Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2027 comp.windows.ms:12478 comp.os.os2.misc:1309
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!netcomsv!resnicks
From: resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick)
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: <1991May9.182102.29631@netcom.COM>
Date: 9 May 91 18:21:02 GMT
References: <-47gvh+@rpi.edu> <1991May8.172013.5583@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <91128.201500MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Sender: netnews@netcom.COM (USENET Administration)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 22

In article <91128.201500MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish) writes:
>Windows is very unreliable on a 386.  I've had DOS applications crash my
>system with appalling frequency.  I *never* had a DOS box cause my OS/2
>system at work to crash (1.3).

You're lucky.

The DOS box runs in real mode which means there is not protection. If you
crash the DOS box, it could very likely kill the rest of the machine. 
OS/2 2.0 shouldn't have this problem.

- Steve


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA:        1:143/105.0, 
                 co moderator for comp.binaries.os2
 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc
 Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null
 The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------