Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!fauern!tumuc!lan!rommel
From: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <1040@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Date: 10 Jan 90 09:53:37 GMT
References: <2590cf5b@ralf> <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <1990Jan4.110834.14165@virtech.uucp>
Sender: news@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
Reply-To: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, TU Muenchen, W. Germany
Lines: 42

In article <1990Jan4.110834.14165@virtech.uucp> you write:
>In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>> Sometimes i tried to copy a 1.44M Disk as a single piece with my own

>You began this message talking about unfair comparisons and then you talk
>about comparing a program that is probably a total of 20 or 30 K that
>reads 1.44 MB of data to a program that is > 1 meg that reads 1.5M AND

I used MicroEMACS which is about 100k in size !
My copydisk is about 60k. Is this a big difference ?
Also MicroEMACS caused swapping already after reading 1M. Compare it to
the copydisk which copied 1.44M.

>> machines with hardware not supporting demand paging (like the 80286,
>> for which both OS/2 and Xenix/286 were designed). And the OS/2-386

>Xenix was not designed for the 286.  It was designed for larger systems

Xenix was not designed for the 286, but Xenix/286 WAS !

>> version will support demand paging too. Also, take a look on OS/2's
>> (alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all
>> of them producing output to you ?

>As I write this message I am working on a unix terminal that has
>10 windows all producing output to them and it works fine.  In addition,
>some of the windows are running DOS (concurrently) programs.

Last week I tested a SCO Unix with Xsight. OS/2 PM is about 2 times
faster with painting windows and requires about 30% of the disk space
for the same installation (development kit, I of course compared the
RIGHT dev. kits, i.e. the Unix one WITHOUT cross compiling support ..:-)

You made an unfair comparison TOO, when you compare your Unix system,
which is something like a VAX or SUN (perhaps based on a 386) to the
OS/2 system based on a 286 !!

Did you already see the anouncement of OS/2 2.0 for the 386 ?  :-)

Kai Uwe Rommel
Munich
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de