barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (05/04/91)
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >In article <1991May3.115757.508@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >>run on a 386 or better, you can bet that the number of OS/2 users will be >>between 10% and 20% of the Windows users. If I was starting development >One thing to think about here, not really to say one way or another, but >definitely think about, is that people who run OS/2 will be "using" os/2. How >many people Using windows are just using it as a task switcher, or glorified >DOS Shell, to continiue using DOS? >Wim. >-- >| wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS >| 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339 >| 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32 During the first year of Window's life (1.x) we used it mainly to launch PageMaker. Our office had a batch file set up for each Window application, which launched Windows and the application then returned to the root directory. Shortly after Excel was released and several other packages were upgraded, more often than not Windows was all anyone saw (no DOS app's except a word processor and Kermit in DOS windows). Shortly after Windows 3.0 was released and more upgrades were made, the few remaining DOS app's were all but phased out. We now have an office logo for a Windows desktop. Using WinQVT for communications eliminated Kermit (except for file transfers - see previous "suggestions" regarding a 'resend packet' dialogue box button). I would suggest that this is typical of other offices I am familiar with. Generally discounting the value of Win 3.0, nowadays, sounds like sour grapes to me. File Manager and Program Manager alone (while they could be better) are a vast improvement of over the DOS prompt (for the unitiated). File Move is otherwise not available. Print Manager used with a PostScript printer is great (showing percent complete, enabling "resume print", etc.). I don't doubt OS/2 will improve on these and other features. But I am willing to wait for OS/3 and stick with Win 3.x for now. If you really want to be impressed, get a NeXTstation with a MACH kernal and object oriented everything. I suspect with advances like these on the (near) horizon (for $5000, including hardware, software and connectivety) even OS/3 will look lame (too little too late). end 'o ramblin barry -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/04/91)
In article <s03gry#@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >Shortly after Windows 3.0 was released and more upgrades were made, the >few remaining DOS app's were all but phased out. We now have an office > >I would suggest that this is typical of other offices I am familiar with. Sounds good. My only real experience with Windows besides what I have played around with, is in the way my parents use it. My dad uses is in his Law Office and uses Word 5.5 (Not the WFW) Excel, and Timeslips III (A billing Application) as his main applications. I don't believe that Timeslips has a windows version, but it can be run in a dos window, and so instead of running TimeSlips as a TSR, it is run in a seperate window. I don't see that Windows is doing him much good, even though it does look pretty good, and make a few things easier. He like it though, so I guess that is the bottom line. Wim. -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS | 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339 | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/05/91)
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: >window. I don't see that Windows is doing him much good, even though it does >look pretty good, and make a few things easier. You said he uses Excel. How can you say Windows isn't doing him much good when he couldn't run Excel without it? --
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/06/91)
Also, Windows 3.0 does not run well on anything less than a 386sx. If you can run windows 3.0, you can run OS/2 too. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: netcom.com
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/07/91)
In <s03gry#@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >I don't doubt OS/2 will improve on these and other features. But I am willing >to wait for OS/3 and stick with Win 3.x for now. > >If you really want to be impressed, get a NeXTstation with a MACH kernal >and object oriented everything. I suspect with advances like these on >the (near) horizon (for $5000, including hardware, software and connectivety) >even OS/3 will look lame (too little too late). ...If you can afford to spend that kind of money. Supposing ;) that IBM lowers the cost of OS/2 2.0 to something reasonable (and considering that they already did for 1.3, this seems to be plausible) and can get it to run on the popular clones, then your argument gets pulled out from under you. Not to mention that IBM is supposed to release 2.0 at the end of the year. You've waited this long for it; can you wait another year (according to MS. I see it more on the order of 2 years) for the New-Technology kernal (not to mention the performance hit that your applications will take)? OS/2 2.0 will do what NT is supposed to do (on a smaller scale): it will run DOS, Windows, and PM applications concurrently. Do you REALLY care if the kernal is portable, as long as it runs on your computer (sure, you buy an RS/6000 every day, don't you?)? 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.
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (05/07/91)
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) writes: >In <s03gry#@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >>I don't doubt OS/2 will improve on these and other features. But I am willing >>to wait for OS/3 and stick with Win 3.x for now. >> >>If you really want to be impressed, get a NeXTstation with a MACH kernal >>and object oriented everything. I suspect with advances like these on >>the (near) horizon (for $5000, including hardware, software and connectivety) >>even OS/3 will look lame (too little too late). >...If you can afford to spend that kind of money. Supposing ;) that >IBM lowers the cost of OS/2 2.0 to something reasonable (and considering >that they already did for 1.3, this seems to be plausible) and can get it >to run on the popular clones, then your argument gets pulled out from >under you. I see many markets when I look no further than our own institution. Granted there will be OS/2 2.0 enthusiasts. In a small business market with an installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more I grant you. However (saw it coming, didn't you!?), for those with a drastically limited budget and access to the Internet Win 3.0 remains very attractive. Much of what is needed for development is far more mature than any OS/2 tools (aind forever will be more mature). Many shareware and freeware app's exist (on cica.cica.indiana.edu). It has a relatively low hardware requirement (depending on what you need to do). There are millions of copies out there. >Not to mention that IBM is supposed to release 2.0 at the end of the >year. You've waited this long for it; can you wait another year >(according to MS. I see it more on the order of 2 years) for the >New-Technology kernal (not to mention the performance hit that your >applications will take)? OS/2 2.0 will do what NT is supposed to do (on >a smaller scale): it will run DOS, Windows, and PM applications >concurrently. Do you REALLY care if the kernal is portable, as long as >it runs on your computer (sure, you buy an RS/6000 every day, don't >you?)? To the extent that I work in an environment where I am spending other people's money and have little say in which operating system we use it is a foregone conclusion that we will be using DOS Window 3.x for sometime to come. If any transition occurs it will ibe towards Unix and/or Unix compatible resources (TCP/IP, NFS, mail, News, etc.). I do not logically see how OS/2 would fit into a predominately Unix environment, where hundreds of Macs and PCs are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to take full advantage of OS/2 features. And to what advantage? Primarily technical advantages, no killer app's, no promise of massive increases in productivity, no promise of leveraging existing resources, very few flashy applications, few bells and wistles that the average computer user can sink their teeth into. No, I don't REALLY care if the kernal is portable. What we really care about is whether or not file formats are compatible (i.e. Word for Windows, Word for Mac, Word for OS/2 can exchange files). Note that NeXT can read DOS 3.5 disks and that Wordperfect and Wingz are available on the PC, Mac and NeXT. In my book, OS/2 must provide similar app's with similar file compatibility and then it might make on new platforms (not existing platforms). Who cares if a network node is a Mac, Vax, PC, NeXT, Sun, RS/6000, etc. as long as there they are networked and resident app's can share files (and they serve unique local needs)? This is endemic to the university/big corporation market (not the small business market). Other markets will have other concerns, some may not care what is bundled on their clone as long it supports the app's they need. As to function: Sit average user in front of a NeXT with Improv and voice mail, etc. and I dare say you'll get their attention. If anything the NeXT is packaged well, in the same way that the Mac was packaged before it. The hardware and software work well together and everything is bundled in one package (plug and play). It may be relegated to nich markets, but I dare say therein you will find religiously devout backers of the system. None-the-less, I remain satisfied (under the circumstances) with Win 3.0 and its public support. Neither the NeXT or OS/2 can currently claim a comparible audience. This too may change. IMHO, I suspect OS/2 will have to keep an eye on the NeXT et al more so than on Win 3.0 and clones. This may turn out not to be the case. Until OS/2 2.0 (3.0, etc.) is out no one will know for sure. >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. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock) (05/07/91)
In article <066gx8m@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: |> However (saw it coming, didn't you!?), for those with a drastically limited |> budget and access to the Internet Win 3.0 remains very attractive. Much of |> what is needed for development is far more mature than any OS/2 tools |> (aind forever will be more mature). Many shareware and freeware app's exist |> (on cica.cica.indiana.edu). It has a relatively low hardware requirement |> (depending on what you need to do). There are millions of copies out there. I suggest that you check out the ftp sites archive.latrobe.edu.au, funic.funet.fi, mtsg.ubc.ca, terminator.cc.umich.edu et. al. There are actually a surprisingly large number of freeware or shareware for OS/2, all you have to do is look for them. I would certainly dispute the statement that the development tools for Windows are more mature - in fact the very features of the operating system make development of (and with) tools like Multiscope for OS/2 a lot more mature. As for cost, IBM's price for OS/2 is less than that of DOS + Windows, and OS/2 2.0 will also be US$150 list (including header files for producing OS/2 apps). |> To the extent that I work in an environment where I am spending other |> people's |> money and have little say in which operating system we use it is a |> foregone |> conclusion that we will be using DOS Window 3.x for sometime to come. |> If |> any transition occurs it will ibe towards Unix and/or Unix compatible |> resources |> (TCP/IP, NFS, mail, News, etc.). I do not logically see how OS/2 |> would |> fit into a predominately Unix environment, where hundreds of Macs and |> PCs |> are attached to a broadband network. There are at least two very good TCP/IP packages for OS/2 (FTP Software and IBM). I would say that OS/2's installable file systems and multitasking would make it much for suitable for integration into a Unix environment than many other systems. |> No, I don't REALLY care if the kernal is portable. What we really care about |> is whether or not file formats are compatible (i.e. Word for Windows, |> Word for Mac, Word for OS/2 can exchange files). Note that NeXT can read |> DOS 3.5 disks and that Wordperfect and Wingz are available on the PC, Mac |> and NeXT. In my book, OS/2 must provide similar app's with similar file |> compatibility and then it might make on new platforms (not existing |> platforms). Well of course WordPerfect is available for OS/2, and does use the same file format. -- Conrad Bullock | Domain: conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington, | or: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz New Zealand. | Fidonet: 3:771/130 | BBS: The Cave BBS +64 4 643429
