From: woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (William Owen Carlson)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:22:31 GMT

In article <DEMILLO.92Apr10140113@egeus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.204645.15482@cis.ohio-state.edu> chawdry@cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry) writes:
>>
>> On a 386, you have to be all but blind not to consider (read CONSIDER)
>> OS/2 2.0.  I'm no fan of IBM and have never bought an IBM product, but for $49
>> I couldn't resist.  Plus, even if I don't want it, Windows 3.1 and its apps
>> will be able to run on the same screen as OS/2 (by June 92, update is free).
>> My all-time favorite program Ami Pro will be converted into a multithreaded,
>> multitasking monster word processing app.  Stacker will be available soon, and
>> so will a 32-bit SVGA graphic engine.  I just hope OS/2 is closer to my
>> expectations than Windows 3.1 was.
>
>> -- Rehan --
>
>Well...before you consider...
>
>According to InfoWorld:
>
>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1

IBM will be offering an upgrade (CSD) FREE to registered users of OS/2 when    
3.1 compatibility is done.  BTW, 3.1 apps running seamlessly were demonstrated
at COMDEX, so they are almost there 

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes. (The
>	 above poster's comments about OS/2 supporting a 32-bit 
>	 SVGA engine, notwithstanding.)
 
SVGA and XGA ARE supported.  Board makers have to make their own SVGA 
drivers (for the most part) to include seamless windows and IBM will put
this capability on the CSD mentioned above.

>OS/2 2.0 Windows emulation will support only one Windows application
>         per Window, and they are several orders of magnitude slower
>	 than just running in Windows. You can switch OS/2 2.0 to
>	 full screen Windows mode, and your Windows performance
>	 goes way up.

Don't know what you mean by this.  If you mean that a new Program Manager
shell must be loaded for each Windows app, you are wrong.  There is a 
setting that you must manually change for this to happen.  The default
is to use the existing incarnation.  

Also, the performance is not "orders of magnitude" slower.  In fact, my 
roomate remarked (on a 386/25 w/ 8meg RAM) "this is a hell of a lot faster"
and I agree.  There was a noticable speed INCREASE - even when running  
seamlessly.

>OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
>         another 12-18 months. (Not sure what they meant by this,
>	 but it didn't smell right.) At that time, Windows NT
>	 will be on the scene.
 
OS/2 NOW has full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for DOS, Windows, AND OS/2 
apps.  This is just utter nonsense.


I apologize for the intrusion into the Windows group, but I feel that this
kind of misinformation should be corrected.  Please do not think that all 
OS/2 proponents are total jerks.  I myself think Windows is perfectly fine,
it just isn't the choice for me.  

Long live BOTH OS/2 AND Windows!!!!!

--
___    ___
\  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
 \  \/  /            
  \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms