Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX
Message-ID: <1740@rti.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Sep-87 22:17:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti.1740
Posted: Sun Sep 27 22:17:34 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Sep-87 04:48:09 EDT
References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <2440@drivax.UUCP>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 21
Summary: Why OS/2 is not the operating system of the masses

In article <2440@drivax.UUCP>, braun@drivax.UUCP (Kral) writes:
>  ...				More than just for print spooling, time
> sharing is needed for *any* background task:  modem control, keyboard mapping,
> etc.  At least suspended-task technology is required for the other things.  How
> many times have you been in your spread sheet and needed to look up something
> in another file?  How many times have you been editing your source file and
> needed to look up the spelling of some constant in an include file? 
> 

The above quote was in response to my criticism of OS/2 and Un*x as an
operating system for the masses.  Unfortunately I think it proves my point.

These tasks are most often done by techies whose environment would be more
accurately described as a workstation and hence would be a logical OS/2
or Un*x target.  But the people who form the bulk of the PC marketplace don't
do a lot of this - they have enough trouble with disks, files, and so
forth.  We may not like it, but that's the way it is - these people are
pretty confused already, and will not want to go to the added confusion of a
complex, expensive and (to them) incomprehensible multitasking system.

					Brucit iences.en