn't even move for about 10 hours. However, I could still start up Kermit and do file transfers with no degradation, etc. On the other hand, I used Windows 3.0 on a 386sx based computer. It had fairly good response when running WINDOWS applications, but when I put Turbo Pascal in a text window, it took at least a good two minutes to swap the applications out onto disk when I switched into Turbo Pascal. This was with two megabytes of memory. My suggestions: Use MS-DOS to run MS-DOS applications, use Windows to run multiple windows applications (and in a pinch MS-DOS applications), and use OS/2 to run OS/2 applications (and when OS/2 2.0 hits the stands DOS and Windows applications as well) All these should have as a minimum a 386sx. Windows and OS/2 both require about the same system resources (memory, disk space, etc.) to run correctly. I was talking to Microsoft's Canadian educational representative a few days ago. She says that Microsoft has NOT dropped OS/2. In fact, they have Word for OS/2 PM, Excel for PM, etc. all waiting in the wings. They just don't want to kill the Windows market for those products by releasing the OS/2 versions at the same time. I don't really like the idea of holding us OS/2 users back simply for marketing strategy, but the point is all the applications are there. - Kevin Lowey
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (10/01/90)
Another great 'nifty' that I found is that some tasks do not use CPU, and they run at full speed - even if you are ray tracing (very CPU intensive) in the background. For example, I was formatting a bunch of diskettes in a window the other day, and it was running as fast as if I was running it without the ray tracer! lovely! -turgut
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (10/04/90)
In article <71@cscdec.cs.com> jack@cscdec.cs.com (Jack Hudler) writes: >Personally, I have no need for the DOS box in OS/2 and don't even have >in enabled. I do all of my development,editing, and network administration >from and only OS/2. >DOS is dead. I wish that this would become reality real SOON! >-- >Jack Computer Support Corporation Dallas,Texas >Hudler Internet: jack@cscdec.cs.com Kai Uwe Rommel -- /* Kai Uwe Rommel * Munich * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */