Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wash08!txr98
From: txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Anyone?
Message-ID: <135@wash08.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 88 06:07:29 GMT
References: <1866@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <216100037@trsvax> <1084@usfvax2.EDU>
Reply-To: txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed)
Organization: American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
Lines: 30

To assume that os2 will  have a static design  is pretty foolish -  it's
more reasonable to think that it will change as much as dos or unix have
during the past few years - I'll bet a major rev or version will  appear
annually, and  they'll require  minimum configuration  upgrades too,  so
that new revs will  cost much more  than the upgrade  fee.  Maybe  there
isn't a unix user interface as nice as os2's, but I can hang afew people
on my xenix at running xenix for the same $$$ as 1 ps2 with os2,  source
code I write on a vax or tower will compile on the at w/o mods, and  the
environment,  while  not  as  windowed  as  os2,  remains  constant,   a
not-insubstantial point  with  a  large  inexperienced  user  community.
true, borland and MS aren't doing alot with unix (cept MS WORD)  because
compilers come with unix -  no point in selling  turbo c if the  machine
already has a c  compiler!  This  os2 thing is a  fad (boy aren't  those
famous last words -:), as small-scale unix systems replace both the  fat
expensive single user systems and their large expensive compilicated and
ill-conceived networks solutions.

In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes:
>In article <216100037@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>>[Person coming to grips with fact that OS2 is a sham deleted :-)]
>announced till now there have been many versions of DOS (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1,
>them, just a few major ones.  About 500 dollars or up to keep ahead of the 
>game.  Now we are presented with OS/2, a big, extremely versatile operating
>system, which costs about $350 or alot less if you have channels.  
>operating system is projected to change VERY little over the long haul,

>anyone will create a Unix based standard anywhere near as nice as the 
>OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA).  Besides, the big compiler vendors
>in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix.  
>Turbo C on Unix, I think not!  Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label.