Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1986 comp.windows.ms:12408 comp.os.os2.misc:1265
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!umich!terminator!bodwin.citi.umich.edu!jwh
From: jwh@bodwin.citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
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: <1991May8.172013.5583@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 17:20:13 GMT
References: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May7.164109.13128@amd.com> <-47gvh+@rpi.edu>
Sender: usenet@terminator.cc.umich.edu (usenet news)
Organization: University of Michigan, IFS Project
Lines: 22

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.
> 

For me the one big win with OS/2 2.0 would be reliability.  I use OS/2
1.3 right now and when one application dies it doesn't kill to whole
system. If OS/2 2.0 really provides a useful DOS box and can run Windows
applications I can see no reason why a person with a 386 would want
to continue to use a kludge like Windows.


James W. Howe			   internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp:     uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943