From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:17:13 GMT
X-Posted-From: connection.prospect.com
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>
>>Are you trying to deny that PC shortcomings are vastly exaggerated on this
>>newsgroup?  When every PC horror story posted here involves the fastest of
>>PC hardware performing worse than atrociously, forgive me if I refuse to
>>believe.  You may extract from these stories what you wish; I merely stated
>>my own opinion.  It's amazing how every PC story posted here -- about
>>performance, expansion, etc. -- is diametrically opposite from my experiences.
>>
>
>I never said you had to believe.  But its clear that you wish to
>believe the worst without checking any further.
>

*I* am quick to assume the worst without checking further?!  Me?!  I'm not
the one who posts stuff like, "ISA bus with a 50MHz CPU?  That must really
suck!"

>>
>>Here we go again.  DIG.  Resource tracking.  A graphics system that supports
>>splines, paths, non-rectangular clipping, 2-D transformations, Adobe scalable
>>fonts, etc.  Multithreading.  Named pipes.  Queues.  Binary compatibility with
>>DOS and Windows executables.  Want more?
>
>Yes :) Although the features you mention are important, I
>certainly wouldn't say that it puts OS/2 in a class above
>AmigaDOS.
>

Did I say that OS/2 is in a class above AmigaDOS?  Remember, you asked
what features OS/2 has over AmigaDOS.  So I listed some of them.  Let's not
twist each other's words around, OK?

>
>Also, I wouln't place much emphasis on the last item.
>

Actually, the discussion that led up to this dealt with OS/2's memory and
disk space requirements.  You'd be surprised at just how much the last item
contributes to these.

>
>Although it sometimes is nice to have, there are other solutions
>which do the same thing.  Most Unix systems I've seen which run on
>Intel boxes have provisions that allow them to run DOS binaries.
>

UNIX's support for DOS binaries is a joke compared to OS/2's support.
OS/2 supports extended-DOS applications like Borland C++ and Lotus 1-2-3.
Just try to run these under VP/ix or DOSMerge.  OS/2 can have a different
set of device drivers in each DOS session.  OS/2 lets you fine-tune the
emulation environment for each DOS program.  OS/2 lets you run self-booting
programs.  Let's resume this discussion when you can run Wing Commander with
SoundBlaster support in a UNIX/X window.

>
>Now let me ask you this question, how familiar are
>you with the Amiga Operating System?  When you made up your list,
>did you perhaps see any features that the AmigaOS might have that
>OS/2 didn't?
>

Hmmm...  Screens, maybe?  Installable file systems -- nope, OS/2 has those
too.

>
>For example, does OS/2 support the virtual printer
>concept?
>

In OS/2, a printer is just another device to which you can draw using the
graphics library.  You DIG?  :-)

>
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:22190 comp.sys.amiga.misc:12968