Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
From: edwards@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM's new System 2 Personal Computers
Message-ID: <1339@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Apr-87 09:15:05 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1339
Posted: Mon Apr  6 09:15:05 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Apr-87 04:36:08 EST
References: <775@oliveb.UUCP> <1579@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Reply-To: edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (mark edwards)
Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center
Lines: 43
Keywords: why even think about OS/2

In article <1579@bnrmtv.UUCP> connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (Glenn Connery) writes:
>The Mercury News showed its usual lack of conviction.  Reporting included
>the comments that the OS would not be available "for months" and that
>applications to take advantage of the OS might not be available "for
>months after that."  The reality is that OS/2 won't really be available
>for over a year, and applications could be two years away.  The 1.0
>release of OS/2 is only to give them something they will deliver this
>year--it doesn't even include the Presentation Manager (you know, the new
>interface to which all applications will be written).  The SAA user interface
>guidelines IBM expects everyone to follow won't be availabe till August
>at best.  The release date for OS/2 release 1.1, the real thing, won't even
>be announced until 4Q, i.e. December.

  Why even bother with OS/2, its going to be buggy. How many releases
  will it take before its usable ? Why not go directly to Xenix, its
  proven, and with merge you run dos programs as a process under
  Xenix. And won't OS/2 approach something Unix like anyways. Why wait
  when the real thing is available now? Besides its going to cost on the
  order of $365. For that price you can almost buy microport.

  What can we expect from OS/2 ?

>Nevertheless, I'm afraid these machines are going to be real important,
>and over the long haul will have serious impacts.  The key to whether or
>not this is true will probably be (a) the degree of backward compatibility
>of the new VGA chip set with EGA/CGA/MDA, (b) whether or not the claims
>of significant performance improvement due to the new Micro-Channel bus
>architecture are true, (c) whether IBM makes any major reliability,
>delivery gaffs.


   If my source is right these VGA chips are on the mother board. Now
   knowing the past why would you even want them to be there. I have
   seen what they produce, but hey, it isn't that good. The resolution
   can be greatly improved. But if you look at it from a distance, its
   impressive. What happens when a new chip set comes out? and it will.
   Or something like a New Hercules board?

   mark
-- 
    edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
    {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
    UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706