Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS (also OS/2 vs. UN*X)
Message-ID: <31550@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 May 89 21:23:44 GMT
References: <2656@ssc-vax.UUCP> <6910@cbmvax.UUCP> <889@iraun2.ira.uka.de>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 25

In article <889@iraun2.ira.uka.de> faerber@iraul1.UUCP (Hans-Juergen
Faerber, posting for someone else whose name I lost) writes:
|2. about UNIX
[...]
|   Also screen group switching in OS/2 is far better than layered shell
|   in UN*X.

Shell layers is a System V thing, Real People use BSD and have job
control.

Seriously, 386 UNIX's (both AT&T and XENIX) support virtual terminals
which are much like screen groups.  And since many UNIX machines are
running windowing systems, shell layers isn't really necessary.

Some people talk about slow performance using windowing systems under
UNIX.  Most of the time this is referring to the X Window system; very
few manufacturers have put much effort into making a fast server.
Further, the design of X makes it a hell of a memory hog; without
proper resources, UNIX (especially System V) has a hard time with
this.  Very few systems I've seen have much more than the recommended
minumum memory configuration.  Heavy performance degradation results.
Similar usage under OS/2 would be completely unusable.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu