Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!joeb
From: joeb@hpnmdla.hp.com (Joe Barnhart)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windowing environments
Message-ID: <11750006@hpnmdla.hp.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 21:20:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: HP Network Measurements Div, Santa Rosa, CA
Lines: 48

In comp.os.os2.misc, 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.

PM is to OS/2 what Windows is to DOS.  When folks say "OS/2" they 
often mean OS/2 and PM.  PM and Windows _are_directly_ comparable.  
X, on the other hand, is almost a "build-it kit" for a windowing 
environment.  It doesn't offer a particular look-and-feel of its own,
but rather relies on a "window manager" to provide it.  There are
probably as many different window managers as there are X programmers....

   |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.

This is a very common misconception.  The incorrect part of this statement
is that Windows runs on a 640K XT.  MS doesn't promote their Windows 3.0
environment on anything less than a 80286 processor, and it's easy to see
why.  Windows 3.0, _for_acceptable_performance_ requires just as much
power as OS/2.  Typically, that's 4M of RAM and an 80M disk on a 80386
processor.  I've used Windows 3.0 on a variety of computers -- 8088's
included -- and I stand by these numbers.  By the way, OS/2 1.3 does a 
_far_ better job of handling multiple applications in a limited-memory
environment.


   |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.

I disagree.  From your comment, I'd guess that you haven't used OS/2
much, or at all.  Those who have used both agree that OS/2 is more
robust than Windows 3.0.  Windows is becoming (in)famous for its 
"Unrecoverable Application Error" message.  It's so common that folks
now refer to it as "the UAE."

The one point of yours which I can't disagree with is that Windows
outsells OS/2.  (Insert the old "a million flies can't be wrong" 
argument here.)  Perhaps the mix will change over time, perhaps not.
For _my_ use, OS/2 provides the power and flexibility I need.

-- Joe B.

#include <standard.disclaimer>