Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28151 comp.sys.amiga:33071 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!w-glenns From: w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS Summary: From someone who's been partially converted...a quick discussion. Keywords: Operating Systems, Religion WRT computers Message-ID: <5625@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 1 May 89 18:29:55 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> Reply-To: w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 63 In article <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> ed@iitmax.IIT.EDU (Ed Federmeyer) writes: > >I don't really have much of an opportunity to use OS/2 or AmigaDOS, but I >couldn't help but wonder how different the two opperating systems are? 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. OS/2 is a business oriented OS, with extensive network capabilities, in addition to a rich and quite overwhelming array of multitasking primatives. OS/2 has memory, and resource protection, vital for multiple computer, or multiple user environments, which the Amiga OS was never designed to provide. >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? 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. More intelligent OS's like Windows (r) load only those sections of a programs code from disk when the program is initially executed. If a dialog box is chosen from a menu item, it's code may not be in memory, and if so, would be loaded from disk, possibly replacing another segment of code from memory. In this way, VERY large programs, like MicroSoft Excell (r), can be usefull in less memory than the program takes up on disk. 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!). > 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? In fact m'boy, it's the other way around. Most often used instructions are one or two bytes, and are streamlined on the 80x86 (x=2,3). The C compilers for OS/2 and Windows et all are very efficient, having been around for many more years, the code produced is more often than not (far pointers excluded) as fast and compact as pure assembly produced "from scratch". I LOVE the 68000 assembly language, having become good friends over the last couple of years, and prefer it over 80x86 any day. That still does not mean it's BETTER...:-) >Heck it might make an interesting discussion... Interesting or not, I place my PERSONAL OPINIONS against the bandwidth of the net. > 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!