Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!vax1.mankato.msus.edu!tshea
From: tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Windowing environments
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.143019.476@vax1.mankato.msus.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 20:30:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Mankato State University
Lines: 64


 In article <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU>, vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes:

> 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.
> 
Hard to compare it with Windows?  I look at Windows and then back at my OS/2
1.3 screen and I see very little difference.  Not to mention OS/2 can actually
run Microsoft Word without crashing ever 2 minutes.

> 
> 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.

Windows will run on a 640k xt.  Then question is WHY???  What can you do with
it.  To do anything serious with Windows you need a 286 with 4 megs.  Which
is what you need to use OS/2 1.3 SE seriousely.  And the base operating system
does not take up 16 megs.  Try 5 or 6.



> 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.
> 

Lots of folks are chucking money on both systems.  US likes Windows but not
OS/2, Europe likes OS/2 but not Windows.

> 
> 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.
> 

OS/2 2.0 (at least the betas) runs Windows applications better then Windows
does.  I find OS/2 a more stable operating system then running DOS/Windows.

> 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.
> 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!

DOS 4.01 is not even DOS compatible.  More things crash with DOS 4.01 in our
environment then under the DOS box with OS/2 1.3.

> 
> 'Nuff said.
> ----

same here... 

timothy shea
International IS&DP
3M, Inc.

tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu    AO: tshea                   (612) 739-3764