Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1991 comp.windows.ms:12422 comp.os.os2.misc:1269 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!yee From: yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! (speed of OS/2) Message-ID: Keywords: OS/2? Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY References: <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1991May8.193731.15929@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> Date: 8 May 91 21:08:01 GMT Lines: 84 In article <1991May8.193731.15929@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >have purchased both environments and use both of them, OS/2 more often). >Just yesterday I spent 4+ hours on finding a bug with Windows why it >said "Program group main corrupted or invalid - recreate it" and it >turned out to be a wrong setting on bus waitstate in the '386 c&t setup >of my board - the same setup worked before for over a year. It was >really near that I removed Windows from my disk ... >I just can't understand why a system couldn't say that it has problems >accessing the disk with a clear error message rather than fooling a user >that it's files are corrupted. A few weeks ago, the system said that it >could not find a file when I tried to start a DOS session in Windows's >386 enhanced mode - the solution: disable the Super VGA's BIOS shadow >RAM. Can anyone tell me why to call such a system "satisfactory" - >compared to this, OS/2 1.3 is wonderland - it simply ran always. Agreed that Windows 3.0 has serious problems as a Operating System. However Windows isn't really a OS, it's a application that is interfacing the OS with other programs. I hate Windows crashes as much as you do, and the Cryptic error messages, maybe in future releases they will fix that. Another fundamental question about OS/2 upgrades is really going to be whether it will cost alot to upgrade the current system to a decent system. I'm talking about x386, 4-6 meg of RAM, 100 meg hard disk, etc.. If someone ONLY has a x286 system he is left out in the cold unless he ugrades the CPU and other hardware. Cost is a big factor. >Most of the time I am using OS/2 1.3 I do not even need *ONE* DOS >application. And when I use the DOS box, it runs most often only the >Norton Commander. I just use OS/2 applications. All I need is there. Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? Games, utilities, application packages. Another thing is that it takes time for developers to get products out.. In the meantime, you can only issue a compatible release (like Lotus 1-2-3 for Widnows), which doesn't take advantage of OS/2.> >Windows and wonderful, are you serious? (see above :-) Yes, Microsoft did a GREAT job promoting Windows, something like a $10 million dollars advertising budget and low cost upgrades ($49 with existing Windows) AND packaging Windows with almost every computer hardware you buy. At least Windows RAN in the Enhanced mode to take advantage of multiple DOS boxes. >Oh yes. ALl Windows apps using only one local descriptor table is not >what I call "protected mode". Also, I have timed the "multitasking" of >Windows and compared this to OS/2's results when running an program >editor and a compiler in the background. Windows performed very poorly >and was rather instable. I thought the point of my comment was we shouldn't try to judge OS/2 on the ability to beat Windows running the same application. Most end users probably don't care about speed test, I think it's more of a programmer's thing about speed. I am a programmer, and speed really is deceptive. > >(BTW, I am not against Windows. I have bought Windows and the SDK and I >am doing much Windows development in a network environment. It's just my >experiences what makes me very angry about Windows. As soon as OS/2 2.0 >comes out, it runs on my machine and can do what it is said to be able >to do, I will throw away the whole Windows stuff forever.) Well, it seems that Microsoft said, if you program to the Windows Interface, you should be just port it over to OS/2 Presentation Manager. It might be better to write the application code tigher in OS/2 and not have to worry about the PM interface. I see a future in which IBM hopes that every OS/2 program is going to write and read from the PM...... So everybody's program better behave themselves. > >Kai Uwe Rommel > >/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ > >DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt >handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams (MS) > -- -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet)