Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mtune!rkh
From: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 programmer's model
Message-ID: <1172@mtune.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 08:39:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtune.1172
Posted: Wed Sep  9 08:39:41 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Sep-87 01:56:41 EDT
References: <371@micropen> <109@laura.UUCP>
Reply-To: rkh@mtune.UUCP (Robert Halloran)
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 26
Keywords: OS/2 UNIX-like MSDOS

In article <109@laura.UUCP> tb@laura.UUCP (Tb) writes:
>Generally i agree with what David writes in his article. Considering all the
>similarities between OS/2 and *IX i wonder "why OS/2 at all". I do not see
>REAL advantages over *IXes. As far as i know Microport offers a package which
>allows one MS-DOS task under their UNIX. So this offers all OS/2 does.
>Any comments ??

And the '386 Unixes (sp?) now being announced have add-ons allowing for
MULTIPLE DOS windows, which OS/2 has no stated intention of doing.  Said
multi-DOS packages were announced for Microport '386 Unix this summer, 
and this week in AT&T's '386 announcement.

If the OS/2 model looks so much like Unix, and isn't available yet, and
purportedly takes up a half-megabyte of RAM, and only runs one DOS
window even on a '386, WHY oh WHY would anyone in their right mind
bother with it when Unix can be had NOW for the '386, with all the
development tools thereof?

						Bob Halloran
=========================================================================
UUCP: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh		home ph: (201)251-7514 
Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM				   evenings ET
USPS: 19 Culver Ct, Old Bridge NJ 08857
Disclaimer: I am a contractor.  Any opinions stated or implied are solely
	MINE, NOT my agency's, NOT my client's.  Got it?!
Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter Thompson