From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: PC (OS/2) / Amiga debate -- hopefully a rational debate, an I an ideali
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:02:18 GMT

In article <BuB6Lq.GAJ@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.153516.42760@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>In article <BtxoCu.In4@starnine.com>, mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug27.161036.384@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>>>In article <BtM61A.Bs@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>>>
>>>>OS/2 itself is solid.  There are bugs in the WPS, but the WPS is brand new
>>>>software -- and very sophisticated software at that.
>>> 
>>> That's why it has bugs?  Because it's s-o-o-o sophisticated?
>>
>>As sophistication goes up, so does the chance of bugs.  Are you rational
>>enough to see this?
>
>Sure, so I can tell how sophisticated my OS/2 program is by how
>many bugs it has.  Okay.

Come on guys, the WPS has some faults to it, but have you guys ever
used it?  It is like...a cross between the Mac GUI structure, the
flexibilty of Windows, and...the look of Motif or something!  Plus,
throw in  WAY more customization that any sane person could totally
take advantage of.  Yes, it is not 100% bug free.

>>>>>>Don't compare OS/2 2.0 to AmigaDOS -- AmigaDOS
>>>>>>isn't even close in terms of functionality,
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is... pre-emptive multitasking, GUI based system.  Probably
>>>>>better than OS/2 in real-time response.  Addresses 1.8 GIG of memory.
>>>>>Multi-media capable... make that natural.
>>>>
>>>>It still isn't even close to OS/2 in terms of functionality.
>>> 
>>> Sure Jerry, you can just stand there and repeat it over and over...
>>

[Jerry list reasons and is countered]

>If this is your bag... get the Bridgeboard or any of a multitude
>of MSDOS emulators, many of which multitask on the Workbench.
>

SLOW SLOW SLOW, or alternatively,

EXPENSIVE.  This BB discussion has been hacked at for a long time now.

>>1-2,000 OS/2 apps (numbers are approximate) plus anyting that runs under
>>a real mode operating system booted in a virtual machine, every process
>>runs in its own memory address space--protects the apps from each other,
>>30 day money back guarantee, etc.  I could go on.
>
>You've stated maybe 3 facilities that OS/2 has over the Amiga...
>...as I said above, AUTO-CONFIGURATION as well REAL-TIME OS
>are two on the Amiga's side that OS/2 doesn't support...
>I'm sure I could come up with more (like virtual screens),
>but the point is that
>the Amiga is VERY comparable to OS/2 and superior in some
>respects.

You know, Jerry wasn't asking what the Amiga had, just pointing out
that OS/2 has certain features that the Amiga OS doesn't.

I think OS/2 is the best thing to hit PCs since VGA.

>>>>How much for one of those BridgeBoards?  What's on it, a 286?  If you think
>>>>a BridgeBoard is comparable to having a PC, you're sadly mistaken.
>>> 
>>> I know... with the 386 BB from C=, you also have the AMiga!
>>> You're right!  A PC can't compare!
>>> 
>>
>>Again, how much for a 386 BB?
>
> don't know, probably about the same or more as a clone, but like
> I said...you end up with the Amiga, too!  (YOU can't run a video
> toaster, genlocking, Mac emulation...in your Intel box.)


All these things are extras.  The discussion was OS/2 and Amiga OS,
specifically, the WorkPlace Shell under OS/2.

>
>Far as I know, yes.  (not in the market for Intel-based crap)
>And I ststed above 386 BB.  Do you know what 386 means?
>
>>A dx, sx, 20mHz, etc.?  
>
>I believe it's an SX at 20 MHz, but like I said, I could care less
>about PC-compatible junk so I'm not sure.
>

I guess you were hurrahing about the BB for other Amigans,then?

>>>>>Yeah.  I have both 2.04 AND 1.3 installed on my hard disk in less than
>>>>>8 meg (my 2.04 partition is 6 meg and has 3 meg free).
>>>>>
>>>>>From what I understand, OS/2 needs something over 30 meg, minimum?
>>>>>'Zat right?
>>>>
>>>>'Zat's wrong.
>>> 
>>> Well, Jerry, what's the right number? 28Meg? 25Meg?  Decline to comment?
>>
>>It is wrong.  It can take up 17 megs for just OS/2 compatibility.  At 
>>work, with OS/2 fully installed, it takes 27 megs.
>
>Then hell, I was just a little high.  27 Megs, eh?  What were you
>saying about the number of bugs as OS/2 software gets more
>"sophisticated"?

GOOD GRIEF!  It's not like 'ooh, its so big an really buggy AND
totally useless!'  No, no, no - it is extremely powerful.  THink of
it as a race car needing new tires often.

>>Anyway, you are 
>>getting two operating systems, and an operating environment (Windows),
>>plus Adobe Type Manager 2.0.  You are also getting more features.  If 
>>you don't want the features, you can nix them off your hard disk.
>
>As I said, MSDOS & WIndows (gag) ARE available on the Amiga with both
>hardware & software emulators.  Scaleable fonts are in AmigaOS 2.0.
>And I haven't "nix"ed any system software off my hard disk yet (but
>I can see why it's common practice with OS/2...lower the incidence
>of "sophisticated" software).

More money, more money, more money... come on, we we talking about OS/2
vs. Amiga OS.  IF Amiga OS is sooooo deficient that you resort to
'oh, well I can emulate it' arguements, you've totally missed the point
to the discussion.

>>>>No video support out of the box?!  What box?
>>>>Find me a clone vendor that doeesn't sell complete systems.
>>> 
>>> Yeah.  All different.  Show me 2 vendors that sell the SAME system?
>>
>>Gateway, High Definition, Acma, and hundreds of others will sell you
>>the same system configuration.  They may have peripherals made by 
>>different companies, but they operate the same.
>
>Yeah, sure.  The SAME system, just different.

Once again, an Amigan think that just because ONE company doesn't
make the computer that they all all different, like people are or
something.  Once and for all, in the vast majority of cases, the
differences between PCs are only in terms of the equipment, not the
quality/support/compatibility.

>>If you want to be
>>locked into just a few choices and a few prices for a computer, fine.
>
>If the system is designed right, you don't NEED that many choices!

I have been on the newsgroup long enough tos see a decent number of Amigans
either see away their Amigas to get PCs or get a PC in addition.

Don't make such lofty assumptions about a computer - however great a 
computer was (exaggerating) 20 years ago - it is shit today.

>>I prefer competition to drive the price down.  And please don't
>>spout off about incompatibilities, because I have had no problems.
>
>No.  MOST of the time the crap works.  It's the HOOPS you
>have to jump through to get it in that state.  Make sure them
>memory map is right, not tromping on another IRQ, ... it ain't
>easy gettin' that ol' Intel sh** to cooperate!

Good grief, you are either really unlucky in experiencing Clones,
or wanting to do really WEIRD things with it.

'memory map'===>typing a line in a configuration file, or the 
                program does it for you.

IRQ===========> systems that do not come with lots of peripherals
	        should not have problems filling up IRQs.  In the
	        most cases, the default IRQ for the card (like a Soundblaster)
		is the correct one.

PCs 'headaches' IF existing are almost always 'cured' by simply reading the
manual  that comes with the card.

>I've been "guessing" at setting up an Ethernet card and rebooted
>and the display turned to 1/2 it's normal height!  (Is THAT why
>they call it OS/2?)

I don't know about such things.  Did you know what you were doing?

>>>>Kludged in?!  You mean, kind of like your built-in flicker-fixer, Mike?
>>> 
>>> No, I don't mean factory-installed, present-in-every-system features.
>>> BTW, the interlace of the AMiga is a GOOD THING.  It's one of the
>>> reasons the Amiga is so much better at video that Intel trash.
>>> (Seen Pournelle's latest column?  Even HE admits how superior
>>> the Amiga is for creating multi-media!).
>>> 
>>> The fact that some systems flicker simply means their owners
>>> can have high-quality tools at less cost.  MY system is
>>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> rock-solid.  Just like Amiga VS. PC prices...you get what
>>> you pay for!
>>
>>What?  You totally lost me.  Interlace is good?  You like going blind?
>
>Yes, interlace is good.  Ever heard of NTSC?  It permits genlocking the
>CPU to a video signal...the capability that makes the Toaster
>possible on the Amiga and IMPOSSIBLE on either Macs OR PCs.

I see TVs on PCs becoming common in the future.  The hardware, etc.
is available today, and with the fall in PC hardware prices...
IBM sells a TV for $500.  I need to get back to the dealer to see about
any deals...that price was LIST.  You get a full screen TV or
pop it into a non-resizable (drat) windows. There is a menu panel on the
desktop to change various settings.

