Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!toad!jgray From: jgray@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Jerry Late Nite Gray) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <711@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 11:13:58 EDT Article-I.D.: pilchuck.711 Posted: Tue Sep 29 11:13:58 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Oct-87 03:52:29 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <1740@rti.UUCP> Sender: news@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM Lines: 69 Summary: multitasking/multiuser is for the masses In article <1740@rti.UUCP>, bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: > 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. > > Bruce C. Wright Sorry but this isn't what I've been observing. I haven't seen a non-techie here at this company who doesn't know(and doesn't use frequently) the feature that pressing both shift keys of their PC will suspend VTERM so they can look at, or execute, other things. Maybe we are unusual. Task suspension is a very simple concept that non-techies are already using and each tool implements differently (Procomm uses Alt-F4, my Emacs uses Esc-@ and so on..). Unix tools all suspend with Control-Z. I can't for the life of me understand where having one method for suspension for all tools (which OS/2 should have) would be more complicated. Take a more complicated system feature like remote access to your PC across a network. The best that has been done in a DOS-like environment is simple file serving. In our NFS network of non-PCs I can "login" to any of the machines on the network and run programs there interactively or remotely in addition to simple file serving. Trying to get the same thing in a collective DOS environment would be impossible if not impractical since the operating system is simply inadequate. Inadequate to a degree that probably could not be made up for by a plethora of TSRs, drivers and "cleverly" written application programs. The point made previously, and stressed here, is that the operating system is the best place for certain types of solutions and would simplify the environment. Multitasking eliminates the need for TSRs. Multi-user would make more "interesting" features happen in a PC of which there is little or no equivalent "kludges" under DOS. I don't believe that the non-existence of these kludges under DOS implies "no market". Some things are just too difficult to be practical under DOS. If you think that a multi-user environment equates only to multiple people using the same hardware, you are only partially correct. It also means multiple people sharing resources with an inherent mechanism in the operating system to support I.D's, file protection schemes (can you say "chmod"?) and the like. If you look at a network oriented DOS compatible operating system called Qnix (I'm not an advocate of this system) you'll see what I mean. --------------- Jerrold L. Gray UUCP:{ihnp4|caip|tektronix|ucbvax}!uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!jgray USNAIL: 10525 Willows Road N.E. /C-46 Redmond, Wa. 98052 (206) 881 - 6444 x470 Telex: 15-2167