Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: The latest about MSDOS catching up Message-ID: <1990Jul4.044047.18860@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 4 Jul 90 04:40:47 GMT References: <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU> Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 25 In article <23376@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: > > Windows is still slow. Slower than a comprable Mac. I like the idea > I can switch between applications with no time lag. Windows adds little > to the functionality of MS-DOS. As (I believe) Windows 3.0 requires > a 386, I don't see why anyone would chose it over OS/2, which at least > has a sound foundation. [What a lovely topic for c.s.a!] The latest Computer Languages has an article on why OS/2 seems dead in the water. The author's main point is that most of the DOS world is still text oriented applications, and users/developers weren't willing to have IBM/Microsoft cram a GUI (graphical user interface) like Presentation Manager down their throats, with attendant hardware costs, programming complexity, and performance penalties, when all they really wanted was the ability to run several text based applications at once. I know from nothing about this, I last saw an OS/2 PM system over a year ago, over a cubicle wall. Just passing along one viewpoint from the "meedja" for your amusement. Kent, the man from xanth.