>And there's a lot you can do about the flicker... right up to
>eliminating the flicker entirely.

If, as you claim, the Amiga was SO fine to begin with, why does it flicker
at all?

What is the dot pitch on the 1084S, the vastly most common Amiga monitor,eh?
Wanna tell me?

>>So flickering is a sign of high quality?  Sure it means low cost, but
>>high quality?  What are you saying?  
>
>I'm saying that your PC is crap for video... that to do decent
>video, you'll have to pump mucho bucks into it.

I agree that the Amiga is more 'suited' for this, but you can't tell me
that PCs will always lag.   Plus, the 'suited' aspects of the Amiga
has other drawbacks...and the world doesn't turn on Video.

>>My system's display is flicker free because it is noninterlaced.  
>>1024x768x256 colors at 70 Hz refresh rate.  That is higher quality
>>than a flickering 43 Hz interlaced display.  
>
>As I said, not for video... it is useless.  My 1950 Multiscan
>provides a rock-solid display (zero-flicker) AND my Amiga gives
>great video.

Fine, already.


>>> 
>>> Face it... they're garbage!
>>
>>You have not make the distintion between hardware and software.
>>8 character filenames are gone in OS/2.
>
>What IS the limit in OS/2?
>

255.  This includes all manner of spaces, etc.


>>    start a flame thread, instead you'll start an informative thread
>>    about the differences between Amigas and PC's.
>

>There are some topics I like being emotional about.  Dealing with
>all this IBM-smugness and self-serving OS2/0-is-god nonsense is
>one of them.  Believe me.  The "emotionality" is not by accident.

Well, I cannot say that I have used the Amiga OS or GUI, but OS/2
is REALLY REALLY GOOD.

>The original PC/MSDOS was, pure and simple, an inferior machine.
>The severe machine limitations (640K, no multitasking, etc.) were
>so blatent that IBM could only have planned those bits of obsolescence.

In ten years people will bitch that OS/2 has a multi-gig limit. 

>Now it has been many years since it's introduction, and the machine
>HAS gotten more powerful.  It has improved in graphics (couldn't
>get any worse!), sound capabilities, and faster CPU's.  (Although
>the original hardware is now useless, no?).

Yes.

>But THAT is where the significant improvements end, IMHO.  Except for
>CPUs & their speed, the hardware dis not "grow up" in a standard way,
>but by a multitude of third-party-products, much of it incompatible.
>Or unsupported.  Some new sound board comes out... no software uses it.

Oh, but you;re wrong.  The 'magic of the Market' occurrs.  IF
Soundboards are wantewd, there WILL be software.  Witness zillions of games
and Multimedia.

>The architecture of the hardware is virtually unchanged... still all the
>configuration headaches of early computers.  Installing, changing,
>configuring hardware is a pain...if it's lessened in complexity at
>all, it's due to the toil of a third-party-developer who designed
>his stuff to be friendlier...NOT by the OS giving any help here.

Hopefully, OS/2 or NT will wean us to RISC.
And the MCA bus.

>MSDOS is a complete joke....doesn't even deserve discussion
>in this arena.  Windows on top of MSDOS... same story.  Same
>round-robin multitasking as on the mac.

The main part is task switching and the GUI.

>OS/2 does fix a lot.  It provides true multitasking (even if it
>isn't real-time).  It IS much better than the older systems, but
>27 Meg?  But all in all, it probably has a place in the realm of
>modern-day, "sophisticated" OS's (even if it IS limited to
>single-letter drive specs), if Windows doesn't knock it out
>of the marketplace (is OS/2 compatible with Win3.1 stuff?...
>is it endangered by Win/NT?).

SO much more comes with OS/2.  From what I have seen, the Amiga OS
(I saw 1.3) comes with minor screen customizers and a C64-clone 
speech synthesizer.

>But it's patently ridiculous that AmigaOS is not "comparable
>in functionality" to OS/2.  That term doesn't imply better or worse,
>it doesn't say more powerful or less...just comparable.  It is
>CERTAINLY more comparable that the piece of mucus MSDOS and
>Windows abortion that OS/2 is related to.

Perhaps it is comparable, but the machines they run are are different,
as is the software they run.   The OS is useless w/o those.

And, OS/2 DOES come with a LOT to get a person started. LOTS.



-- 
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech