Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1758 comp.os.os2.misc:1006 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:8662 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!vernard From: vernard@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 16 Apr 91 12:42:53 GMT References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.misc Distribution: na Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 66 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. 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. >> 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. 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. >> 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. >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. 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! 'Nuff said. ---- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vernard@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me. -- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vernard@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me.