From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: OS/2 is the best?
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:24:46 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.145201.22840@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
>>In article <C0EutC.J8w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:
>>>	I see all the time information about Windows,Windows, Windows.Does this
>>>make sense in an os2 category?
>>>	The people who use Windows are those not interested in the best. They
>>>want something easy. Fine. They should have Windows. But for people who want
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Now, this is new. A lot of the bitching about Windows in this group is 
>>about how hard it is ..... system.ini, win.ini, config.sys, memory 
>>managers, etc.
>
>
>	My sister and parents, all utter illiterates (i,e., they can't
>	chance *directories* in DOS), can run Windows and install new
>	programs just fine.  (It helps that I have a big sign next
>	to their machines that say "INSTALL PROGRAMS TO DRIVE D."
>	"IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, TYPE MAKEDOS AT DOS PROMPT TO RESTORE
>	DOS"  [just replaces the config and autoexec]).
>
>
>>>something a lot better, at least 100 times more powerful, well, they would
>>>be satisfied with nothing less than os2.
>>>	Windows is kind of for the slow types, the satisfied types, the people
>>>who won't put forth the effort to run os2. The people who run hard will want
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This is also new. OS/2 is harder to run than Windows .... hmmmm.         
>
>
>	Or the people who *can't* run OS/2.  People talk about NTs
>	hardware requirements and how steep they are.  They're forgetting
>	that anything over 4megs/100megs looks pretty darn steep to
>	people running Windows.
>
>
>>>os2 because it is the best, and because it is the program of the future.
>
>
>	"program of the future"  What a load.  OS/2 is the program
>	of now.  If I am still forced to be running it 5 years from
>	now, I will be sick.  My Amiga 1000 used to multitask with more
>	smoothness and power than OS/2 does on a machine that is 
>	orders of magnitude more powerful with more than 16 times
>	the amount of memory.  
>
>
>>Excel, PowerPoint, and TrueType fonts and using OLE to connect various 
>>things together. Since OS/2 does not yet support TrueType or enhanced 
>>mode (necessary to run PowerPoint) I cannot switch to OS/2 without 
>
>
>
>	In fairness to IBM, both are now included in WINOS@31.  Emode
>	is a new addition, while tt has been there for awhile.  I'm
>	rather disappointed that IBM has stepped back from it's promise
>	to include TT support in OS/2 in addition to ATM, but.. 
>
>
>	Anyone know if an OS/2 version of SuperATM is in the works?
>
>
>>redoing a lot of work.  I also have an ATI card and I believe that 
>>seemless OS/2 drivers are not available for this card. When and if 
>
>
>	IMHO, "seamless windows" was a big mistake.  I have yet to
>	see it run with any speed, even when it works.  Rather than
>	making such a big deal over it, IBM should have done it
>	stealthly--that is, when they had the hardware that could do it
>	without slowing the machine down to nil, they could advertise that
>	hardware as *adding* a feature to OS/2 and not have to field
>	all of these "why don't my windows programs run seamless when
>	it's advertised on the box, dammit?" questions.
>
>	This would have made a good push for XGA2, too.  "Includes
>	NEW! seamless windows support for OS/2!"
>
>-- 
>      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
> ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
>	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
>		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.


Could you please explain to me how a 68000-processor is smoother in
multitasking to a 80386 and 80486? Furthermore, smoothness aside, what about
crash protection with a 68000? I use a 68000 based machine that had TOS (based
on GEM) since 1985. It offers the same capabilties as Windows, the same type
of interface, and about everything else. All since 1985. Furthermore, if the
Amiga would be the answer to all problems, why is the Amiga Chairman of a very
large local system here using OS/2?

OS/2 offers features that can not be found in many other operating systems.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy