OS/2 vs AmigaDOS

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Federmeyer

unread,
Apr 23, 1989, 6:21:29 PM4/23/89
to

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?

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? 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?

Please E-mail an answer to this, unless you really think everyone else
would like to know... Heck it might make an interesting discussion...

Thanks
Ed Federmeyer
e...@iitmax.iit.edu <- Hard to get through to.
sy...@iitVax.bitnet <- Works everytime, so far!

Blair MacIntyre

unread,
Apr 27, 1989, 10:21:04 AM4/27/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> e...@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?

Very different, actually. What I know of OS/2 is limited and based on
discussions I have had with a friend that works for IBM ( and he
looks so intelligent, too!:-)

AmigaDOS (Exec, actually) gives you a nice, small light-weight OS.
It has one paradigm for intertask communications (Send-Receive-Reply)
which is (IMHO) more than sufficient and, indeed, the best method
available so far.

It is small and consistent (generally speaking)

OS/2 gives you ... everything. Picture an OS designed by committee.
Pick your favourite, perhaps extremely esoteric, OS primitive and there
is a 99% chance it is in there somewhere! 1/2 :-)
The standard processes are VERY heavy-weight, but they provide you
with a variety of lightweigth threads, etc. The impression I get is
that any of the popular, or unpopular, methods of communication are
in there: SRR, monitors, rendevous, etc.

It also has memory protection because ... it has Virtual Memory.

That's about all I can dredge up from my feeble memory ... comments?
Take all this with a half-ton grain of salt!

>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? 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?

No, that's not it ... see above!

It basically has more too it! Of course, as my friend put it (mostly
jokingly :-) "It sells memory!!!!"

Darin Johnson

unread,
Apr 27, 1989, 11:01:25 PM4/27/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> e...@iitmax.IIT.EDU (Ed Federmeyer) writes:
>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? 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?

Oh ho! You think you can trip us up with this thinly veiled
flame-war trap... Well it won't work this tim.. urk, arg... Ahhh!

OS/2 could be made to work with smaller amount of memory, except that
it has doesn't use shared libraries. This means that every program that
does graphics links in everything except the low level kernel stuff.
Also, OS/2 has to be somewhat compatible with MS-DOS (or they won't sell
very well). If designed from scratch, I'm sure that the enormous
amount of people who developed it could have come up with something
decent. Heck, with 386's becoming so common, it would blow 386-based
UNIXes out of the water if done right.

Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!da...@pyramid.pyramid.com)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Eric J. Kennedy

unread,
Apr 28, 1989, 1:03:10 AM4/28/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> e...@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?

I was in a Computerland the other day, and I tried to use a model 50
running OS/2. It booted, and the first thing I typed *Crashed* the
machine. I know, OS/2 isn't supposed to crash. But it did.
First time I ever touched OS/2, too. I'll stick with my Amiga.

I've crashed PC's, Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, etc., but I don't recall
something ever crashing quite so quickly.


--
Eric Kennedy
ej...@cisunx.UUCP

Richard Griffith

unread,
Apr 28, 1989, 9:46:13 AM4/28/89
to
In article <94...@watcgl.waterloo.edu> bmaci...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:

> No, that's not it ... see above!
>
> It basically has more too it! Of course, as my friend put it (mostly
> jokingly :-) "It sells memory!!!!"

^^^^^^^ I wouldn't be too sure about "joking" here....

It seems that `round about the time OS/2 was supposed to be delivered,
MicroSoft had completed the OS, handed it off to IBM for their "Seal of
Approval" - The OS ran, was relatively compact, quite nice. IBM said -
Rewrite it, it isn't structured. As you and I both know, the one thing
in software that is most difficult to write structured is an OS, not
impossible, but difficult. And it tends to grow. ALOT! Now I ask you -
What does IBM sell? Do they sell software? or hardware? Obviously the
latter (in the PC market). So it is not quite the joke - IBM, together
with MicroSoft is hoodwinking all those people who sank their business
bucks into the PC into thinking they absolutely HAVE to buy 4 megs of
memory to run "the new standard for Operating Systems" - I have to hand
it to them - it's quite a scam.

Now - for us Amigaphiles to cut into their pie, all that is really needed
is to show the business people the following:

1) I (Putting on my Businessperson hat) can translate *all* my
precious data to a format that Amiga can use. Documents,
data bases, and (Most importantly, since this is how my
"Business" keeps track of how to pay me :-) my Spreadsheets.

2) The Operating system and Filing system are solid and robust.

3) The I/O routines are *fast*, supporting 5 1/4" (being able
to read "IBM format" as an option), 3 1/2", HD of every size,
and Tapes. CD read/write is a plus.

4) My secretary can easily use any software I buy. (Classes are
OK)

5) Last, but not least, It has to be CHEAP! Cheaper than upgrading
to OS/2. (That's not so hard, remember - we're not talking just
memory here - OS/2's Presentation Manager *requires* VGA graphics
have you priced a Multisync monitor lately??)

(Whew! Sorry about the long post, but like many Amiga lovers, any mention
of the Stupidity of upgrading any PC to OS/2 drives me into the "Will you
*LOOK* at what your doing, you idiot?!?!?", you know, the kind of reaction
you have when someone sticks a screwdriver into a big power panel that's
still turned on....:-)

OS/2 - Half an Operating System for TWICE the price!

- 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! *

Richard Sexton

unread,
Apr 28, 1989, 11:51:47 AM4/28/89
to
Oh good. I was afraid nobody was going to post an operating systems
comparison/flame war without setting the Followup-to: field
this year. I'd almost lost my faith in human nature.

What will happen next. Two reasoned replies will follow, and then sombody
who feels their ox has been gored will flame away causing 80 to 100
flames to be posted in a discussion that will last for 7 weeks, but
will not completely die down for 12 weeks.

Take it to comp.sys.misc. Take it to alt.flame, take to junk. Hell,
take it OUSTIDE and drown it.

And note that the appropriate use of Followup-to: fields set
correctly in the header works wonders.

Hrrrmphf.

--
"My latest 'problem', btw, is that I'm working out an opportunity to get laid
with some girl over the net." - Ted Kaldis
ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV

Chuck McManis

unread,
Apr 28, 1989, 6:51:30 PM4/28/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> e...@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?

About as different as you'd expect given the design criteria and the
hardware. The similarities arise from the fact that when you ask the
same question, generally you get a similar answer.

> 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.

To correct your thinking, the recommendation is that if you are using
Extended Addition OS/2 with Presentation Manager you need 6Mb. And on
the Amiga you only need 256K of RAM, but you put the O/S mostly in 256K
of ROM. And that is/was awfully tight. You really want 1Mb of RAM (still
with the 256K of ROM) to be comfortable.

> What does OS/2 give you that AmigaDOS doesn't? 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?

Good question, bad answer. For one, OS/2 gives you a full MS-DOS emulator.
Sure, you can buy one for the Amiga but it makes running Amiga programs at
the same time impossible. That can take a meg right there. Also OS/2 offers
interprocess memory protection which the Amiga doesn't (no MMU on the 68000
based models) and that certainly makes the Kernel a bit more complicated.
Also OS/2 is under a lot of time pressure and written nearly entirely in
C rather than assembler. The combination has the same effect it has on
UNIX (eg lots of code expansion). The compactness question never enters
into the picture.



>Please E-mail an answer to this, unless you really think everyone else
>would like to know... Heck it might make an interesting discussion...

Actually, it could make for a boring flame fest. I've tried to get out
the facts early to prevent same, but since there are already a boatload
of messages in comp.sys.amiga I'm probably too late.


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcm...@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"

Bruce Wright

unread,
Apr 28, 1989, 11:29:06 PM4/28/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU>, e...@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?
>
> 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? 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?

It really isn't any mystery why OS/2 is so enormous. Oversimplifying
outrageously, the reasons are:

o The segmented 80*86 chip architecture

o The O/S designers at Microsoft.

The problem with the 80286 chip in particular is that because it is
a segmented architecture, and because paging is difficult to impossible,
it turns out that it is inconvenient to deal with memory except in rather
large chunks. This means that when a segment is required, the entire
segment must be loaded; if you have a LOT of memory this may not be
very bad, but it IS very memory intensive. The 68000 does not have
this architectural problem (nor does the 80386 running in native mode,
but even allowing for that the 80386 even in native mode looks ugly
beside the more modern 68k chips).

