Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!netcom!resnicks
From: resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Flames on UNIX/OS/2/Microsoft
Message-ID: <23245@netcom.COM>
Date: 8 Feb 91 17:43:28 GMT
References: <451@nec-gw.nec.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 65

In article <451@nec-gw.nec.com> brahms@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (George Skillman) writes:
>Look, I agree OS/2 has problems:
>
>1) When I programmed under 1.1, the system kept crashing all the time.
>
	I program under 1.2 with my BBS running in the background all the 
	time. It works well.

>2) OS/2 doesn't provide core files when your program crashes.
>   (Fortunately, Logitech's MultiScope provides capturing
>   core files for you.)
>   
	I agree, MultiScope is a cool debugger. I use it frequently.

>3) There's no command-line "ps" nor "kill".
>
	There is a program called PSTAT.EXE for OS/2 1.2 +
	I have a command line kill (I wrote this for my cron deamon to kill
	it when needed =])

>4) The FAT file system is a joke.  There's no way to really check it
>   thoroughly with a UNIX-like "fsck".  But the new HPFS file system,
>   if it ever gets out into the mainstream, is pretty slick.
>   
	HPFS is nice, and OS/2 will magicly check it if it wasn't shut down.
	There are a lot of DOS utilities which will deal with the FAT system
	and to some extent, it's a must the DOS be used to do this. For 
	example, if drive C: is a FAT system, you cannot run chkdsk becuase
	the system has the drive locked. I think a maintenance mode like
	with UNIX would be handy.

>5) Lastly, as everyone knows, OS/2 is currently written in assembly for
>   a machine running in 16 bit mode.  Hopefully that will change.
>
>
	OS/2 2.0 is a hybrid of 16bit and 32bit code.

>After all, what besides OS/2 has Microsoft done right?  Do they
>have the best word processor?  No.  Do they have the best
>spreadsheet?  Only maybe.  How's their compiler?  More expensive
>than Turbo C++ and it doesn't even support C++!  

	This is something that really annoys me. People who bitch
	that a C compiler isn't C++, or people who recomment going
	to C++ instead of C. *I* don't like C++ and could care less
	that MSC doesn't support it. I do, however, keep hearing claims
	that Microsloth C is faster, and generates faster and smaller
	code the Turbo C. This is true on trivial little hacks, but
	I have taken large masses of code (Like MicroEMACS). If I used
	the makefile from Dan Lawrence for Microsoft C, it blows up 
	entirely (internal error in code.c - compiler bug??? )
	If I turn off optimizations I get a bigger, slower executable for
	DOS in comparison to the one I get from Turbo C. Too bad there isn't
	Turbo C for OS/2 ...



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resnicks@netcom.com, apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick, IFNA:	1:143/105.0, 
USNail: 530 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 374 
        Sunnyvale, Ca 94086
- In real life: Steve Resnick. Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null
0x2b |~ 0x2b, THAT is the question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------