Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28607 comp.sys.amiga:33595 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!husc6!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: 10 May 89 20:03:38 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> <5664@microsoft.UUCP> <5681@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@omepd.UUCP Organization: BiiN Information Systems, Hillsboro, Oregon Lines: 97 In article <5681@microsoft.UUCP> t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes: >In article griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes: >> >>In article <5664@microsoft.UUCP> t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes: >>>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? >It doesn't as long as there is a reasonable amount of space on a hard >drive for the swapper file. The system is quite configurable as far as >VM goes. Of course, the faster the driver the faster the swap. Yes - but I don't HAVE to have a hard drive- this brings me back to the point - What, pray tell does IBM Sell? - in a word - Hardware. And MS- bless their groveling, greedy, little hearts won't even CONSIDER releasing a product for the PC's that IBM won't endorse. Especially the OS! - Again - If you're gonna run with OS/2 the amount of MINIMUM hardware is far and again more than what you need for AmigaDOS. Lord, if I have to buy as much hardware as OS/2 would require - I sure as he** wouldn't buy OS/2 - I'd buy UNIX - and it would *still use less space* than OS/2!!!! IBM and MS are cashing in on the collective ignorance of most of the MIS directors out there that have made their positions on the (unfortunate) axiom "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"... Maybe it's about time. I've got a few stories about IBM users that would make you think twice about the "technical knowledge" of most of them... All IBM and MS have to do is convince them they *REQUIRE* 4 megs of memory, 40 meg harddisk, VGA card, Multisync monitor, etc.... for each machine. IBM-users are proudly waving their "6 million (or is it 8 now?)" installed systems digits. Ok, but that's not IBM - that's MS-DOS... and I'll bet a goodly portion (what - 50%, more?) are using XT clones running (maybe) 2.11. Now IBM and MS are trying to convince this huge base of people to spend upwards of $4,000 PER MACHINE to upgrade to OS/2. I'm sorry, but this sounds like an evangalist telling me that money is evil and I should give him all my money. :-) For most businesses, upgrading to OS/2 would mean a MAJOR expenditure... figure the average office has what - a dozen or so PC's? - of those probably 75% are XT's... *you* do the math... >Oh, I know about the graphics speed! That's what I enjoy the most about >using the Amiga. good - I'm glad it's good for something :-) :-) >There's no NEED to load the network drivers, actually. I guess it's >just that OS/2 networking is so much more pleasant than DOS networking >that it becomes second nature. I actually did try yanking everything unless you are running one or two machines - which most private people are doing... >Swapping - as described above. In my normal use I don't ever hit the >wall. When I do it's because I was playing with memory allocation and >intentionally forcing a thrashing situation. I'll bet that my swap to another program is several times faster than yours (Don't bet me - you'll lose. *You* have to go the disk, I don't) >With that said, let me mention that I received via email comments >from quite a few Amiga fans (and several of them quite rude) who ^^^^^^^^^^ No doubt, and I'll apologize for any rudness I might have displayed, but remember, we're dealing with what is effectively religon here.... the best computer in the world is: *The One I Bought*, whoever I is...:-) >of folks mentioned that the Amiga DOES have dynamic linking capability >and demand loading and that what I described can be easily done on >a 512k Amiga. (Everyone DID tell me that the OS was never taking up Yep - please note: 512k is a minimum Hardware.... check that against what I said above... I can buy TWO COMPLETE Amiga systems for the cost of upgrading ONE EXISTING PC. I can be twice as "productive..."... >user RAM, so expect that is true (though I then wonder why people >only have 400K or so free after booting)). Regardless of how slick ^^^^ 112k for the OS - Damn sight better than 4000k :-) >a job of integrating multitasking into the Amiga OS Commodore has >done, none of the Amiga users I have ever known were able to run more >than a few programs at once in 512K, and only one if it happened to whadda mean? - I know one individual that runs 8 different utilities while he is editing... is that enough - That's a load more than your average MESSY_Dos machine...:-) >be a graphics-intensive program. I do happen to like the Amiga, and >evidently a number of people thought I was out to destroy their only >reason for living, but I still haven't seen it do what OS/2 does >for me. (see above....) >-- Stephen D. Poole -- t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic -- - 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! *