From: lowey@jester.usask.ca (CrazyMan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: why OS/2
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:44:10 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: jester.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

sdk@med.ge.com wrote:
: After reading IBM literature, talking with one individual and
: thinking about the postings here I decided that I should post
: several questions and study the responses before making any
: purchases.
: 
: 1.  If you value the ability to multi task as a driver to use
:     OS/2, how much to you **really** multitask ?

Here are a few of the things I multitask:

  - Compiles in the background
  - Ray tracing in the background
  - File downloads in the background.
  - Occasionally, I forget to do something before starting a program, like
    unpack a .ZIP file I need to edit or something.  I can easily pop up
    another command screen, fix it up, then pop back to the original to
    continue doing what I'm doing.
  - People can connect to my machine through the network, and access files
    while I do other things.

  - I can have two programs running at the same time, and then
    transfer information between them.  For example, I can grab
    something displayed on my terminal program, and paste it into my
    editor, or visa versa.

  - Even when using only ONE program, OS/2 has the advantage of being able
    to multitask within programs (multi-threading).  For example, my Word
    Processor will redraw complex graphics in the WYSIWYG editor, while 
    AT THE SAME TIME I can enter text and have it displayed.  No more waiting
    for the entire screen to be redrawn before I can type.

: 2.  Is there any context in which OS/2 can be used to multitask
:     and **not** force the user into a 'windows' mode ?  This
:     question in regard to (1) several user developed tasks that
:     only require non graphical I/O or (2) do the multitude of
:     existing DOS applications programs only work in the window
:     mouse world ?

I don't understand the question.  The Workplace Shell is an OS/2
application.  You don't need to run it.  Some people have completely
non-graphical full screen OS/2 systems. You can easily run
non-presentation manager applications full screen simply by clicking
on the "Full screen session" Icon, then ignore the graphic desktop
from then on if you wish.
 
: 3.  How would you rate OS/2 as an operating system if it's
:     user interface were limited to a text based command line
:     interpreter ?  Does it have such a facility ?

Yes it has this capability.  It can use the START and DETACH commands
to start background applications in this mode, even without the GUI
loaded.  Switching between these applications is not easy however
without the GUI.  I'd rate OS/2's command line to be better than DOS,
but not as flexible as c-shell.
 
One big plus is the REXX batch programming language, which is much
better than the .BAT language, and more on a par with something like
Perl.

However, you are missing most of the advantages of OS/2 if you stick
strictly to full-screen sessions.

: 4.  Does the OS/2 file system allow a user to keep many versions
:     of a file ? (like VMS)

Not built into the operating system automatically.  However, with the
long filenames, there's no reason why applications can't have files
called FILE.TXT.2 and FILE.TXT.3 etc. and handle the multiple versions
itself.  Note that these would only be visible to OS/2 applications,
not DOS programs.
 
: 5.  Are tasks limited by the amount of physical memory configured or
:does the concept (of virtual memory) extend to some part of the system disk ?

Virtual memory extends to EVERY ASPECT OF OS/2.  OS/2 doesn't
differentiate between physical RAM and free disk space.  If the memory
request cannot be fulfilled by existing free RAM, then OS/2
automatically pages memory to disk.  This applies equally well for
memory for OS/2 full-screen programs, OS/2 Presentation Manager
programs, DOS applications, and Windows applications.

: 6.  Finally, put yourself in the position of asking this question:
:     I am not a Icon-Mouse-Window person, what can I accomplish with
:     this OS/2 tool ?

First, I have no idea what it means to be an "Icon-Mouse-Window"
person. Second, I have no idea what you WANT to accomplish, so it's
hard for me to tell you what you CAN accomplish.

Given that, I must admit that you will have to learn how to use a
mouse if you want to use OS/2.  Although it is POSSIBLE to use nothing
but full-screen, it isn't very pretty or very easy.  At the minimum,
you will need to use the GUI to start your first full-screen session,
and how to shut down the system when you are done.  After that, you
can pretty much forget about it.

However, that's like buying a Porche, and only using the glove
compartment.  Don't say "I'm not a Windows-Mouse-Icon person" and
instead give it a fair chance. Who knows, you might even like it.

: 
: I should add that my hardware platform is 25 Mhz 386, micro channel with
: a 120 Mb disk and 8 Mb Ram.

I use a 80486/33 with a 210M disk and 8M RAM.  Your CPU is adequate,
but close to low end so don't expect it to be as fast as a 486.  Your
memory is the minimum I'd use. If you do a full install, including
swap file size, you will have about 70M free (I'm being conservative).

- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<