Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1959 comp.windows.ms:12373 comp.os.os2.misc:1249
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!conrad
From: Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! vs Windows 3.0 vs NeXT/MACH
Message-ID: <1991May08.011359.12322@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: 8 May 91 01:13:59 GMT
References: <s03gry#@rpi.edu> <1991May6.171205.9611@watson.ibm.com> <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May7.164109.13128@amd.com> <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>
Sender: news@comp.vuw.ac.nz (News Admin)
Organization: Computer Science, Victoria University, Wellington, NewZealand
Lines: 41
Nntp-Posting-Host: downstage.comp.vuw.ac.nz
Originator: conrad@downstage.comp.vuw.ac.nz


In article <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
|> I do not claim to be an OS/2 expert, but I have not overlooked some of the
|> more basic proclamations found in OS/2 literature. I realize that OS/2
|> will run Win 3.0/DOS applications. I also realize that until an OS/2 
|> specific application is released that is unavailable elsewhere I am not
|> compelled to run what I got on top of OS/2. Unless some mighty special 
|> magic is performed by OS/2, I suspect Win 3.0/DOS app's running on top
|> of OS/2 will not perform better than running as is in their native
|> environment.

OS/2 2.0 obviously does perform some magic - better memory management and
multi-tasking. In IBM's demo of OS/2 2.0, they multi-tasked two DOS apps
(Lotus and dBase IV (??)), under Win 3 enhanced and OS/2 2.0, on identical
machines - OS/2 finished 30 seconds faster than DOS. They ran a windows
program (Excel (?) as the only tasks under OS/2 and Windows, and the OS/2
machine finished a couple of seconds earlier. They have also claimed (but
haven't shown) that a single DOS box is faster than DOS itself.

|> OS/2 is technically more advanced than DOS, no one seems to deny this fact.
|> Win 3.0 on top of DOS is satisfactory for millions of people, no one 
|> seems to deny this fact. Many developers are porting Win 3.0 app's to
|> PM on OS/2, no one seems to deny this fact. To date I am not aware
|> of any "killer app's" uniquely suited to OS/2, that aren't available on
|> Win 3.0 (e.g. Improv on the NeXT taking advantage of OO and Mach is 
|> uniquely suited to that environment and isn't yet available on any other).

If everyone was happy with what was satisfactory for them, nobody would
be running Windows - character based applications have been satisfactory
for a mighty long time. CP/M was satisfcatory for a mighty long time. For
those that have only ever used DOS, DOS may well be satisfactory.
I don't buy the satisfactory argument - everybody wanting something better
than what they have currently is what drives the computer industry.

BTW - out of interest, what would you class as "Windows' Killer Apps"?

-- 
Conrad Bullock                     | Domain:   conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Victoria University of Wellington, |     or:   conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz
New Zealand.                       | Fidonet:  3:771/130
                                   | BBS:      The Cave BBS +64 4 643429