Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <4492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 01:02:27 GMT
References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <4473@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <6508@skinner.nprdc.arpa>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 17

In article <6508@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes:
| Unix gets 1/2 because it works well with loose-coupled CPUs but needs
| an extension to work with tightly-coupled CPUs. OS/2 gets 1 because it
| works well with tightly-coupled CPUs but needs an extension to work
| with loosely-coupled CPUs. Is there some kind of bias here you're not
| telling us about?

Simply a bias towards standards (I _did_ use that word).  The LAN Manager
is a standardized add-on.  So far, AT&T hasn't published _anything_ that
will enable UNIX to handle tightly-coupled CPU's.  In that sense, the LAN
Manager is a part of OS/2 that users can opt not to buy.


--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)

"I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski