Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mailrus!ncar!boulder!wallwey
From: wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <18559@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Mar 90 01:49:54 GMT
References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <18131@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 20

In article <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM> lws@comm.WANG.COM (Lyle Seaman) writes:
>.....
>These examples are not nearly as useful as the original proposed example.
>So I repeat:  Is it capable of keeping an accurate file transfer running
>in the background using one serial port while another serial port is also
>in use?

	Easily!!!

>
>Besides, OS/2 is just warmed-over MS-DOS.  I'd rather have TRS-DOS 4.0.
>

	At least from what I have read, OS/2 is completely different.
Its a much more "clean" operating system.  MS-DOS and even *NIX
are both very "kludgy", everything is a "hack job".  In OS/2, everything
is built right in the system.  I know these aren't very quantitative or
tangable judgements, but I think they are valid.

	Dean Wallwey