Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: (Sigh) Here we go again... In-Reply-To: tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu's message of 4 May 91 03:46:05 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu Organization: Penn State Computer Science References: <12847@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Date: Sat, 4 May 91 13:27:42 GMT Lines: 60 In article <12847@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) writes: Yes, OS/2 was designed as a single-user operating system. It was designed for the PC, and the P stands for "personal". Nevertheless, I have read about at least two companies that have licensed the source code for OS/2 and built multi-user capabilities on top of the basic system, so if you want multi-user OS/2, you can have it. As for me, I am the only person using my computer, so why should I saddle it with all sorts of multi-user capabilities that I'll never use? There are lots of Sun workstations out there now that sit on a person's desk and get used by only one person, so all of that wonderful UNIX multi-user capability isn't being used anyway. Forget that personal computer stuff. The NeXT is more of a personal computer than a multiuser workstation. My big hangup with using two different OS's is: what's the point. When I sit down at a $2000 machine why should things be any different than if I sit down at a $20,000 machine? I would like the interface to be the same. How do the added features hurt by being there? In fact can you see the senerio where you leave your computer on all day so you are able to call it from work(or where ever you are) to do some work, or get some documents that you forgot. Of course, you can always jump back in the car and drive 20mins-2 hours to get home. I don't follow you here. OS/2 does have directories. So does DOS for that matter. The era of the central mainframe computer with dumb terminals on people's desks is giving way to the distributed computing approach we're seeing nowadays, with multiple CPUs connected via networks. PCs running OS/2 can be easily networked. I think this is what IBM had in mind for multiple users. What additional features does OS/2 offer over Unix(honest question)? Someone mentioned that you can interrupt the kernal. Is OS/2 realtime(I think I'm getting things confused here)? DOS compatibility isn't a feature with me. Anyway, it's only a software emulation program away. Yes, they are apples and oranges (figuratively speaking). If you need extensive multi-user support, UNIX is the obvious choice. If you don't, OS/2 is an excellent choice. I use both, but I must say that I like OS/2 better, if for no other reason than the fact that I know enough to run an OS/2 system myself; UNIX machines often need system administrators to manage the system, and you had better know C. I am constantly annoyed by changes in the behavior of our UNIX systems, and I can usually trace the problem to something a system administrator did. With my OS/2 PC, I get consistent behavior, because I'm in control. I haven't done any adminstation on the NeXT's so I can't tell you how easy or hard it is(anyone else care to try), but I don't think that you need to know C. And if you own a Unix machine, you are in control of it too. I get the impression that your experience with Unix is very limited. My personal opinion is that I will be glad to see OS/2 2.0 FINALLY get here. It's a major improvement over DOS and Windows, and the world needs it. -Mike