Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:1997 comp.windows.ms:12434 comp.os.os2.misc:1274 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!lowey From: lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! (speed of OS/2) Message-ID: <1991May8.224116.11897@herald.usask.ca> Date: 8 May 91 22:41:16 GMT References: Organization: University of Saskatchewan Lines: 66 From article , by yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger): > 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. This is precisely why OS/2 is better. > 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. Realistically, OS/2 and MS-Windows requirements are the same. Sure, you can run MS-Windows on a 286, but you won't realistically run more than one DOS application anyway. > 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? This is a mute point. I have OS/2 equivalents to most of the shareware available for MS-DOS. This includes terminal programs, bulletin board systems, games, disk utilities, ports of Unix utilities, PC-Anywhere clones, editors, programmers development tools, archivers, gif viewers, ... I defy you to name a category of application that cannot be downloaded as shareware from my BBS at (306) 966-4857 HST-DS modem. > 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. Based on experienced they learned from their OS/2 development most likely. As for the low cost upgrades ... I purchased OS/2 1.0 for about $250, and I haven't paid a cent since. I'm currently running OS/2 1.3, and the upgrade to 2.0 is free as well. The new price structure makes OS/2 cheaper to buy than MS-DOS and Windows. > 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. But the question is WHY is there a speed increase? The answer is a more efficient multi-tasking kernal on an operating system built from the ground up to support multitasking, instead of a system bolted onto the side of a single tasking system. > 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. Yes, but you won't get the best out of the software. It's still limited to the DOSisms of MS-Windows. A true OS/2 port would run better because it wouldn't have an extra "compatibility" layer to navigate through. - Kevin Lowey