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/07/91)
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With >nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a >winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing >development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more Barry, you seem to have overlooked the fact that OS/2 will run Win binaries. That combined with a High Performance File System and a DOS box which is better than DOS, should be enough to switch many Win users to OS/2 >are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software >base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to I don't see that you have to spend lots of money on new hw and sw. -- The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (05/08/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >>installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With >>nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a >>winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing >>development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more >Barry, you seem to have overlooked the fact that OS/2 will run Win binaries. >That combined with a High Performance File System and a DOS box which is >better than DOS, should be enough to switch many Win users to OS/2 >>are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software >>base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to >I don't see that you have to spend lots of money on new hw and sw. >-- > The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do not claim to be an OS/2 expert, but I have not overlooked some of the more basic proclamations found in OS/2 literature. I realize that OS/2 will run Win 3.0/DOS applications. I also realize that until an OS/2 specific application is released that is unavailable elsewhere I am not compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native environment. OS/2 is technically more advanced than DOS, no one seems to deny this fact. Win 3.0 on top of DOS is satisfactory for millions of people, no one seems to deny this fact. Many developers are porting Win 3.0 app's to PM on OS/2, no one seems to deny this fact. To date I am not aware of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other). Until such time as a critical mass of app's are available on OS/2 *and* there are one or two *extremely exciting* app's available no where else, why switch? Instead of spending millions of dollars promoting the next big thing in operating systems, why not spend millions of dollars in developing an *amazing* application and let the application sell the OS? It worked with the MAC, it seems to be working with Windows (both had desktop publishing), it might work for the NeXT (OO done to the bones and Improv to show it off, as well as voice/DSP processing, etc.). From day one, IMHO, OS/2 has been a prime example of putting the cart before the horse. You don't sell operating systems to average users -- you sell applications, regardless of the OS. Though it would be nice if your OS enables developers to do *amazing* things that other OSs can't do. For now I am happy with what Win 3.0 enables me to do. Developers may have differing opinions. In the future I hope to have enabling technology on par with the NeXT, at my finger tips... throw in a little neural net technology in the OS kernal to enable it to second guess me and I would be hard pressed to select what, IMHO, may be considered incremental improvements. end 'o ramblin barry -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock) (05/08/91)
In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: |> I do not claim to be an OS/2 expert, but I have not overlooked some of the |> more basic proclamations found in OS/2 literature. I realize that OS/2 |> will run Win 3.0/DOS applications. I also realize that until an OS/2 |> specific application is released that is unavailable elsewhere I am not |> compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special |> magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top |> of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native |> environment. OS/2 2.0 obviously does perform some magic - better memory management and multi-tasking. In IBM's demo of OS/2 2.0, they multi-tasked two DOS apps (Lotus and dBase IV (??)), under Win 3 enhanced and OS/2 2.0, on identical machines - OS/2 finished 30 seconds faster than DOS. They ran a windows program (Excel (?) as the only tasks under OS/2 and Windows, and the OS/2 machine finished a couple of seconds earlier. They have also claimed (but haven't shown) that a single DOS box is faster than DOS itself. |> OS/2 is technically more advanced than DOS, no one seems to deny this fact. |> Win 3.0 on top of DOS is satisfactory for millions of people, no one |> seems to deny this fact. Many developers are porting Win 3.0 app's to |> PM on OS/2, no one seems to deny this fact. To date I am not aware |> of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on |> Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is |> uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other). If everyone was happy with what was satisfactory for them, nobody would be running Windows - character based applications have been satisfactory for a mighty long time. CP/M was satisfcatory for a mighty long time. For those that have only ever used DOS, DOS may well be satisfactory. I don't buy the satisfactory argument - everybody wanting something better than what they have currently is what drives the computer industry. BTW - out of interest, what would you class as "Windows' Killer Apps"? -- Conrad Bullock | Domain: conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington, | or: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz New Zealand. | Fidonet: 3:771/130 | BBS: The Cave BBS +64 4 643429
