eb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric James Bales) (05/02/91)
FAQ: Does anyone have a list of FTP sites for OS/2 stuff?
What ever happened with being able to download OS/2 2.0 beta from the
BBS? Can people do it again? Or must you have already been on the
BBS? What's the news on this?
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.David_Wright@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (David Wright) (05/18/91)
MR> Not quite. The "official line" (what MS told the press in February)
MR> is that Win32/DOS will be about as robust as OS/2 1.x/2.x -- i.e., (as
MR> we all know), under certain conditions Ring 3 code can still hose the
MR> system. Win32/NT will be far more robust than current OS/2.
Just as Windows will inherit code from OS/2, so OS/2 will inherit code
from NT, hence the term "cross" licensing. Being more robust than 1991-OS/2
in 1993 won't mean very much. OS/2 isn't going to stand still while NT is
being created. Most of the enhancements for NT will appear in OS/2 before
NT reaches dealer shelves. IBM will turn the tables on Microsoft, and OS/2
will do to NT, what Windows has been doing to PM.
Dave
--- msged 1.99G OS/2
* Origin: The IdleNews (1:153/905.4)Claude_Biron@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Claude Biron) (05/18/91)
SB>
SB> FWIW, I think we're all going to get pretty bored hearing about this NT
SB> over the next 2-3 years before it appears on the local computer store
SB> shelves.
SB>
What? You mean you won't get off on chasing the MS carrot all the way to
their big bank account? Strange.
Claude
--- msged 1.99G OS/2
* Origin: Point no point "Long live OS2" (1:153/905.2)Steve_Lesner@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Lesner) (05/18/91)
SD> But all that aside - what makes Unix a better choice for me (should I SD> ever have enough money to run it :-) is the muliuser capabilities and the SD> filing system. The way the filing system works is right for me - as SD> opposed to the HPFS. Unix will happily run on about the same megs as OS/2 happily runs upon-- about 8 megs--maybe 2 megs more for Unix but it all depends on what you need to do and what version of Unix. Unlike 1.x OS/2, unix wants a 386, Xenix will run on a 286. OS/2 2.0 will be just like Unix -- it will need at least a 386. 8 megs is a VERY comfortable amount for OS/2 1.3. Unlike Unix, OS/2 may be just about as happy with 4 or 6 megs. If you can login your OS/2 PC(s) onto a Novell or equivalent Lan, you'll have all the unix functionally you desire. In fact, Novell is based on unix in many ways. And I'm sure the same holds true for Lan Man, etc, nets. I'd try and look a bit more closely at OS/2. You get a great DOS interface ( esp in 2.0) and then access to the many programs written with DOS in mind. But either way you go, you will have to spend some money as you want a multi- user system. Unix ain't cheap--SCO will cost at least $600. OS/2 can be had for half. The hardware requirements are close as stated above. However, with both platforms running on a intel type environment, you'll need com ports based on the amount of users you have. With OS/2 and Unix on a ISA intel type machine, that means another $300-500 for a Digboard (unless 2 users are enough). It will also cost a lot for SCO unix programs. They tend to run at least twice as much as DOS/OS2 products. For instance, a good compiler and debugger can be had in DOS and in OS/2 for about $250. I bet you'll spend $500 in SCO or any Unix for the same. And, really, you could also just run a lan period (no Os/2 or Unix). You could set up a Novell 2.2 non-dedicated server running on a 286 pc. Then, you'd have a workstation and a server with multiuser capabilites through ethernet or arcnet cards. But I'm getting to far on a tangent now. Suffice it to say, think very carefully on what you need. --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02.OS/2.B0 * Origin: Uh Huh, OS/2, I've got the right one Baby, Uh Huh (1:141/261)
Joe_Salemi@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Salemi) (05/18/91)
In a message to Ralph Scowden <13 May 91 13:27> Mark Ryland wrote: MR> Not quite. The "official line" (what MS told the press in February) MR> is that Win32/DOS will be about as robust as OS/2 1.x/2.x -- i.e., (as MR> we all know), under certain conditions Ring 3 code can still hose the MR> system. Win32/NT will be far more robust than current OS/2. MR> FWIW, I tend to believe this claim for reasons that I can't discuss. Not because you happen to work for MS? <g> --- XRS! 4.14+ * Origin: Max's Doghouse Remote Kennel /703-548-7849/ (RAX 1:109/136.1)
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/24/91)
In article <9105231120.AA92756@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org> Steve_Lesner@f261.n141.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Lesner) writes: >Unix will happily run on about the same megs as OS/2 happily runs upon-- >about 8 megs--maybe 2 megs more for Unix but it all depends on what you need >to do >and what version of Unix. Unlike 1.x OS/2, unix wants a 386, Xenix will run >on a 286. OS/2 2.0 will be just like Unix -- it will need at least a 386. Ok, But Can you run Xwindows on less? Or some other graphical interface? I might be interested in hearing about a version of UNIX I could run with Xwindow on my 286 with 4.5 megs of ram and 80 meg hard disk. Wim. -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS | 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | Currently down for the summer. | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32