Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!buddy.Berkeley.EDU!c60b-ia
From: c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Sugih Jamin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: UNIX vs. OS/2
Message-ID: <3834@zen.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 04:33:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: zen.3834
Posted: Sat Sep 19 04:33:25 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 13:10:59 EDT
References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Sender: news@zen.berkeley.edu
Reply-To: c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 36

In article <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton) writes:
>In article <961@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>   The big advantage Unix has is that Unix for the 80386 is available now.
>>   OS/2 for the 386 is predicted by Microsoft to be over a year away.  If
>>   the delivery is anything like that for MS Windows, well....
>>
>In 1981, the only software for IBM PC's was CP/M based, and people actually
>went out and bought CP/M co-processor boards for the PC's.  The early public
>domain club software disks were all CP/M reworks.  But by 1983, interest in
>CP/M was gone from the mass market.  In 1984, I worked briefly for a company
>that needed a CP/M co-processor card, and by then, the CP/M co-processor
>card was moribund.
>
>>   In the interim people writing 386 software will have only one OS to
>>   run it under.  Thus all new 386 applications will be developed for Unix
>>   (and other, non-OS/2 systems that come on-line)
>
>See my comments above about CP/M.
>



The difference is:  MS-DOS can do *much* more than can CP/M.  While OS/2
won't be that much more powerful than UNIX, if at all.





(wasted space for *my* stupid poster)




sugih jamin
(c60b-ia.berkeley.edu)