Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: Re: (Did you say Os/2 ?) (was Re: DV386 HOROR STORIES?)
Message-ID: <1991Jun22.045727.15727@beach.csulb.edu>
Date: 22 Jun 91 04:57:27 GMT
References: <10920@plains.NoDak.edu>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Lines: 31

In article <10920@plains.NoDak.edu> gus@plains.NoDak.edu (jim gustafson) writes:
>Naji Mouawad writes:
>|<Relaxed-State required>
>|
>|	[the wonders of os2 espoused] 
>|
>|I know, but I would like to know how many of you would
>|give Os/2 a look or a shot, or if some of you did hear 
>|infos conserning Os/2 which are not as rosy as the one
>|I am presenting.
>|
>According to an interview with Jensen of TopSpeed Modula-2 fame, 
>the Jensen Inc. folks have been using os2 for compiler development 
>for some time (at least a couple of years).  
>
>Jensen reported that os2's protected mode was great for tracing stray
>pointers, and that os2 could provide a powerful development environment 
>by running symbolic debuggers in separate "windows" alongside code, etc.
>
>I guess if somebody /gave/ my a copy of os2 (joke), I'd probably spin it up, 
>but I won't pay for the beasty until a mature version arrives (1-2 years?).
>With sufficient resources, I expect that os2 will run faster than you
>know what (of course, by then os2 still won't do X-Windows).
>

  The critical issue for DOS stability seems to me to be that one runs
multiple DOS sessions on top of the hardware rather than multiple task
session on top of DOS. This is fulfilled by OS/2 with the benefits that
are ascibed by the original poster. Couldn't one obtain the same or
similar benefit without the GUI and overhead using products like  VM 386
on appropriate hardware ?