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (05/08/91)
In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >[...]To date I am not aware >of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on >Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is >uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other). Here's one: Imara Document Retrieval System. It uses SQL Server (networked), large file systems (HPFS, optical, ...) and graphics. OS/2 seems the logical choice for something as memory intensive as this application. They do not make a DOS version. I've also heard that all of IBM's multimedia stuff runs under OS/2. --kyler
dbl@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (David Lawson) (05/08/91)
In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: [much of article deleted] > OS/2 is technically more advanced than DOS, no one seems to deny this fact. > Win 3.0 on top of DOS is satisfactory for millions of people, no one > seems to deny this fact. Many developers are porting Win 3.0 app's to > PM on OS/2, no one seems to deny this fact. To date I am not aware > of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on > Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is Well, I've got a "Killer OS/2 App" for you. Let's say, a compiler that doesn't run out of memory on an 8 meg machine because the OS !WILL! let it get to the memory. I realize this may seem like a developer only problem but it DOES affect the end user. Applications that cannot be shoe-horn compiled on a machine running windows and a DOS-Box with no more than 625K (and that comes with luck, DOS 5 and lots of devicehigh= in the config.sys) will not be written. It is a serious problem to be limited by DOS in the development cycle of products. Even if the eventual resting place of a product is DOS+Windows, we need OS/2 as a development and testing platform. Windows is just too unstable (IMHO of course). > barry > -- > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | > | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | > +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+ Dave Lawson dbl@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu
bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Barry King) (05/08/91)
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes: > In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes > >[...]To date I am not aware > >of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on > >Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is > >uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other). > > Here's one: Imara Document Retrieval System. > > It uses SQL Server (networked), large file systems (HPFS, optical, ...) and > graphics. OS/2 seems the logical choice for something as memory intensive > as this application. They do not make a DOS version. > > I've also heard that all of IBM's multimedia stuff runs under OS/2. > IBM's Image Plus (document storage/retrieval system) runs under OS/2 also. Imara is therefore not a lone vendor of such a product. Furthermore, the IBM product makes use of optical storage attached to (of course) it's mainframes. Personally, the killer feature of OS/2 for me is that I can copy/format/whatever floppy diskettes and still do simultaneous downloads and compiles. Simple things for simple minds, I guess...but Windows can't cut it on that score. Barry King ersys!bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982
jwh@bodwin.citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) (05/09/91)
In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: > >I do not claim to be an OS/2 expert, but I have not overlooked some of the >more basic proclamations found in OS/2 literature. I realize that OS/2 >will run Win 3.0/DOS applications. I also realize that until an OS/2 >specific application is released that is unavailable elsewhere I am not >compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special >magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top >of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native >environment. > For me the one big win with OS/2 2.0 would be reliability. I use OS/2 1.3 right now and when one application dies it doesn't kill to whole system. If OS/2 2.0 really provides a useful DOS box and can run Windows applications I can see no reason why a person with a 386 would want to continue to use a kludge like Windows. James W. Howe internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/09/91)
(Sigh) I guess I have to respond, or else everyone will think I am conceeding the argument: In <066gx8m@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >I see many markets when I look no further than our own institution. Granted >there will be OS/2 2.0 enthusiasts. In a small business market with an >installed base of '386s price/performance of OS/2 2.0 may win the day. With >nominal upgrades to hardware (RAM, networked disk space) it may be a >winning combination, given the right applications. Given an amazing >development environment it might be even more popular. All this and more >I grant you. > >However (saw it coming, didn't you!?), for those with a drastically limited >budget and access to the Internet Win 3.0 remains very attractive. Much of >what is needed for development is far more mature than any OS/2 tools >(aind forever will be more mature). Many shareware and freeware app's exist >(on cica.cica.indiana.edu). It has a relatively low hardware requirement >(depending on what you need to do). There are millions of copies out there. I suppose that everyone in the world has Internet access? Oh...I didn't think so. Windows does have a relatively low hardware requirement; *BUT* if you want ANY sort of decent performance, you are going to have to shell out the big bucks, just like OS/2. I agree that Windows has a large user base, but IBM is trying to change that (and from what I hear, they have an extremely good shot at doing so...but I must digress before I tread on the thin ice.). BTW: to those who keep insisting that OS/2 has a "miniscule" following (that word is a direct quote from someone. Yeah, you know who you are), think again. Just because IBM doesn't wear its sales figures on its sleeve like some sort of badge ("Hey mon, look whoat I deed" - said with your best Jamaican accent. ;), doesn't mean that OS/2 is doing