Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28479 comp.sys.amiga:33470 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!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: 8 May 89 16:23:51 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> <5664@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@omepd.UUCP Organization: BiiN Information Systems, Hillsboro, Oregon Lines: 92 In-reply-to: t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP's message of 7 May 89 02:24:33 GMT In article <5664@microsoft.UUCP> t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes: >>In article <5625@microsoft.UUCP> w-glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes: [ lots of stuff deleted...] >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? All true (BTW - I don't discount the validity of VMM - It *is* nice when you have it... I meant it sincerely when I said that those were two *valid* reasons to choose OS/2...) The point you missed here was if I buy 8M I can honestly *use* (what is it? 7.5M)...not 4... and I don't *need* 4M just to boot my machine or use multitasking... (As a matter of fact, I have 3M :-) >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. Doesn't swapping give you a problem? [stuff deleted - really, I'm trying to shorten this thing....] >>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. NO - equating an Amiga to a C=64 is like equating an IBM PC/AT with a Meg of memory, EGA, Stereo Sound card and OS/2 to a vanilla IBM/PC XT - nowhere near the same. (unless you count "upward compatibility" which the C=64 and Amiga don't have...) >>>More intelligent OS's like Windows (r) load only those sections of a programs >regardless of other problems it may have. Overlays on the Amiga are a >laughable substitute for VM or demand loading. Well, :-^ you might have a point here. - however, someone running a new version of Windows on a 25 Mhz `386 still can't match the 7mhz Amy in speed of graphics, at least as far as functions like window-to-front and window-to-back... you can ask R. Peck on that one.... >>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 Not really - why does the OS absolutely *have* to load all this stuff - I've seen many PC users you don't have a network, don't want one, can't use it- why force them to use the code?? - why not allow that segment to be dynamically configurable? I'm sure that there is more segments like this that could effectively be removed, due to not being neccessary... >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 - of course...I'm really not quite *that* dense :-) >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. Sounds good - how long do you wait for code swapping-? (just curious, I have no idea) - I admit I have doubts about the real need for VMM - yes, it's useful - no doubt, but - consider: if I have an OS that can span several Megs of memory and can multitask efficiently within that space - I can swap between programs with almost no delay (save screen refresh!) there's no delay in "just a minute! I gotta get that page") And there will *always* be some kind of a delay... even if a small one. >-- 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! -- - griff -- * 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! *