Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ames!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!amber.cs.Virginia.EDU!rwl
From: rwl@amber.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft And Friends
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.173038.3092@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 16 Nov 90 17:30:38 GMT
References: <4624@gara.une.oz.au> <27202@cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU
Organization: UVa Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 25


In article <27202@cs.yale.edu>, horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
|> In article <4624@gara.une.oz.au> rjacobs@gara.une.oz.au ( ABRI) writes:
...
|> And I'd hardly say that UNIX on PCs is being "virtually ignored".
|> 
|> >As a multi-tasking operating system Unix on the PC is
|> <a better program and at a more evolved stage than OS/2.
|> 
|> I agree.  But UNIX is also a lot more expensive, in terms of hardware
as well
|> as software, than OS/2.

Is that really the case?  I thought that the main stumbling block to OS/2 (as
a DOS successor) is its huge memory and disk requirements.  Does anyone out
there in Netland know of a good comparison between OS/2 Extended Edition and,
say, SCO UNIX?  I bet that there are similar resource requirements.

The problem with PC Magazine is that it seems to think that OS/2 EE with
Presentation Manager is somehow a vastly superior solution to UNIX with X
windows.  Their bias is persistent and seems to be based only on the idea
that UNIX is some alien life form while OS/2 is the friendly DOS-successor
annointed by IBM and Microsoft.  Their bias is actually amusing because
they sometimes seem to go out of their way to bash UNIX as if their silence
with let the cancer grow...