Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28024 comp.sys.amiga:32878
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!pyramid!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Message-ID: <521@laic.UUCP>
Date: 28 Apr 89 03:01:25 GMT
References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Reply-To: darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson)
Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park
Lines: 20

In article <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> ed@iitmax.IIT.EDU (Ed Federmeyer) 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?  After all, they both multitask, have graphics
>based interfaces, etc...  Is it maybe because the 68000 assembly language
>is more compact than 80286 or 80386?

Oh ho!  You think you can trip us up with this thinly veiled
flame-war trap...  Well it won't work this tim.. urk, arg... Ahhh!

OS/2 could be made to work with smaller amount of memory, except that
it has doesn't use shared libraries.  This means that every program that
does graphics links in everything except the low level kernel stuff.
Also, OS/2 has to be somewhat compatible with MS-DOS (or they won't sell
very well).  If designed from scratch, I'm sure that the enormous
amount of people who developed it could have come up with something
decent.  Heck, with 386's becoming so common, it would blow 386-based
UNIXes out of the water if done right.

Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.