From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: why OS/2
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:18:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1993Jan4.221904.438@mr.med.ge.com> sdk@med.ge.com writes:
>1.  If you value the ability to multi task as a driver to use
>    OS/2, how much to you **really** multitask ?

Lots.  I look up information in references while my C compiler is
bulding code.  I also have alarm clocks and memo reminders constantly
running.  When I do word processing and spreadsheeting, I'll never
wait for printing to finish before doing something else.

>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 ?

You don't have to run only graphical apps.  There are two forms of
text-based sessions.  One is an OS/2 command session, and the other is
a DOS command session.  Both can be run in a text window or
full-screen (in text mode).  The DOS command session is 80% compatible
with DOS apps.  You can also boot a specific version of DOS (like
MS-DOS 5.0) into a virtual machine and run that in a window or
full-screen.  Virtual-machine DOS is about 95% compatible with DOS
apps. 

>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 ?

It'd still be very good.  Since version 1.1, the Presentation Manager
graphical interface was required to switch among applications, but
aside from that, you can work exclusively with text sessions.  The
memory-eating Workplace Shell is not required to use the
lighter-weight Presentation Manager and it's associated Session
Manager.

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

Not as such, but the HPFS file system allows names of up to 240
characters, so you (or an application) could easilly use a naming
convention to keep versions.

>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 is fully implemented.  You can allocate a memory block
up to the size of free RAM plus free disk space.  In general, unless
you're low on disk space, you only need RAM to lower the amount of
paging that the virtual memory manager does.

>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 ?

There are many utilities that allow you to list and kill running
processes without the graphical interface.  You can always start
applications from the command line.  I don't know if there exists a
utility to switch among sessions without the GUI.

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

No problem.  Be sure you have lots of free disk, though.  OS/2 will
take about 30MB, and you'll want at least 10MB free for swap space.
My system is a 25MHz 386 with 8MB of RAM.  I've installed OS/2 in a
50MB disk partition, which no other apps use, and I've no problems.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc