Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1989 comp.windows.ms:12417 comp.os.os2.misc:1267 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!NewsServ!rommel From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! (speed of OS/2) Message-ID: <1991May8.193731.15929@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> Keywords: OS/2? Sender: news@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany References: <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 19:37:31 GMT Lines: 50 In article yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: >To make OS/2 sell: must be cheaper, upgradable, and stable. Alot of people >had problems with OS/2 1.x and not enough printer drivers that gave it a I had FAR less problems with OS/2 1.3 than I had with Windows 3.0 (I 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. >bad reputation. At least they (IBM) will allow multiple DOS boxes under >OS/2. I think 1.x you could run only 1 dos application at once, that IS >*NOT* good for multi-tasking. I am willing to give OS/2 2.0 a chance for 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. >the right budget, and maybe try out a demo first. Microsoft did something >wonderful with Windows, and maybe IBM is following that path. Windows and wonderful, are you serious? (see above :-) >What do I use windows for? Multi-tasking communications, applications, >and doing program development. I would like better application protection. 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. (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.) 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)