Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:11889 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:8983 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!rti!bcw From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! READ THIS, you'll be impressed Summary: Windows, 286's, and 386's Message-ID: <1991Apr24.150039.15048@rti.rti.org> Date: 24 Apr 91 15:00:39 GMT References: <1435@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1991Apr24.015441.11392@amd.com> Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC Lines: 29 In article <1991Apr24.015441.11392@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >the next couple of years. From what I've heard of Windows 4.0, > >(due out in around a year or 18 months or so), it's not clear > >that there will be much room left for OS/2 between the Windows > >and Xwindows territory. > > That's the point, that Win and OS/2 will become the same thing. It's not quite so clear from I've seen that Windows and OS/2 will become the same thing. There is talk of incorporating some things from OS/2 into Windows (HPFS, pre-emptive multi- tasking, etc), but I've not seen anything from any source that I'd consider very reliable that they would become the _exact_ _same_ _thing_. If they did, then the OS would be in the rather difficult position that it would be cutting off the 286's entirely. Now I'd be the first to agree that the 386 is a better chip, but if support is to be dropped for the 286, it seems to me that this is just cutting off your nose to spite your face - dropping the 286 is OK for a higher-end OS, but many Windows machines are fast 286's, not 386's; Windows is aimed more at medium-level systems (though it will work on the low and high ends as well). I'm not sure this would be such a great idea. Bruce C. Wright