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
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (04/22/91)
/ wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) / 5:55 am Apr 22, 1991 / writes: $ >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 heard mentioned over and over again that there is a program called TAME under DOS/Windows which will allow you to detect and eliminate timing loop to speed up Windows. Never try that myself though. $ 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 $ BBBBzzzzzzttt !!! There are quite a few write buffering cache programs under DOS. Like SUPERPCK and HYPERDISK. And they perform quite well with the crummy MesSyDOS FAT disk structure, thank you. $ 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. $ DOS sessions under Windows 3.0 enhanced mode are truely separate virtual 86 machines. As far as I know, if OS/2 uses the same virtual 86 approach (which is vital for DOS compatibility), it will suffer the same performance problem. ..... But it might do better with a true 32-bit native 386 protected mode as the control environment. Anyone to comment ? $ 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. $ .... which means taking a big performance hit again due to all the need to intercept all these stuff. Besides, a lot of people still write programs that will never run under Windows 3.0 --- I am referring to the games programmers. So, under DOS/ Windows, you have the option to quit Windows and run the games under DOS. What can you do once you loaded up OS/2 ? Is there are way to "PARK" OS/2 to one side to prevent it from interferring with the games ? Please comment. $ 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 $ How do you use your DOS environment ? Boot up a plain vanilla DOS ? With "BUFFERS=20" as your disk cache ? Or do you use thing like SUPERPCK, QEMM etc. etc. ? $ 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. $ Ahhh !! But you have to provide a gradual migration path. Given the current situation (created by the Windows 3.0 menia), it should be okay to ignore DOS 1.x and 2.x. But, I still want to be able to run my DOS based games ! $ 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 $ I believe everybody is waiting to see your comment on how it run on Tuesday morning. ;-). Personally, I like the idea of lightweight threads and 32-bit linear address space in OS/2 386. As soon as they fix the problem with the DOS compatibility box, make it capable of running certain DOS extender programs, make it able to run Windows 3 program straight off, make it non-IBM machine specific, make it an open standard, make it cheap and provide a way for me to run those games which demand full control of the 386 CPU, I will switch to OS/2 anytime. .... Be it OS/2 from IBM or OS/2 from Microsoft (anyone else ????). .... Don't forget to include superVGA drivers for ATI VGA Wonder card, and make it work with Sound Blaster, etc. etc. ;-) Regards, ___o``\________________________________________________ ___ __ _ _ Peter Lim. V````\ @ @ . .. ... .- -> 76 MIPS at under US$20K !! --- -- - - /.------------------------------------------------ === == = = >--_// . .. ... .- -> 57 MIPS at under US$12K !! `' . If you guessed SUN, IBM or DEC, your are wrong ! E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, Singapore 0410. #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>
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
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
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.
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
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
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 ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/.
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
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
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.
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
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) 432-6200ntaib@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 ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------