poorly. >To the extent that I work in an environment where I am spending other people's >money and have little say in which operating system we use it is a foregone >conclusion that we will be using DOS Window 3.x for sometime to come. If >any transition occurs it will ibe towards Unix and/or Unix compatible resources >(TCP/IP, NFS, mail, News, etc.). I do not logically see how OS/2 would TCP/IP, NFS, ... are already available. Or did you think that I receive my newsfeed on a Unix machine? Oh...I didn't think so. >fit into a predominately Unix environment, where hundreds of Macs and PCs >are attached to a broadband network. Add to this the installed software >base and the related cost of upgrading hardware and buying new software to >take full advantage of OS/2 features. And to what advantage? Primarily >technical advantages, no killer app's, no promise of massive increases >in productivity, no promise of leveraging existing resources, very few >flashy applications, few bells and wistles that the average computer >user can sink their teeth into. If I were you, I would wait until 2.0 comes out before stating that OS/2 won't help in these areas. Again, I must digress... ;) >No, I don't REALLY care if the kernal is portable. What we really care about >is whether or not file formats are compatible (i.e. Word for Windows, (Sigh) This is getting ridiculous now. So you think that NT will provide this??? NO!!! NT is simply a way of mapping the Windows, OS/2, VMS, and Dos APIs to a common set of kernal functions. THAT'S IT! Your file formats will still be as incompatible, etc.. >Word for Mac, Word for OS/2 can exchange files). Note that NeXT can read >DOS 3.5 disks and that Wordperfect and Wingz are available on the PC, Mac >and NeXT. In my book, OS/2 must provide similar app's with similar file >compatibility and then it might make on new platforms (not existing platforms). >Who cares if a network node is a Mac, Vax, PC, NeXT, Sun, RS/6000, etc. as >long as there they are networked and resident app's can share files (and >they serve unique local needs)? This is endemic to the university/big >corporation market (not the small business market). "can share files" - see note above. >Other markets will have other concerns, some may not care what is bundled >on their clone as long it supports the app's they need. > >As to function: > >Sit average user in front of a NeXT with Improv and voice mail, etc. and >I dare say you'll get their attention. If anything the NeXT is packaged >well, in the same way that the Mac was packaged before it. The hardware >and software work well together and everything is bundled in one package >(plug and play). It may be relegated to nich markets, but I dare say therein >you will find religiously devout backers of the system. Agreed. The NeXT is a nice machine. >None-the-less, I remain satisfied (under the circumstances) with Win 3.0 >and its public support. Neither the NeXT or OS/2 can currently claim a >comparible audience. This too may change. IMHO, I suspect OS/2 will have to >keep an eye on the NeXT et al more so than on Win 3.0 and clones. This >may turn out not to be the case. Until OS/2 2.0 (3.0, etc.) is out >no one will know for sure. I agree. I will wait until 2.0 hits the streets. 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.
hd7x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sanjay Aiyagari) (05/09/91)
In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: > compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special > magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top > of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native > environment. There are special pieces of magic performed by OS/2 2.0. One of them, I remember reading about in a recent PC Week, was that Micrografx was working with IBM on the interface between Windows apps and the PM. Since the PM code will all be 32-bit, when a Windows app makes a call to a particular function, that function will be executed as 32-bit code. Of course, this won't perform as well as true 32-bit code (for the whole application) but it does seem plausible that if this is the case, then certain Windows apps could perform slightly better than under Windows itself (where everything is 16-bit). Sanjay Aiyagari (hd7x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/09/91)
Barry Floyd, I forgot to "bitch" at you for saying that Windows development tools are "far more mature (and forever will be more mature)". Come on...Get serious... 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.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/09/91)
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special >magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top >of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native >environment. You're ignoring the high performance file system, multi-threading (format a floppy while doing something else) and a superior DOS box. But I've already said this, you just don't bother to read. -- The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) (05/09/91)
Windows is very unreliable on a 386. I've had DOS applications crash my system with appalling frequency. I *never* had a DOS box cause my OS/2 system at work to crash (1.3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Dahmus MXD118@PSUVM / dahmus@endor.cs.psu.edu 504 Beaver Hall Phone 862-5141 UNIX is for EUNUCHS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.214231.28026@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >>compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special >>magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top >>of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native >>environment. (Sorry - I missed the original) The "magic" is that the kernel of OS/2 is re-entrant where as DOS isn't Even when windows is running. As an example: Task a opens a file task b opens a file. Under DOS/Windows, if a task switch occurs when task a is in the middle of a DOS call, task b will be blocked until task a finishes his call. Under OS/2 task a and b may access the operating system "simultaneously" (not really, but you know what I mean) There are other issues with Windows that aren't present in OS/2. In Windows, if you allocate memory, you are given a "handle" rather than a pointer. This handle must be locked and released as it is used. In OS/2 when you allocate memory, you are given a "handle" in the form of a selector. There is not need for the program to lock or unlock this handle becuase it is handled inherently by the procesor and the OS. Windows cannot do this because it needs to be able to run in real-mode where you don't have selectors or a real virtual memory manager. I have several Windows programs which are direct ports to OS/2. These programs perform much like their Windows counterparts in that they deal with the locking and releasing of memory which ultimatly hampers performance. - Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
