skesterk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) (04/15/91)
I've been working on a Spac station at work for the past month now and I just love it. Before then I just had a regular PC-350 terminal. The Sparc Station is like an unlimited number of PC-350's at your disposal that all operate at the same time. So I began to wonder how nice it would be to have this kind of environment on my 386SX at home. Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then let me know. Thanks a lot!!
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (04/15/91)
In <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, skesterk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) writes: > >I've been working on a Spac station at work for the past month now and I >just love it. Before then I just had a regular PC-350 terminal. The >Sparc Station is like an unlimited number of PC-350's at your disposal that >all operate at the same time. So I began to wonder how nice it would be >to have this kind of environment on my 386SX at home. >Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. >I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the >kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that >will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from >one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only >open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS >window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into >an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. >Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then >let me know. Thanks a lot!! MS-Windows is NOT an operating system. Windows is simply a GUI (like PM is to OS/2). Windows is based on DOS which was designed to be a single-user, single-program operating system. According to IBM, OS/2 2.0 is supposed to support multiple DOS sessions, using the 386's "virtual DOS machine" mode. If you do not need an OS immediately, I would recommend waiting until 2.0 comes out. 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.
efrethei@afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) (04/16/91)
skesterk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) writes: >I've been working on a Spac station at work for the past month now and I >just love it. Before then I just had a regular PC-350 terminal. The >Sparc Station is like an unlimited number of PC-350's at your disposal that >all operate at the same time. So I began to wonder how nice it would be >to have this kind of environment on my 386SX at home. >Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. >I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the >kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that >will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from >one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only >open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS >window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into >an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. >Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then >let me know. Thanks a lot!! I've been using MS-Windows at home for quite some time now just like a SPARC station. I can cut and paste from window to window, use vi (stevie) in multiple windows, use as many DOS windows as I want to like SUN command windows. I commonly start working on one document, and then decide I need something from another, so I pop up procomm, get what I need off of the computer at work, maybe down load it for faster paging or such. While I'm waiting I'll pop up a game to keep myself entertained - or work on a third document/program. Sometimes I have a program I have made executing in yet another window. For all of the complaints I hear you can really do a lot with windows. standard disclaimer: ejf
kessler@hacketorium.Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Kessler) (04/16/91)
i dunno, my copy of windows has a scheduler, virtual memory management, device drivers, and buffered file system interface. looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....
daneman@czech.sw.mcc.com (Michael Daneman) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu|> skesterk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) writes: |> Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. |> I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the |> kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that |> will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from |> one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only |> open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS |> window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into |> an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. |> Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then |> let me know. Thanks a lot!! MS-Windows is a pretty good windowing environment. On a 386 it allows you to multitask DOS sessions and you can even put them in a window in many cases. Plus you can run all the Windows applications that are coming out now a days. It it similar, though not identical, to X. MS-Windows is easier to use that X, however it is not as powerfull as X (it still runs on top of DOS and also it's not as customizable). OS/2 is probably a better operating environment (though I have never used it). It is a whole separate operating system which supports multitasking, virtual machines, etc. The OS/2 version 2.0 is 386 specific and will allow you to multitask DOS session. However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, 2) not very well supported right now. There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. For now, however, I would recommend MS-Windows. It has a few bugs in it, but all in all it is quite a nice environment with a rather low learning curve and it is currently very well supported by software. -Mike.-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The oppinions stated above are not mine. In fact, I don't know where they came from. It scares me sometimes. -Mike (daneman@sw.mcc.com)
eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) (04/16/91)
daneman@czech.sw.mcc.com (Michael Daneman) writes: >MS-Windows is a pretty good windowing environment. On a 386 it allows >you to multitask DOS sessions and you can even put them in a window >in many cases. Plus you can run all the Windows applications that are >coming out now a days. It it similar, though not identical, to X. >MS-Windows is easier to use that X, however it is not as powerfull as X >(it still runs on top of DOS and also it's not as customizable). How is MS-Windows easier to use than X? Now, I understand MS Windows is easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows. No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments. Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too. > However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination (that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. > 2) Not very well supported right now. OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since the announcement of 32-bit v2.0. > There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in >the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. Should happen with version 2.0. If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows. This is because OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same time. >-Mike.-- Daniel -- Name: Daniel C. L'Hommedieu III Snail: NCSU Box 21531/Raleigh/NC/27607 INet: eagle@catt.ncsu.edu Prodigy ID: bccj33d Tel:919 737 6143 Hey...who did you say you thought I spoke for?
vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes: >How is MS-Windows easier to use than X? Now, I understand MS Windows is >easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows. >No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments. >Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too. First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the future. >> However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, > >OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination >(that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here >are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, >Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much >cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG of hard drive space to even install. >> 2) Not very well supported right now. > >OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since >the announcement of 32-bit v2.0. Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. >> There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in >>the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. >Should happen with version 2.0. If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is >supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows. This is because >OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS >compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and >will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same >time. Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! 'Nuff said. ---- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vernard@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me. -- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vernard@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me.
efrethei@afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) (04/16/91)
eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes: >daneman@czech.sw.mcc.com (Michael Daneman) writes: >OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination >(that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here >are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, >Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much >cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. >> 2) Not very well supported right now. Well, for those of us who are non-students the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 is a whole lot cheaper than OS/2. DOS 4.0 can be had for $45, windows 3.0 can be had for $89 that is $134 for the whole set up. Besides, most of us got DOS free with our system and DOS 3.4 is better than 4.01 anyway (just to start another religious war). Seems your students are being soaked. Even Windows 3.0 can be had for free, a friend just got it bundled with his mouse. (and got a good price on the mouse). I'm sure OS/2 is a good operating system, but I've seen noithing to convince me that it is worth the money I would have to get to buy a copy. ejf standard disclaimer: is mine and mine alone (the thoughts that is).
mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) (04/17/91)
Speaking of how 'much' OS/2 will set you back: The New York Times (4/16) had an article that stated IBM was cutting the price of OS/2 starting tomorrow. -------- Specifically: SE from $340 -> $150 EE from $830 -> $690 Sounds good to me. I wonder if student prices still apply? If so that would be ridiculously cheap, as far as bang for the buck. I guess there is no longer a reason for people to say it is too expensive. Now they can just complain that there is no software out there! :-) -Allan MacKinnon
slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (04/17/91)
In article <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes: |In article <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes: |>How is MS-Windows easier to use than X? Now, I understand MS Windows is |>easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows. |>No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments. |>Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too. | Windows isn't easier than X, especially considering the platform X is usually on (a real OS with decent memory management). |First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing |environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is |integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I |thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the |future. | PM is OS/2 as Windows is to DOS as X is to Unix (or whatever). |>> However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, |> |>OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination |>(that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here |>are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, |>Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much |>cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. | Even without education discounts PM/OS/2 is that much more that Windows/DOS, especailly when you consider IBM has been very good about upgrades (free from 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3. |This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I |mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG |of hard drive space to even install. | You can run OS/2 with 2MB and don't think it is taking up 16MB on my disk. I bet you get sicker running Windows/DOS on a 640K XT than running PM/OS/2 on a 2MB 286. (And that's pre-1.3) Windows/DOS is taking a few megs itself. Your right it does take more resources, but not that much realistically. It also does alot more for you and is a hell of a lot easier to program in. |>> 2) Not very well supported right now. |> |>OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since |>the announcement of 32-bit v2.0. | |Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In |general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too |strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than |OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with |which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are |chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. | |>> There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in |>>the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. | |Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad |features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new |OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. > What are the bad features of PM/OS/2, especially compared to Windows/DOS? The slightly more resources it requires? Besides when MS finally makes Windows/DOS into into PM/OS/2, which is where they are heading (threads, etc.) it will be just as big. |>Should happen with version 2.0. If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is |>supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows. This is because |>OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS |>compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and |>will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same |>time. | |Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because |of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. As I said above the realistic requirements aren't that different, especially considering memory prices and where Windows is header. |Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS |users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! Does upgrades aren't 100% DOS compatible.
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (04/17/91)
I've been waiting for this post for soooo long... In <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU>, vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes: >First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing >environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is >integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I >thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the >future. HARD TO COMPARE TO WINDOWS??? Either you're kidding or you're blind. Take your pick. How can you say that PM is hard to compare to Windows, when Windows is a true lookalike of PM (in terms of the GUI). >This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I >mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG >of hard drive space to even install. Okay, I'm going to dispell this one once and for all: OS/2 1.3 ***WILL*** run in 2M of memory. This is quite competitive with Windows which requires the same amount to get any decent performance out of it. 1.3 SE only requires 4M of hard disk space plus room for the SWAPPER.DAT file. >Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In >general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too >strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than >OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with >which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are >chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. Maybe so, but if you've been reading the various trade magazines, you'll find that a lot of Windows customers are *NOT* satisfied with what they got. We have an expression here: "On OS/2, the pointer is an arrow; on Windows, it is an hourglass." What about the infamous "UAE" message (Unrecoverable Application Error)? How many times does that happen which requires you to reboot? With OS/2, you simply kill the application and continue, meaning you *don't* have to stop your compiling in another session, you *don't* have to logoff from your mainframe in another session, you *don't* have to stop writing your term paper in another session. >Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad >features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new >OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. Bad features? Please elaborate. This prate about Windows being better than OS/2 without any substance in them is ridiculous. >Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because >of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. >Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS >users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! OS/2 1.3 does not require a 386; it requires a 286, just like Windows. OS/2 2.0 will require a 386, but I can guarantee you that if what the SDK shows is any indication of what 2.0 will be like, MS is going to have a Maalox moment. Also, I have already stated that 1.3 only requires 2M to run, so that point is invalid also. Please, let's discuss these issues with REAL facts and VALID points, so we don't waste bandwidth. 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.
yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (04/17/91)
>The New York Times (4/16) had an article that stated IBM was cutting >the price of OS/2 starting tomorrow. > -------- > > Specifically: SE from $340 -> $150 > EE from $830 -> $690 Great, how much do the development kits cost? Still +$2,000 or are they reducing the price on those? Bill Yow yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov My opinions are my own.
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr17.083938@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >Great, how much do the development kits cost? Still +$2,000 or are they >reducing the price on those? If you're talking about 2.0, it hasn't been released yet; presumably when it is a product IBM and maybe MS will have cheap toolkits for it. If you're taking about 1.x, the programmer's toolkits don't cost anything close to $2000, and haven't since the products were released. The MS 1.x toolkit is available at $350, the MS Softset (which contains all the critical stuff) at $100, the IBM toolkit is about $600, I think. All US dollars). Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116
mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) (04/18/91)
Good question! Does anyone know how much the IBM 1.2/1.3 Technical Reference costs? Also, what are the differences between it and the Microsoft PM toolkit/softset? Thanks, -Allan MacKinnon
yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (04/18/91)
>The MS 1.x toolkit is available at $350, the MS Softset (which contains all >the critical stuff) at $100, the IBM toolkit is about $600, I think. All >US dollars). Does this include the Presentation Manager software kit? I thought the PM stuff was over $2000.00? What is in the 1.X toolkit for $350? Thanks, Bill Yow yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov My opinions are my own.
tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (04/18/91)
In article <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU>, vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes: > First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing > environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is > integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I > thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the > future. > Hard to compare it with Windows? I look at Windows and then back at my OS/2 1.3 screen and I see very little difference. Not to mention OS/2 can actually run Microsoft Word without crashing ever 2 minutes. > > This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I > mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG > of hard drive space to even install. Windows will run on a 640k xt. Then question is WHY??? What can you do with it. To do anything serious with Windows you need a 286 with 4 megs. Which is what you need to use OS/2 1.3 SE seriousely. And the base operating system does not take up 16 megs. Try 5 or 6. > Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In > general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too > strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than > OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with > which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are > chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. > Lots of folks are chucking money on both systems. US likes Windows but not OS/2, Europe likes OS/2 but not Windows. > > Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad > features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new > OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. > OS/2 2.0 (at least the betas) runs Windows applications better then Windows does. I find OS/2 a more stable operating system then running DOS/Windows. > Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because > of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. > Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS > users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! DOS 4.01 is not even DOS compatible. More things crash with DOS 4.01 in our environment then under the DOS box with OS/2 1.3. > > 'Nuff said. > ---- same here... timothy shea International IS&DP 3M, Inc. tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu AO: tshea (612) 739-3764
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.152123@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >>The MS 1.x toolkit is available at $350, the MS Softset (which contains all >>the critical stuff) at $100, the IBM toolkit is about $600, I think. All >>US dollars). > >Does this include the Presentation Manager software kit? I thought the >PM stuff was over $2000.00? > >What is in the 1.X toolkit for $350? All the three above toolkits contain all the necessary tools to create PM applications. They differ in the amount of Documentation and sample source code. The MS toolkit, for example contains several volumes of printed documentation while the softset does not (they can be ordered independently if one needs not all the books but only some). Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams (MS)
jwohl@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.172725.11743@athena.mit.edu> mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) writes: > >Speaking of how 'much' OS/2 will set you back: > >The New York Times (4/16) had an article that stated IBM was cutting >the price of OS/2 starting tomorrow. > -------- > > Specifically: SE from $340 -> $150 > EE from $830 -> $690 > >Sounds good to me. I wonder if student prices still apply? If so >that would be ridiculously cheap, as far as bang for the buck. I >guess there is no longer a reason for people to say it is too >expensive. Now they can just complain that there is no software out >there! :-) And I haven't paid a single upgrade charge (not even shipping!) since 1.0. Since Windows 1.0, I've could've bought several SEs with MS's upgrade costs. -- Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr17.152123@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >What is in the 1.X toolkit for $350? The MS Toolkit actually lists at about $500, I think, but is available from many places at about the $350 I quoted -- check any issue of Byte or Pc Mag. It contains: all the OS/2 header files (also availabe via MS/C 6.0) all the MS development tools, include RC, fontedit, iconedit, dlgbox, and miscellaneous lesser ones the IBM tools for compiling dtl (dialog manager stuff) and ipf (help manager stuff). megabytes of sample code qh-format online reference/help copies of vols 1-4 of the MS OS/2 Programmer's Reference copy of Charles Petzold's book on PM. an account on "MS Online" and some amount of connect time. The MS softset (about $100 discounted) contains the tools and header files, but not the docs, online reference, samples, or Online account. The IBM Toolkit contains the tools, headers, samples, online documents, IBM's versions of the printed reference manuals (somewhat better than MS's). It includes documentation for device drivers, which is a separate product from Micrsoft. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116
olender@parsons.cs.colostate.edu (Kurt Olender) (04/19/91)
Alan Ballard writes:
If you're talking about 2.0, it hasn't been released yet; presumably when it
is a product IBM and maybe MS will have cheap toolkits for it. If
you're taking about 1.x, the programmer's toolkits don't cost anything close
to $2000, and haven't since the products were released.
