Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn!gilla From: GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Arnold G. Gill) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Message-ID: <90076.102725GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> Date: 17 Mar 90 15:27:25 GMT References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <18131@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM> Lines: 35 In article <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM>, lws@comm.WANG.COM (Lyle Seaman) says: > >wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: > >>>If >>>not, then OS/2 is little more than another crippled memory-hog operating >>>system - something to avoid. It is too bad that a MS-DOS compatible machine >>>cannot be designed from the ground up to multitask - I had hoped that 386 >>>machines would be capable of it. > >>Don't confuse the operating system with machine! > >RIGHT. > >>286 machines and more importantly, 386 machines were designed for >>multitasking! > >RIGHT. Sorry, I just can't buy that at all. x86 chips may be designed for multitasking, but the AT style machines that are being sold are not. You really want to redesign the machine from the ground up to be multitasking, and these are not. If you want to look at real multitasking PCs, the ones to consider are the Amiga and possibly the Mac II. It is likely that the Amiga is still the best machine around, but because it doesn't have the Big Blue label on it, and is only MS-DOS compatible after an extra card is added, it doesn't have the exposure the IBM-PC family has. ------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Arnold Gill | | | Queen's University at Kingston | If I hadn't wanted it heard, | | BITNET : gilla@qucdn | I wouldn't have said it. | | X-400 : Arnold.Gill@QueensU.CA | | | INTERNET : gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-