magid@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Magid) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May9.003009.14478@netcom.COM> resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes: >There are other issues with Windows that aren't present in OS/2. In Windows, >if you allocate memory, you are given a "handle" rather than a pointer. >This handle must be locked and released as it is used. In OS/2 when >you allocate memory, you are given a "handle" in the form of a selector. >There is not need for the program to lock or unlock this handle becuase it >is handled inherently by the procesor and the OS. Windows cannot do this >because it needs to be able to run in real-mode where you don't have selectors >or a real virtual memory manager. I have several Windows programs which >are direct ports to OS/2. These programs perform much like their Windows >counterparts in that they deal with the locking and releasing of memory >which ultimatly hampers performance. Does this mean that if I get OS/2 I will never see the bug whereby windows runs out of system resources. ie: It has assigned all 8192 handles to open windows. Paul
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (05/09/91)
Larry et al I gather from comments that the point of my statements was missed. It is clear that OS/2 will offer similar app's, file compatibility, network support, etc. It is clear that OS/2 will offer "real" multitasking, a new file system, loadable file systems, etc. I and many others think this is wonderful, well and good. For those purchasing new systems in the next year 0S/2 with PM or its new GUI may be the reasonable route to go. DOS has outlived many expectations and has become a tangle of added features, no doubt. Granted, not everyone has access to Internet or BITNET and many of the resources available therein are not available on BBS's. Depending on who you talk to and what there needs are OS/2 may even be a cheaper environment to develop for in the long run. The perspective I offered takes these and many other points into consideration (through endless committee meetings, reviews of technical reports, reviews of budgets, etc.). In a very pragmatic sense I must also consider installed base at our site. It is unlikely that, all things considered, OS/2 will "displace" DOS/Windows on many (if any) systems. It may find its way onto a few diehard PC servers (vs mainframes acting as servers, workstations acting as servers). It may find its way onto some developer's desks (though much development here is done on workstations and mainframes). Given a general resistance to change (human nature?) and a non-trivial cost (when multiplied times hundreds of machines) it is less likely that OS/2 will find its way onto many desktops (displacing DOS/Win 3.0). I have suggested that one way OS/2 may find its way onto the average user's system is via definition of "compelling new needs". To the extent that current needs are more than adequately met with DOS alone, and a DOS/Win 3.0 combination, IMHO for a transition to occur (all things considered) the individual would have to be presented with an amazing new application that in effect defines a new market/need (a la desktop publishing, and spreadsheets before it). Not to belabor the point, but IMHO the NeXT is packaged with this approach in mind. It is saying to the average user, "you need an object oriented environment" by presenting Improv, e-mail, applets (thesaurus and spell checker that works with all app's, voice annotation that works with all app's, etc.). Let the app's sell technology. Otherwise you are singing to the choir when you impress upon developers (a small market) the technical merits of OS/2. Who will by the developer's products if OS/2 isn't on the desktop? Unless these products run under Win 3.0 and OS/2 (at this time) not many people are out there to buy them (sales figures would be valuable to help encourage developers, or discourage them). If I were a would-be NeXT developer I would be discouraged (10k order of magnitude vs 10M for PC's). No one in my office (besides me) can conceive of a "loadable file system" let alone determine that OS/2's system is better than DOS/Win 3.0 based on file system comparisons. They would rather stick with what works for now until such time as they are compelled to switch. Some in our office are not compelled to use Win 3.0 (DOS only) because the applications they have work for them and no new needs have been defined. Others in the same office had new needs defined for them and they switched (begrudgingly). The two camps happily coexist because we have file format compatiblity between app's (e.g. PageMaker can import MultiMate documents, Excel can open Lotus files, Word can open Multimate files, Q&E reads dBase files, etc.). Someday we may have OS/2 coexisting along side these other systems, but I sincerely doubt they will be displaced in the next year or two (given all of the above, and lacking newly defined needs uniquely addressed by OS/2). Reason aside, don't mistake my comments as anti-OS/2 or pro-XYZ. I am employed to assess needs and present alternative solutions. No one solution has arisen to solve all needs. New needs are constantly being defined. I don't see this debate as a OS/2 vs the world problem, but I remain curious as to what new needs OS/2 will define, if any. barry ps In PC Week I read where Imara is porting its product to Win 3.0. The company was described as a longtime showcase for OS/2 developments. Market economies, being what they are, don't always listen to reason. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.191403.12448@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >Barry Floyd, I forgot to "bitch" at you for saying that Windows >development tools are "far more mature (and forever will be more >mature)". Come on...Get serious... I have worked with the MS Windows SDK, and I have worked with Borland C++ 2.0 and I have worked with the OS/2 1.1, 1.2 SDK's from MS and IBM. The MS & IBM SDK's are similar to the MS Windows SDK, yet a lot more mature (Windows 3.0 had not been around as long as OS/2 PM). I like Borland C better than them all, but, personally, I feel the tools for OS/2 are more mature and lend themselves to a professional programming environment. You aren't limited to MS or IBM either. Zortech has a C/C++ compiler, Logitech has a Modula-2 compiler (with a real nifty debugger). There is a Smalltalk environment which generates .EXE files (uncommon for Smalltalk until recently) from Digitalk. If you leaf through the trade rags (Computer Language, C Users Journal, Tech Specialist, etc) you will find A LOT of development tools for OS/2. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/10/91)