I think the confusion comes from the Microsoft OS/2 2.0 SDK, which is the
pre-release "beta" version that includes a 32-bit C compiler, etc,
specifically intended for those who want to get a jump on everyone else and
release their 2.0 apps just when 2.0 is finally released. That as I recall
costs about $2000 or so. For the rest of us developing OS/2 applications who
are content to wait until the "release" versio nof the development tools come
out I'd expect, like Alan, that it would be considerably less than $2k.bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Barry King) (04/19/91)
> In article <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> >eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu ....deleted text ... > This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run > OS/2. I mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of > memory and 16 MEG of hard drive space to even install. Sure, Windows will run on an XT...just like gasoline engines will run on diesel. It'll run, but not very well and who'd want to. Everyone _knows_ you need a fast 286 at a minimum. Windows isn't exactly a lightweight either. > >> There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows > >> in the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. > > Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the > bad features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the > new OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. What 'bad features' are you referring to? And by 'crash and burn', I hope you aren't implying that Windows doesn't crash often. I run Windows 8 hours a day at work and OS/2 4 to 8 hours a day at home - OS/2 has crashed maybe five times in the last 6 months. I do development and it's generally been my code that has crashed the system. Windows crashes at least 3 times in one week. > Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 > because of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 > with gobs of <memory> Agreed, kinda. My 386 at home has 4 Mb. I can do everything I need to. My machine at work has 14 Mb - it runs Windows (or OS/2) and _needs_ 'gobs of RAM' as well. Anyone trying to do anything productive with Windows knows that a minimum of 4 Mb is required to do anything useful. Same with OS/2. > Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to > DOS users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going > to work! Windows is hardly 100% compatible with DOS or DOS applications. WordPerfect is one example. Windows itself is another. If OS/2 v2.0 runs native DOS in a virtual machine it will be as compatible with DOS as Windows currently is. Not even all DOS apps are 'compatible' with DOS...you've gotta pick 'n choose anyway... > > 'Nuff said. Agreed. > "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me. Words to live by. Clearly, DOS isn't going to go away anytime soon and not everybody needs OS/2. Not everybody needs Windows. The point here is that OS/2 has suffered from a lot of bad marketing and bad press. There's a lot of OS/2 mysticism (and myths...) because many people don't understand what OS/2 is all about. They also somehow feel threatened that they'll have to give up DOS...baffling. If you can run Windows apps with a true o/s underneath, that's definitely got to be better than having DOS underneath. Windows and the PM are designed (mostly) to isolate the user somewhat from the details of what's happening beneath. OS/2 can do this better than DOS and the reasons for this are well understood, in most circles. Anyway.... Barry King ersys!bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr16.172725.11743@athena.mit.edu> mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) writes: > Specifically: SE from $340 -> $150 > EE from $830 -> $690 I am assuming that SE=Standard Edition & EE=Extended Edition (or something along those lines, but to the non os/2 person (i.e me) that means absolutely nothing ... can someone highlight the differences? ... thanks. P.S. $150 list (similar to DOS) is ok ... but $690 .... argh! 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
roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) (04/23/91)
In article <3108@travis.csd.harris.com> leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) writes: >In article <1991Apr16.172725.11743@athena.mit.edu> mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) writes: >> Specifically: SE from $340 -> $150 >> EE from $830 -> $690 > >I am assuming that SE=Standard Edition & EE=Extended Edition (or something >along those lines, but to the non os/2 person (i.e me) that means absolutely >nothing ... can someone highlight the differences? ... thanks. > >P.S. $150 list (similar to DOS) is ok ... but $690 .... argh! > > > SE - Standard Edition. This comes with GENERAL utilities, and some limited text-editing features, and for the most part, has the same functionality as DOS except you can multi-task, and use a new partition system called, HPFS (High Performance File System). [I personally use FAT vs HPFS] EE - Extended Edition. This comes with everything SE came with but much more. It has a database manager, query manager, communications manager, and all sorts of other goodies that are "Essential" to a person who wants to TRY to fully utilize his computer. Is it worth the price differential.... If you have the money, then yes. If you have to scrape it together and save for it....probably not.... Hope this sheds a smidgen of light on your question. Having eye-strain from working all day, I have not posted a dissertation on the fundamentals and theoretical inadequacies between the varying versions 1.0-2.0, so if you need any more information, E-mail me. Have fun Mike