Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!milton!gibdo!slh
From: slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Windowing environments
Summary: What?
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.103521.13276@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 10:53:12 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
Reply-To: slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Distribution: na
Organization: zippity
Lines: 76

In article <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes:
|In article <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
|>How is MS-Windows easier to use than X?  Now, I understand MS Windows is
|>easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows.
|>No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments.
|>Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too.
|
	Windows isn't easier than X, especially considering the platform
	X is usually on (a real OS with decent memory management).
|First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing
|environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is
|integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I
|thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the
|future.
|
	PM is OS/2 as Windows is to DOS as X is to Unix (or whatever).
|>> However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive,
|>
|>OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination
|>(that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices.  Here
|>are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00.  DOS 4.0 $115,
|>Windows 3.0 $100.  Add the $115 and $100 and get $215.  OS/2 is much
|>cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination.
|
	Even without education discounts PM/OS/2 is that much more that
	Windows/DOS, especailly when you consider IBM has been very good
	about upgrades (free from 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3.
|This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I
|mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG
|of hard drive space to even install.
|
	You can run OS/2 with 2MB and don't think it is taking up 16MB on
	my disk.  I bet you get sicker running Windows/DOS on a 640K XT than
	running PM/OS/2 on a 2MB 286.  (And that's pre-1.3)
	Windows/DOS is taking a few megs itself.
	Your right it does take more resources, but not that much
	realistically.  It also does alot more for you and is a hell of
	a lot easier to program in.
|>> 2) Not very well supported right now.  
|>
|>OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since
|>the announcement of 32-bit v2.0.
|
|Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In
|general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too
|strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than
|OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with
|which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are
|chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2.
|
|>>            There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in
|>>the future.  Hopefully this will happen soon.
|
|Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad
|features of OS/2?  If it has enough of them, it may cause the new
|OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2.
>
	What are the bad features of PM/OS/2, especially compared
	to Windows/DOS?  The slightly more resources it requires?
	Besides when MS finally makes Windows/DOS into into PM/OS/2,
	which is where they are heading (threads, etc.)
	it will be just as big.
|>Should happen with version 2.0.  If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is
|>supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows.  This is because
|>OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS
|>compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and
|>will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same
|>time.
|
|Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because
|of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory.
	As I said above the realistic requirements aren't that different,
	especially considering memory prices and where Windows is header.
|Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS
|users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work!
	Does upgrades aren't 100% DOS compatible.