From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: why OS/2
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:54:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.48041
Distribution: na
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

sdk@med.ge.com writes:

>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 ?

Most of what I do is more like task-switching than multitasking but
the ability to multitask is still important. I commonly start a macro
going in 1-2-3 and then do some word processing; when I go back to 1-2-3,
I find the macro's done. This is nice, not necessary, but certainly a
more efficient use of the machine. Another thing I like is being told
when I receive new mail; I know it's a very small bit of multitasking,
but the details are what usually drive a person crazy. I'm not saying
that there aren't a lot of heavily multitasking people around here but
for most people, multitasking is transparent, it allows them to use
the machine in a logical way. When one has a GUI, one tends to think
of every window as being its own machine; I know I do, and I really
should now better. :)

>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 ?

This question is unclear to me but I will forge on. You certainly can
run several programs at the same time with in full screen mode. I'm
not sure why you would want to do this however. I have always found it
very helpful to have a command line window for compiling and an editor
window together so that I can work more efficiently (I know, that's
what emacs is for...(: ).

I used to hate GUIs until I was forced to learn X. Then I saw that I could
still use text based applications but I could several at the same time.
The same is true of OS/2. Do you want 5 or 6 dos text windows on the
screen at the same time? No problem. (Of course, you can do much more
than that with both X and OS/2 and I think there is a lot to be said for
going beyond ``text based applications'' but you don't _need_ to in OS/2)

>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 would need a better shell, like the C-shell. Someone has written a
Korn Shell for it but I've never used ksh so I don't know if it has the
kind of job control that is necessary. Regardless, it could be done but
you really should give WPS a chance.

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

No, at least not like VMS. I've always hated that about VMS though. It
does have an undelete function which is similar.

>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 ?

It is a virtual memory OS/2, just like a Sun workstation.

>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 ?

A lot! You can do much more than you can with a c-shell alone. I would
say that you should try it. Get a book (I recommend "Inside OS/2 2.0"
published by NRP), take some time, in the long run you will be happier.

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

It depends upon how much of the 120 Mb is free... Otherwise you should be
just fine. The more memory you have the happier you will be (well, to a
point anyway (: ).

Francis Moraes
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc