Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28301 comp.sys.amiga:33261 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!blake!ogccse!littlei!omepd!griff From: griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS Message-ID: Date: 3 May 89 21:29:46 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@omepd.UUCP Organization: BiiN Information Systems, Hillsboro, Oregon Lines: 94 In-reply-to: w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP's message of 1 May 89 18:29:55 GMT In article <5625@microsoft.UUCP> w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes: Long posting - [stuff deleted] >These operating systems are as different in concept as I am to you. Meaning, >both OS's provide the same features, and abilities, yet perform much >different tasks. Yes? - Maybe. The only real difference I can immediately see, is that OS/2 is saddled with the need of keeping a huge ball-and-chain wrapped around it's foot. Namely that of backward compatibility with MeSsy-DOS. Trash that little problem, and you guys might have come with with something worth the price of an upgrade...:-) >>I don't understand why OS/2 uses 3 Mb of RAM (I think I read that somewhere) to be usefull, while with AmigaDOS you only need 256 Kb. What does OS/2 give >>you that AmigaDOS doesn't? MS-DOS compatiblity from the company that supports it in the first place. True VMM. Yep, AmigaDOS doesn't have that. Of course, with AmigaDOS, if I have 8 megs in my machine - I can use it all. With much smaller code - you see, the 68xxx's don't have to mess with segment-registers... (I know- the `386 doesn't need to anyway - does OS/2 use linear mode? Doesn't that cut down the amount of addressable memory by the size of the segment register?) >First, a 256KB Amiga is only slightly more usefull than my old (only 6 years) >C=64; which "got by" on 64k quite nicely, FOR THE TASKS IT WAS MEANT TO >PERFORM! My word processor KindWords (ugh!) or DPaintI/II/III require MUCH >more than 256k to even run. You sir, are obviously not using an Amiga. I, too, owned a C=64. Nice machine. Quite useful for "THE TASKS IT WAS MEANT TO PERFORM" - Since you brought up the point - I submit that the MS-DOS machines are superior to any other machine FOR THE TASK IT WAS MEANT TO PERFORM. Word processing. That's it. The IBM PC was meant to be a replacement for the IBM Selectric(r) typewriter. Also, don't start trying to compare products - or I'll start mentioning things like MS-Windows. :-) >More intelligent OS's like Windows (r) load only those sections of a programs ^^^^^^^ You've GOT to be Kidding. Aren't you? Everyone knows Windows has some severe problems... If you want to turn someone off of using anykind of graphical user interface - hand them windows... Most of the people I know who have used "Windows" have the kind of attitude that says "Graphical user interface? Who needs it? They're slow, clunky and ugly, why anybody would use a mouse is beyond me.." While those who have used anything else (Mac, Atari, Sun, or, dare I say it, Amiga!) wouldn't trade their GUI for anything! Windows is not what I would call any kind of an OS.... As for slow - well, there was a post here from Rob Peck, seems someone took Windows and compared it (running on a Compaq `386/25 no less!) to AmigaDOS...using a function that is used several hundred times a day - Push window to back and Pull window to front. Guess what? the 7.14 Mhz Amiga BEAT the Pride-of-the-DOS world. Don't try to toot Windows' Horn, it barely qualifies as a party favor. >In this way, VERY large programs, like MicroSoft Excell (r), can be usefull >in less memory than the program takes up on disk. (try overlays in AmigaDOS - same thing. Not usually used, because we don't have to be backwardly compatible with a 640k limit :-) >OS/2 requires 3MB to run effectively due to many factors, including >network facilities, more elaborate resource, and memory management, and >that OS/2 was written for an 80286, and not an 80386 based machine >(A BIG DIFFERENCE!). Yep - sells lots of Hardware - Hey- with all that Highly-vaunted "I only load what I NEED"-type design, why don't you not load the "network facilities, more elaborate resource and memory management" stuff until you need it - or wouldn't IBM be abel to sell as much H/W? >> Thanks >> Ed Federmeyer >> ed@iitmax.iit.edu <- Hard to get through to. >> sysed@iitVax.bitnet <- Works everytime, so far! >Thankyou for listening. B'b'b'b'b'b buba bububa buy now! >--- >w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) >THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE COMPLETELY MY OWN, AND NOT OF MY EMPLOYER! - griff Sorry for the length and small flame-fest, I just hate to see someone who obviously hasn't gone beyond their own propaganda. (Of course, *I never* do that :-) :-) :-)) -- * Richard E. Griffith * Cyrus Hammerhand * * "griff" * Household of the Golden Wolf * * BiiN, Hillsboro Ore. * Dragons' Mist * * UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!griff * An Tir * ************************************************************************** * These are MY opinions, if BiiN wanted them, They'd pay for `em! *