Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1781 comp.os.os2.misc:1028 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:8708 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!bywater!arnor!ibmman!larrys From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <1991Apr17.130938.8382@watson.ibm.com> Date: 17 Apr 91 12:56:37 GMT References: <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> Sender: larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv Distribution: na Organization: IBM Research Lines: 72 News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman I've been waiting for this post for soooo long... In <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 TO WINDOWS??? Either you're kidding or you're blind. Take your pick. How can you say that PM is hard to compare to Windows, when Windows is a true lookalike of PM (in terms of the GUI). >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. Okay, I'm going to dispell this one once and for all: OS/2 1.3 ***WILL*** run in 2M of memory. This is quite competitive with Windows which requires the same amount to get any decent performance out of it. 1.3 SE only requires 4M of hard disk space plus room for the SWAPPER.DAT file. >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. Maybe so, but if you've been reading the various trade magazines, you'll find that a lot of Windows customers are *NOT* satisfied with what they got. We have an expression here: "On OS/2, the pointer is an arrow; on Windows, it is an hourglass." What about the infamous "UAE" message (Unrecoverable Application Error)? How many times does that happen which requires you to reboot? With OS/2, you simply kill the application and continue, meaning you *don't* have to stop your compiling in another session, you *don't* have to logoff from your mainframe in another session, you *don't* have to stop writing your term paper in another session. >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. Bad features? Please elaborate. This prate about Windows being better than OS/2 without any substance in them is ridiculous. >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! OS/2 1.3 does not require a 386; it requires a 286, just like Windows. OS/2 2.0 will require a 386, but I can guarantee you that if what the SDK shows is any indication of what 2.0 will be like, MS is going to have a Maalox moment. Also, I have already stated that 1.3 only requires 2M to run, so that point is invalid also. Please, let's discuss these issues with REAL facts and VALID points, so we don't waste bandwidth. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.