Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2:223 comp.realtime:310
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!athertn!jimb
From: jimb@athertn.Atherton.COM (Jim Burke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.realtime
Subject: Re: OS/2, real-time, question
Keywords: OS/2, real-time, question
Message-ID: <14736@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 89 02:15:12 GMT
References: <34689@beta.lanl.gov> <1229@iraun1.ira.uka.de>
Reply-To: jimb@Atherton.COM (Jim Burke)
Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1229@iraun1.ira.uka.de> grunwald@Tokyo.UUCP (Grunwald Betr. Tichy) writes:
>OS/2 is not designed to serve as an process automation tool, therefore don't
>use it in that field, you can't trust OS/2 in that field.

Yes, but "process automation" is a broad term.  IBM has worked to heavily
promote OS/2 and some associated products in the discrete manufacturing
arena and have convinced some fairly heavy hitters (e.g. Ford Motor).
While discrete manufacturing is not a real-time intensive as continuous
process, it is none the less a form of process automation.  Of course
you have to take the system's architecture into account when designing
your automation application, but then that's always the case isn't it?



-- 
******                Views expressed herin are my own               ******* 
Jim Burke - consultant  408) 734-9822   | I'll stop posting when they pry my 
jimb@Atherton.COM                       | cold, dead fingers from the smoking
{decwrl,sun,hpda,pyramid}!athertn!jimb  | keyboard.