In article <91128.201500MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) writes: >Windows is very unreliable on a 386. I've had DOS applications crash my >system with appalling frequency. I *never* had a DOS box cause my OS/2 >system at work to crash (1.3). You're lucky. The DOS box runs in real mode which means there is not protection. If you crash the DOS box, it could very likely kill the rest of the machine. OS/2 2.0 shouldn't have this problem. - Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kentfo@polari.UUCP (Kent Forschmiedt) (05/10/91)
I have been half following this thread, and if this question has been addressed, I missed it. I am a Win3 developer, and I am interested in OS/2 as a more stable platform upon which to do my work. Windows' use of a single LDT renders it very vulnerable to wild pointers, and the debugging kernel does not generally recover from a crashed application. Does OS/2 2.0 provide the support that the SDK kernel provides? Can I run CodeView for Windows under OS/2? -- Kent Forschmiedt ... kentfo@polari ... uw-beaver!sumax!polari!kentfo
timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) (05/11/91)
In all the talk about OS/2 2.0, I haven't seen any mention of PM. Does the OS/2 2.0 Beta which is now available include PM? Is it the same as the 1.2 PM? I assume that drivers will have to be rewritten. Has anyone seen an OS/2 2.0 PM SDK yet? Inquiring minds want to know. -- timr@gssc.gss.com Tim N Roberts, CCP Graphic Software Systems Beaverton, OR This is a very long palindrome. .emordnilap gnol yrev a si sihT
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/11/91)
From article <1991May9.182102.29631@netcom.COM>, by resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick): > The DOS box runs in real mode which means there is not protection. If you > crash the DOS box, it could very likely kill the rest of the machine. > OS/2 2.0 shouldn't have this problem. I've been running OS/2 from 1.0. I've crashed the DOS box many times. Most of those times, all I have to do is press <ATL>-<ESC> and I am back in my OS/2 sessions. They still operated fine. The only exception to this is if the DOS program screws up the keyboard interrupt so that the <ALT>-<ESC> doesn't get passed through to OS/2. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA)
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (05/11/91)
In article <_p9g#sl@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: >The perspective I offered takes these and many other points into >consideration (through endless committee meetings, reviews of technical >reports, reviews of budgets, etc.). In a very pragmatic sense I must >also consider installed base at our site. Fine. Then don't buy it. Who gives a **** about whether OS/2 will displace this or that on somebody's installed base? Christ, I hate empty generalizations and pointless one-upmanship OS blather. This is what PC Magazine has done to the world: created a thousand Jim Seymours and William Zachmanns trading buzzwords. The bottom line is, OS/2 2.0 appears to have a lot of neat new features, including ones a lot of us have been asking for for years. Specifically it will have things that are exciting to systems types and developers, LIKE US... if there are some machines where it won't go, FINE, we understand that, can we move on? If the pricing is acceptable, OS/2 may soon be the platform of choice on any new machine you buy with a 386 or better, which is going to be just about ALL new machines very soon. If it does what it claims, I'm going to install it immediately. I will let the professional magazine bullshit artists go on with the important work of wondering (at essay length, weekly) how the "market" is going to "respond." -- Shut up he explained. ++ Tom Neff -- Ring Lardner ++ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM or uunet!bfmny0!tneff
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (05/12/91)
In article <6648@gssc.UUCP> timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes: >Does the OS/2 2.0 Beta which is now available include PM? Is it the same as >the 1.2 PM? I assume that drivers will have to be rewritten. Has anyone seen >an OS/2 2.0 PM SDK yet? Yes, the Beta version includes PM. It's quite similar to 1.2 PM. And no, drivers do not have to be re-written. As a matter of fact I'm using a 800x600 SuperVGA driver that was writter for OS/2 1.1. It looks pretty lousy, but it's better than 640x480. I have no idea when the 2.0 SDK will be available. >This is a very long palindrome. .emordnilap gnol yrev a si sihT Oh ya? Well, this is an even longer palindrome. .emordnilap regnol neve na si siht ,lleW ?ay hO -- 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
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May10.204939.17701@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >From article <1991May9.182102.29631@netcom.COM>, by resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick): > >> The DOS box runs in real mode which means there is not protection. If you >> crash the DOS box, it could very likely kill the rest of the machine. >> OS/2 2.0 shouldn't have this problem. > >I've been running OS/2 from 1.0. I've crashed the DOS box many times. >Most of those times, all I have to do is press <ATL>-<ESC> and I am back in my >OS/2 sessions. They still operated fine. > >The only exception to this is if the DOS program screws up the keyboard >interrupt so that the <ALT>-<ESC> doesn't get passed through to OS/2. > I have managed to get things like: An internal processing error was encountered which dumps things like registers and such and then says The system is stopped. If you really want to make OS/2 crash from the DOS box, you could enter protected mode and go and trash memory while running at PL0. I don't know of any DOS programs which enter protected mode via some "non-standard" meathod, and I assume that INT15 Func 89H is disabled, but I have never checked this. I would also assume that you can trash the interrupt vector table at 0:0 and kill the system too. This is a lot more likely since all you need to do is write to a NULL far pointer. memcpy(NULL,foo,0x3FF) should trash the entire table. Cheers! Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) writes: >(Sigh) This is getting ridiculous now. So you think that NT will provide >this??? NO!!! NT is simply a way of mapping the Windows, OS/2, VMS, and >Dos APIs to a common set of kernal functions. THAT'S IT! Your file >formats will still be as incompatible, etc.. Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n almost) ready kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. -- Ari Huttunen To Tuva or nothing! phone: 90-7285944 <Richard Feynman>
