Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:2097 comp.windows.ms:12682 comp.os.os2.misc:1381 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!barryf From: barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) 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: <5b_h6k_@rpi.edu> Date: 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT References: <066gx8m@rpi.edu> <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> Lines: 60 Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes: >In article <1991May8.190718.12134@watson.ibm.com> larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) writes: >>(Sigh) This is getting ridiculous now. So you think that NT will provide >>this??? NO!!! NT is simply a way of mapping the Windows, OS/2, VMS, and >>Dos APIs to a common set of kernal functions. THAT'S IT! Your file >>formats will still be as incompatible, etc.. >Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n almost) ready >kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast. >-- >Ari Huttunen To Tuva or nothing! >phone: 90-7285944 Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ), Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?) "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc. access to a computing platform. NextStep is an object oriented "user interface" providing graphical access to an operating system. DOS, OS/2, and Mach each entail unique API's (application programming interfaces). Windows, PM, and NextStep entail their own unique API's, one step removed from the operating system's API. In theory, one could (will) insert an API transliterator between PM and a native Windows 3.0 application (thus allowing Win 3.0 app's run under PM without any changes or recompiles). Likewise this might be done with Mach or NextStep using a product called SoftPC. It run's DOS app's on Mach machines running a DOS emulator/API transliterator. With respect to file formats: Independant of the operating system vendors and the graphical interface vendors I suspect each application vendor will evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of providing file compatibility between systems (e.g. MS Excel on the Mac and PC, WordPerfect on the Mac, PC and NeXT, etc.). The file systems will be different on each platform but the file formats may in fact be compatible (e.g. EPS files on any system, TIFF files on any system). Lotus enables one to import *.wks and *.wk1 files into Improv on the Next. However, Improv is object oriented and enables one to perform functions not downwardly compatible with 123. Until Improv is release for OS/2 and Windows one is restricted to bringing 123 files in but not exporting Improv's native files to other systems. Granted, there are always imperfections and some inconveniences. The user must make their own cost/benefit analysis in order to determine if it is worth having a heterogenous computing environment, and take what compatibilit they can get. barry ps Larry - never say never and don't let enthusiasm turn into dogmatism... -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+