From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:05:04 GMT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

This post was mistakenly put in comp.windows.ms   I forward it to its 
proper place...

In article <92105.200152RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:
> 
> 
> I have been a heavy user of DOS and Windows and still will be for some time.
> 
> **But** I took the opportunity to look at 32bit OS/2 GA (which I got and
> fiddled around on different sized machines). Therefore I would like to
> present what I feel.
> 
> The Windows-part of OS/2 is based on Windows 3.1 code according to the
> book of Deitel and Kogan (Kogan should know, he was a chief architect of
> it), altered to be a DPMI-client and allowing for Windows 2.x and
> Windows 3.0 apps (note Win 3.1 does not allow for running Win 2.x apps
> anymore). From the viewpoint of the host operating system (like on NT
> next year) windows is just like any other app and is sheltered from all
> other apps. Therefore you may even run several copies of Windows itself
> (and multiple windows-apps in every Windows-session), which - and that
> **is** great - are truly multitasked against each other. This means, that
> I can reformat, spellcheck, recalc, print in one Windows-session and
> switch to another to work with another set of Windows-apps, **without**
> waiting on one Win-app to finish.
> 
> This truly multitasking stuff happens with all the sessions OS/2 manages,
> so additionally you can run DOS-programs, you can format, you can up/download
> in a DOS/Windows/OS/2-session - who cares anymore ? The good thing is, you
> rarely would notice all that is going on. A 80386-based processor for the
> first time (except for Unix of course) is really being utilized for us.
> 
> The saga could continue endlessly, but I would stress the DOS-capabilities
> too (as I am a heavy DOS-user too). With 32bit OS/2 you get DOS 5.0 accustomed
> to run under OS/2 (very much like NT, which will come next year). None of my
> DOS-programs (dBase, Open Access, a $10,000-emulation program, C-compiler,
> word-processors etc.) noticed so far that they are not running under true
> DOS. Absolutely no problems here (of course, older VCPI-DOS-programs are
> not allowed to run, because they attempt to seize the processor exclusively
> for themselves; newer DOS-Extender-programs use DPMI in order to run under
> Windows and therefore run under 32bit OS/2 seamlessly too). I started to
> fiddle around with the opportunity to boot original 8086-operating-systems
> into 32bit OS/2-virtual-machines: MS-DOS of different versions, DR-DOS 5.0 and
> 6.0, and even CP/M to play with Q-Bird - can you imagine that ? - a game,
> almost 10 years old !).
> 
> All in all, 32bit OS/2 is a technical demonstration of what could be at
> the finger-tips of Joe, the average user. I use 32bit OS/2 as a host operating
> system to do my DOS- and Windows-stuff good, and it is doing a tremendeous
> job so. I estimate that my personal productivity was raised by more than
> 100 % (not having to stare to the hour-glass, not having to wait for an
> UNZIP, not having to wait for a print job to finish, not having to wait
> for a format to complete, not having ...).
> 
> Future application aquisitions for sure are based on true 32bit OS/2 apps
> to replace the existing app-mixture including Win-apps. Of course, I just
> plan to replace a Win-App, if an OS/2-version is ready and can give me
> more productivity. Seeing AmiPro (one of my favored Win-WordProcessors)
> announced for a true 32bit OS/2 Version and therefore being faster (I
> expect a 100 % increase in speed) on the *same* machine I now used to use
> the Windows-version on.
> 
> Having used 32bit OS/2 on quite some different machines, I would suggest
> a minimum of 6 MB for main-memory and a 60 MB hard-disk (the more - as for
> Windows itself - the better of course). Seeing Windows Apps needing 10-20 MB
> of hard-disk probably 100 or 200 MB hard-disk should be a minimum nowadays.
> 
> ---rony
> P.S.: Some other goodies: ATM in the kernel, supplied with WINOS2, WorkPlace
> Shell, SOM (system object model), help-system, performance, versatality,
> applets (especially productivity tool), HPFS (high performance file system,
> allowing for long, descriptive filenames finally), security against system-
> downs, Win 2.x compatibility, DOS-device-drivers usable in DOS-sessions,
> and more and more and more. I stop.
> P.P.S.: Not being from the United States I envy those people getting OS/2
> for just $49,-- (forty-nine)!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc