Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2:107 comp.realtime:291
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!ginosko!uunet!cbmvax!valentin
From: valentin@cbmvax.UUCP (Valentin Pepelea)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.realtime
Subject: Re: OS/2, real-time, question
Keywords: OS/2, real-time, question
Message-ID: <8355@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 30 Oct 89 16:43:43 GMT
References: <34689@beta.lanl.gov> <1028@ncratl2.Atlanta.NCR.COM> <864@metaphor.Metaphor.COM>
Reply-To: valentin@cbmvax.UUCP (Valentin Pepelea)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 23

>In article <1028@ncratl2.Atlanta.NCR.COM> r.nathan@Atlanta.NCR.COM writes:
>>And yes, OS/2 does make a good platform for real-time stuff.  The 
>>implementation of threads, queues and ram-semaphores, exitlists, and so
>>forth provides all the mechanisms one really needs.  I can't say how well
>>it would work for real-time controls at the milli-second precision range,
>>but in the relatively slow environment I designed for, it was (dare I say
>>it?) great.

To my knowledge, OS/2 is not a real-time operating system, i.e. it does not
guarantee that an even will be processed within a defined amount of time. Just
like vanilla Unix.

You can add as many features you want to the OS, including your precious ram-
semaphores, but that will not change anything.

[There are real-time implementations of Unix.]

Valentin
-- 
"An operating system without memory is     Name:    Valentin Pepelea
 an operating system without virus."       Phone:   (215) 431-9327
                                           UseNet:  cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net
                              - Kodiak     Claimer: these are only bad opinions