From: jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2!!!! beats MS-DOS and Windows
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:54:13 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham

In article <1993Jan20.181533.2499@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>In article <1993Jan19.134034@cs.bham.ac.uk>, jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet) writes: 
[large amounts of crap deleted]
|> > Please tell me about running windows and then hefty windows apps like Correl 3
|> > under "vpix".  Tell me about the pain in the arse that "vpix" is to configure
|> > optimally in the fist place.  Then tell me why I should double the size of my
|> > hard disk jsut to carry on running the same apps as before, but slower is time
|> > and hard disk space that much cheaper in Mercer Island?
|> > 
|> > 
|> > P.S. the _real_ cost of running MS-Word on a unix net is significantly higher
|> > than the _windows_ version on a dos net, minor details like the cost of the OS
|> > and hardware (and suport staff!) have their place in any such calculation.
|> > 
|> > regards
|> > 
|> > johnboy
|> 
|>   This is why NT won't replace DOS/WINDUAE's for a long time. NT system
|> requirements are not very different from SCO Open Desktop.


Slightly missing my point, I'll try to be a more cogent this time:-

I have no objects to the system req's of SCO unix (or any other of the
million and one not so open versions), AS LONG AS I GET EXTRA FOR MY INVESTMENT.

Thus cash used to upgrade a windows pc to run SCO is wasted if I don't get more
function.  But I do get oodles of fun stuff with NT (and a full dev. environment).
 
|>   Now OS/2 2.1 is a different story, It will run Win 3.1 apps as well as Win
|> 3.1, and run DOS Graphics ( including F-15 Strike Eagle III ) in a window!!!
|> 
|> I'd like to see NT do that, because we all know WINDUAE's wont!
|> 
|> Michael Kupka
|> 
|> 	

O/S 2.1 does seem to be begining to look like an o/s worth looking at. But let me
tell you a story:-

I ran beta o/s2 uptil U.K. release date. It was crap but it was a beta.  They
then gave me a real version to play with.  I r4efused to install on the machine
that ran the beta code.  Ran the suport line "sorry none of us have been sent on
the o/s2  suport course yet.  We have a copy here but it keeps on crashing so we
havn't been able to get the hang of it yet".  3 weeks after release date sent in
structions on how to get it installed --- craftely worded it was but I
immediately clicked, they sent instructs on how to turn the release issue into
the beta code version!!!  The 486 was spare at that time so I stuck with it,
running half beta/ half release code.  Then the high performance (NOT) file sys
went bump and trashed my 300meg micropolis on future domain SCSI drive.  IBM
helpline response?  "Do a low level reformat on it".  Nuf said.  O/s2 in in bin.


I know new o/s have teething trouble but o/s2 was be biggest dog I have ever seen.
NT is ten times more stable in the dev. early exp. version.  

To sum, the only deep problem with IBM O/S 2.x is IBM.

As to f15III - why run apps designed to be full screen in a window anyway, I
can't imagine anything more frustrating than geting downed by the Mig29 that you
couldn't see because you couldn't get to the window scroll bars in time.  This is
simply a bogus concern (and is MS's fault for making it an issue).


By the way, I'm fairly sure that NT runs win3.x apps.  It also gives you those
little treats left out of o/s2.x like base level security....
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy