Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28403 comp.sys.amiga:33371 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!t-stephp From: t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS Message-ID: <5664@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 7 May 89 02:24:33 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> Reply-To: t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 100 In article griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes: >In article <5625@microsoft.UUCP> w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes: >>>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?) Version 1.1 of OS/2 does not use flat addressing, since as Glenn pointed out it is written for the 80286. I wouldn't discount the importance of virtual memory as easily as do you. It seems that one of the primary reasons you dislike OS/2 (and I do have to wonder if you've ever used for more than a few minutes) is because of the amount of memory it requires. You may be able to use all 8M on your Amiga, but you had to purchase it, didn't you? On my OS/2 box I can have 4M and use it like 16M. That's a good bit more valuable than being limited to 8M AND having to pay for it. >>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 Sounds like an Amiga to me. It's been a while, but I used to use the Amiga quite a bit. A 512K machine didn't do a whole lot, considering that the OS ate half of it. Now that the OS is in ROM I suppose it's not such a great concern, but the point remains a valid one. > >>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 [Comments about Windows GUI vs all others deleted] I am certainly no big Windows fan and am not defending it. You, however, completely missed the point. Windows is a more intelligent OS in that it demand loads code and resources. In terms of memory management in general it certainly qualifies as a second-generation PC operating system, regardless of other problems it may have. Overlays on the Amiga are a laughable substitute for VM or demand loading. >>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? That's a ridiculous question. What do you expect the operating system to do, page in the disk drivers from virtual memory when it needs to access the disk? Kind of a chicken and egg situation, eh? Drivers and the OS/2 kernel are bootstrapped and remain resident for obvious reasons. The dynamic linking capabilities of OS/2, however, allow chunks of code to be shared between applications with no duplication in memory. DynLink libraries are one of the major advantages of OS/2 over more primitive PC operating systems (meaning PC in the generic sense). As everyone is aware, there is a significant amount of overhead associated with an OS with advanced networking and memory management capabilities, but that megabyte or two of overhead most assuredly leads to far more efficient memory utilization and connectivity. > 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 :-) :-) :-)) I have been using OS/2 for about nine months now, and can honestly say that it is a tremendous pleasure to use. Until I tried it for myself I was a member of the sheeplike crowd of folks who had not used it and believed all the negative comments the reviewers constantly made. The productivity gains I have realized have been amazing. I totally dig having email running all the time and checking for new messages, having two compilations running, having my machine set up as a network server (a piece of cake, and something that can be done at any time without even rebooting), all while I'm using Word or a telecommunications program and formatting a floppy. And that's on a 4.6M machine WITH the DOS box enabled. That strikes me as being pretty good resource management. >* 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! * -- -- Stephen D. Poole -- t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic -- -- -- -- I'm just an Oregon Tech Software Engineering co-op at Micro- -- -- soft. Believe me, nobody here pays attention to my opinions! --