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (05/14/91)
Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: >In article <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) writes: >>(Sigh) This is getting ridiculous now. So you think that NT will provide >>this??? NO!!! NT is simply a way of mapping the Windows, OS/2, VMS, and >>Dos APIs to a common set of kernal functions. THAT'S IT! Your file >>formats will still be as incompatible, etc.. >Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n almost) ready >kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. >-- >Ari Huttunen To Tuva or nothing! >phone: 90-7285944 <Richard Feynman> Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ), Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?) "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc. access to a computing platform. NextStep is an object oriented "user interface" providing graphical access to an operating system. DOS, OS/2, and Mach each entail unique API's (application programming interfaces). Windows, PM, and NextStep entail their own unique API's, one step removed from the operating system's API. In theory, one could (will) insert an API transliterator between PM and a native Windows 3.0 application (thus allowing Win 3.0 app's run under PM without any changes or recompiles). Likewise this might be done with Mach or NextStep using a product called SoftPC. It run's DOS app's on Mach machines running a DOS emulator/API transliterator. With respect to file formats: Independant of the operating system vendors and the graphical interface vendors I suspect each application vendor will evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of providing file compatibility between systems (e.g. MS Excel on the Mac and PC, WordPerfect on the Mac, PC and NeXT, etc.). The file systems will be different on each platform but the file formats may in fact be compatible (e.g. EPS files on any system, TIFF files on any system). Lotus enables one to import *.wks and *.wk1 files into Improv on the Next. However, Improv is object oriented and enables one to perform functions not downwardly compatible with 123. Until Improv is release for OS/2 and Windows one is restricted to bringing 123 files in but not exporting Improv's native files to other systems. Granted, there are always imperfections and some inconveniences. The user must make their own cost/benefit analysis in order to determine if it is worth having a heterogenous computing environment, and take what compatibilit they can get. barry ps Larry - never say never and don't let enthusiasm turn into dogmatism... -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq) (05/16/91)
Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: Ari> Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n Ari> almost) ready kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. >>>>> On 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. >>>>> Floyd) said: Barry> Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ), Barry> Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as Barry> DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?) Barry> "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc. Barry> access to a computing platform. Basically, except that Mach isn't Unix; Mach itself is a message-based micro-kernel, on top of which people have put a Unix-compatible OS. One could also write a DOS on top of Mach, or an OS/2, or a VMS.... In fact, I am hoping that someday (perhaps after the GNU Kernel is released) someone WILL do this! -- Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, Inc. towfiq@FTP.COM Work No.: +1 617 246 0900 Home No.: +1 617 488 2818 "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) (05/16/91)
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > Yes, the Beta version includes PM. It's quite similar to 1.2 PM. And no, > drivers do not have to be re-written. As a matter of fact I'm using a > 800x600 SuperVGA driver that was writter for OS/2 1.1. It looks pretty > lousy, but it's better than 640x480. I have no idea when the 2.0 SDK will > be available. > The OS/2 2.0 SDK has been available for almost a year and a half (since about February of 1990). In fact, until recently, that was the only way to get OS/2 2.0 (by buying the SDK from Microsoft). Dan HP Cardiology Business Unit
mussar@bcars53.uucp (G. Mussar) (05/18/91)
In article <TOWFIQ.91May16111015@babyoil.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes: >Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: > >Ari> Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n >Ari> almost) ready kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. > >>>>>> On 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. >>>>>> Floyd) said: > >Barry> Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ), >Barry> Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as >Barry> DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?) >Barry> "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc. >Barry> access to a computing platform. > >Basically, except that Mach isn't Unix; Mach itself is a message-based >micro-kernel, on top of which people have put a Unix-compatible OS. >One could also write a DOS on top of Mach, or an OS/2, or a VMS.... > >In fact, I am hoping that someday (perhaps after the GNU Kernel is >released) someone WILL do this! I've heard that IBM has an experimental version of OS/2 running on top of Mach (I believe the discussion was on BIX somewhere). I doubt you will find any IBM person to confirm that, but... time will tell. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mussar |Internet: mussar@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-4937 BNR Ltd. | | FAX: (613) 763-2626