The problem with the O/S designers at Microsoft is that they had a
tendency to require that everything be preallocated - there is rather
little use of things like a "pool" or "free memory" area compared to
many other operating systems (it does exist, it just isn't used to the
extent that it is in many systems). Part of this may be a desire to
ensure that you don't run out (the effects of this can be mysterious
even to experienced users - imagine the consternation of a secretary
when the PC runs out of something as esoteric as "pool space").

If you don't require the DOS compatibility box the size of the machine
required to run OS/2 goes down quite a bit - that little convenience
costs you quite a bit of *PERMANENTLY ALLOCATED* memory. Unfortunately
because of the existence of abominations like Sidekick and other hostile
DOS applications, there is not much that Microsoft can do about that.

Unfortunately all these things work together and enhance each other's
bad points to create an operating system which uses much more memory
than one would normally think would be necessary.

By the way, I am in NO WAY surprised at the amount of memory required
to run OS/2 EFFICIENTLY - many multasking operating systems with window
environments and complex software ARE able to use a LOT of memory (just
look at VMS ...) but most of them don't degrade as DRASTICALLY as OS/2
does when there isn't 4MB of memory available. I AM surprised at how
BADLY and QUICKLY it degrades as it runs out (usually it's more of a
slow degradation rather than a brick wall).

Anyway, I've probably annoyed enough people this evening.

Bruce C. Wright

Karl Lehenbauer

unread,
Apr 29, 1989, 12:01:02 PM4/29/89
to
In article <5...@laic.UUCP>, da...@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) writes:
> Oh ho! You think you can trip us up with this thinly veiled
> flame-war trap... Well it won't work this tim.. urk, arg... Ahhh!
...
> ...If designed from scratch, I'm sure that the enormous

> amount of people who developed it could have come up with something
> decent. Heck, with 386's becoming so common, it would blow 386-based
> UNIXes out of the water if done right.

Now, who's trying to start another flame war??
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl | "Nobody hipped me to that, dude." -- Pee Wee
-- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018

Eric Green

unread,
Apr 29, 1989, 12:53:04 PM4/29/89
to
in article <GRIFF.89A...@intelob.intel.com>, gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) says:
> 5) Last, but not least, It has to be CHEAP! Cheaper than upgrading
> to OS/2. (That's not so hard, remember - we're not talking just
> memory here - OS/2's Presentation Manager *requires* VGA graphics
> have you priced a Multisync monitor lately??)

As a matter of fact, I have. You can get a VGA monitor for less than
$375 now. I've seen multisync monitors for as low as $425, and, in
fact, am probably getting one so that I can use it with the new Amiga
chipset whenever it comes out.

OS/2's problem is that it requires as much memory and disk space as
Unix, but without the portability advantages..... yet there's still
fools who are converting their programs for OS/2. For example, I hear
that the Autocad people are going to put out all future updates of
Autocad for OS/2, not for MS-DOS.....

--
| // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 |
| // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 |
| \X/ Newsflash: DP director fired for buying IBM! |

Peter da Silva

unread,
Apr 29, 1989, 10:46:29 PM4/29/89
to
In article <17...@cisunx.UUCP>, ej...@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes:
> I've crashed PC's, Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, etc., but I don't recall
> something ever crashing quite so quickly.

I crashed a Mac within 5 seconds of seeing one. I was familiar with mice from
playing with a Xerox Star at NCC-82 (obligatory nostalgia break... OK, that's
long enough). I grabbed the mouse and clicked on a partially obscured window
(only one scan-line visible). Crash. Apparently there was a bug whereby it'd
crash if you ever did that on that (very eearly) release of the software.

Anyone done better?
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`

Leonard Erickson

unread,
Apr 30, 1989, 7:36:45 AM4/30/89
to
I don't know if it is true or not, but I've heard that one of the
reasons for the size of OS/2 is the DOS compatibility box. It isn't
easy making a real mode program run in protected mode!

Another reason may be that the IBM machines have to do a lot of stuff
in software that the Amiga hands off to hardware. No blitter chips
for example...
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

mms0...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 30, 1989, 2:03:00 PM4/30/89
to

Someone was in ComputerLand and tried to use OS/2 on a Model 50...

Lucky you. Heck, here in Champaign Urbana, (home of University of Illinois),
I can't even find a machine running OS/2! Not at ComputerLand, not at any of
the other stores, not at any of the computer sites on campus.

Hello IBM. What was that about IBM being a marketing giant? If you really want
OS/2 to catch on, here's a radical idea... demo it at your full price
retailers! Marketing people call this WYSIWYS/m - What You Show Is What You
Sell - maybe...

Milan.

Mark Griffith

unread,
May 1, 1989, 8:56:30 AM5/1/89
to
In article <GRIFF.89A...@intelob.intel.com>, gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes:
>
> (Whew! Sorry about the long post, but like many Amiga lovers, any mention
> of the Stupidity of upgrading any PC to OS/2 drives me into the "Will you
> *LOOK* at what your doing, you idiot?!?!?", you know, the kind of reaction
> you have when someone sticks a screwdriver into a big power panel that's
> still turned on....:-)
>
> OS/2 - Half an Operating System for TWICE the price!
>

Gee.....we folks that have been running OS-9 on microcomputers for some
six or seven years now really get a kick out of the "new kids on the
block" boasting about the abilities of their systems.

In light of the previous posting here concerning OS/2 and megabytes of
memory, Bill Gates was quoted as saying something like you MUST have at
least 4 Meg to multitask. I guess he never saw a 64K 6809 machine
running OS-9 Level I back in '83 when Microsoft was getting started (ir
was it earlier than that??)

I guess we'll just have to see what happens when OS-9 is released for
the 80386 (maybe) or the MacIntosh.

/\/\ark

UUCP: mdg@macs
BITNET: GRIFFITH@STETSON

mcdo...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu

unread,
May 1, 1989, 10:33:00 AM5/1/89
to

In article <17...@cisunx.UUCP>, ej...@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes:
> I've crashed PC's, Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, etc., but I don't recall
> something ever crashing quite so quickly.

>Anyone done better?

I crashed a 360-91 in California from here in Urbana - taking
the Illiac IV and the entire Arpanet along with it - AND did it
three times in one day in 1973 - all within 5 seconds of trying to start a
file transfer. It took the Arpanet gurus weeks to figure out why the
net crashed. No one had tried a 360 <---> Illiac IV (Burroughs mainframe)
transfer of the exact kind I was trying before. And, this was
years before viruses had been invented!

Doug McDonald

Glenn Steffler

unread,
May 1, 1989, 2:29:55 PM5/1/89
to
In article <21...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> e...@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
> e...@iitmax.iit.edu <- Hard to get through to.
> sy...@iitVax.bitnet <- Works everytime, so far!

Thankyou for listening. B'b'b'b'b'b buba bububa buy now!
---
w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler)

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE COMPLETELY MY OWN, AND NOT OF MY EMPLOYER!

Bill Mayhew

unread,
May 2, 1989, 10:16:08 AM5/2/89
to

Having something die in the compatibility box is a good way to send
os/2 into an unrecoverable lock-up that requires flipping that big
red switch (which is so conviently mounted on the front of the
model 80 sitting hrere). It really gets annoying to have to flip
that switch all the time; I wish they'd have installed a reset
button. There are a lot of times that the ctrl-alt-del doesn't
restore sanity. Since we got our Amigas back in late 1985, I've
only had the machine need a power-clyle to restore sensibility one
time; all other times ctrl-A-A was enough.

The problem with the current version of os/2 is that the 80286 is
the target processor. Switching between the procteted mode and the
virtual 80286 mode is a study in boroque programming. The virtual
machine mode of the 80386 is clean, and it works. Its too bad that
IBM's corporate-think insisted that os/2 had to appear on the 80286
and had to have msdos compatibility. There are a quite a few
808386-only operating systems (Windows 386, for one) that not only
permit a virtual msdos session, but also support many at once. By
the way, Windows 386 will run with only 640 K of RAM, but it is
about as exciting as a 512 K Amiga.

The current version of os/2 for the 80286 environment are sort of
of like the Macintosh multifinder running on the Mac II with that
ersatz simulated MMU. When/if Apple comes out with their real
multitasking system later this year, you'll also have to stick in a
real MMU too. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the
Mac crowd when they get a real o/s and can ditch INITs and desk
accessories.

Bill
w...@impulse.UUCP

Richard Griffith

unread,
May 3, 1989, 8:50:59 AM5/3/89
to
In article <79...@killer.Dallas.TX.US> e...@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:

>OS/2's problem is that it requires as much memory and disk space as
>Unix, but without the portability advantages..... yet there's still
>fools who are converting their programs for OS/2. For example, I hear
>that the Autocad people are going to put out all future updates of
>Autocad for OS/2, not for MS-DOS.....

I wonder how much it would cost to get them to seriously consider
an Amiga for Autocad ---? (No job's too tough, if the MONEY'$
enough!)

Les Milash

unread,
May 3, 1989, 12:37:15 PM5/3/89
to
In article <16...@neoucom.UUCP> w...@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes:
>Having something die [...] It really gets annoying to have to flip
>that switch all the time. Since we got our Amigas back in late 1985, I've

>only had the machine need a power-clyle to restore sensibility one
>time; all other times ctrl-A-A was enough.

My software must be more macho then yours; I have to flush my Amiga
hourly. (of course I'm developing software in C--bummer if it's only
on the ramdisk). (I even read an article by some pro sw developer who
said he'd compile&link on one amiga, download code to a test amiga,
so he could be working while the test amiga reboots.)

[this should not be construed to be a complaint, just a fact. to me an
amiga is the volks-personal-computers. no wetbar or tv, but it's got
power windows fer shure! i mean, anybody who hasn't lived with a task-
per-window just doesn't know what they're missing. just like this Sun,
except scrolls faster (well maybe that's not the Only difference) ]

Richard Griffith

unread,
May 3, 1989, 5:29:46 PM5/3/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:

Long posting -

[stuff deleted]

>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.

Yes? - Maybe. The only real difference I can immediately see, is that
OS/2 is saddled with the need of keeping a huge ball-and-chain wrapped
around it's foot. Namely that of backward compatibility with MeSsy-DOS.
Trash that little problem, and you guys might have come with with something
worth the price of an upgrade...:-)

>>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?

MS-DOS compatiblity from the company that supports it in the first place.
True VMM. Yep, AmigaDOS doesn't have that. Of course, with AmigaDOS, if
I have 8 megs in my machine - I can use it all. With much smaller code -
you see, the 68xxx's don't have to mess with segment-registers... (I know-
the `386 doesn't need to anyway - does OS/2 use linear mode? Doesn't that
cut down the amount of addressable memory by the size of the segment register?)

>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.

You sir, are obviously not using an Amiga. I, too, owned a C=64. Nice
machine. Quite useful for "THE TASKS IT WAS MEANT TO PERFORM" - Since
you brought up the point - I submit that the MS-DOS machines are superior
to any other machine FOR THE TASK IT WAS MEANT TO PERFORM. Word processing.
That's it. The IBM PC was meant to be a replacement for the IBM Selectric(r)
typewriter. Also, don't start trying to compare products - or I'll start
mentioning things like MS-Windows. :-)

>More intelligent OS's like Windows (r) load only those sections of a programs

^^^^^^^ You've GOT to be Kidding. Aren't you?
Everyone knows Windows has some severe problems... If you want to turn someone
off of using anykind of graphical user interface - hand them windows... Most
of the people I know who have used "Windows" have the kind of attitude that
says "Graphical user interface? Who needs it? They're slow, clunky and ugly,
why anybody would use a mouse is beyond me.." While those who have used
anything else (Mac, Atari, Sun, or, dare I say it, Amiga!) wouldn't trade
their GUI for anything! Windows is not what I would call any kind of an
OS.... As for slow - well, there was a post here from Rob Peck, seems someone
took Windows and compared it (running on a Compaq `386/25 no less!) to
AmigaDOS...using a function that is used several hundred times a day - Push
window to back and Pull window to front. Guess what? the 7.14 Mhz Amiga
BEAT the Pride-of-the-DOS world. Don't try to toot Windows' Horn, it
barely qualifies as a party favor.

>In this way, VERY large programs, like MicroSoft Excell (r), can be usefull
>in less memory than the program takes up on disk.

(try overlays in AmigaDOS - same thing. Not usually used, because
we don't have to be backwardly compatible with a 640k limit :-)

>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!).

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?


>> Thanks
>> Ed Federmeyer
>> e...@iitmax.iit.edu <- Hard to get through to.
>> sy...@iitVax.bitnet <- Works everytime, so far!

>Thankyou for listening. B'b'b'b'b'b buba bububa buy now!
>---
>w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler)

>THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE COMPLETELY MY OWN, AND NOT OF MY EMPLOYER!

- griff
Sorry for the length and small flame-fest, I just hate to see someone
who obviously hasn't gone beyond their own propaganda. (Of course, *I
never* do that :-) :-) :-))

Eric Korpela

unread,
May 4, 1989, 7:29:41 PM5/4/89
to

In Article <GRIFF.89M...@intelob.intel.com> gr...@intelob.intel.com
(Richard Griffith) writes

>
[nothing of any import]
>
[several flames]
>

Let's cut the systems wars, guys. I've used many many windowing systems
and not one of them is truly inadequate. They all do have problems but a lot
of those problems are being solved.

Windows: Used to be slow as hell, but that's been solved in the 386 version.
Versions 1 and 286 only offer limited "cooperative" multitasking. 386 version
offers true multitasking, though. Display speed is largely display dependent.
If you use a slow VGA card be prepared to wait. Nice ability to handle
many programs at a time (even in version 1) and swap dormant ones to disk.


Amiga Workbench: Nice multitasking, but this is the least user friendly
windowing system I've seen. You can't get by without the CLI. Nice and
fast because of the BlT, though. The displays are real ugly. In general
the graphics are not as good as they could be because of the poor quality
of the monitors used on most amiga systems.


GEM and ST GEM: I haven't used ST GEM too much, but I assume its a lot like
PC GEM. It's nice and fast because it doesn't try to do too much at once.
The displays are good and it does what it's supposed to. Crashes a lot less
often then the previously mentioned ones. (I guess the latest versions of Amiga
WB and Windows 386 are getting better, though.)


Mac Finder: Used to be you couldn't play with a Mac for 10 minutes without
crashing it, but at long last the finder works when you want it to. That is
as long as you don't try a recently released upgrade. Apple seems to have
a problem with releasing new versions before they are debugged. But overall
this is the most polished of the interfaces. Some would say it's the most
intuitive, also, but I think they say that because it's the one they learned
first.

Mac Multifinder: People asked for multitasking and they got it, well, almost.
They got the ability to have multiple apps in memory almost running together.
The print spooler works, though. The mutlitasking implemented is
cooperative multitasking, not time slicing, so don't expect it to be
"real" multitasking. The early releases were buggy. I don't know how
it is now, because I haven't used it for over a year. Personally I liked
"Switcher" better.

Xwindows: Well, this one depends on where you use it and what window
manager you use. Right now I'm using Xwindows on a PC RT with "rtxwm"
I have to say it's like no other windows interface. It took me a while to
learn to keep the arrow in the window I'm typing in. But I still use it,
and it seems to be catching on. For distributed processing on different
types of machines it can't be beat. Little software supports it though.
(Now that is.)

Sun View, DEC VMS windows interface, NeXT, ...: I've probably used most
of them, but not enough to comment on their usability.

These are my honest opinions. None of the interfaces is truly outstanding.
Lets just forget the "my machine is better than yours" messages and get
on with our lives. The differences between PC systems are in general
marginal. They do what you program them to do. Unless you have a CRAY XM/P
on your desk your machine is little different than those the rest of us use.

/\ kor...@bkyast.berkeley.edu Internet
/__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet
/ \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet
(_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>

Why should the UC care what I say. According to them I'm not an employee.

Stephen Poole

unread,
May 6, 1989, 10:24:33 PM5/6/89
to
In article <GRIFF.89M...@intelob.intel.com> gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes:
>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:
>>>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?
>
> MS-DOS compatiblity from the company that supports it in the first place.
>True VMM. Yep, AmigaDOS doesn't have that. Of course, with AmigaDOS, if
>I have 8 megs in my machine - I can use it all. With much smaller code -
>you see, the 68xxx's don't have to mess with segment-registers... (I know-
>the `386 doesn't need to anyway - does OS/2 use linear mode? Doesn't that
>cut down the amount of addressable memory by the size of the segment register?)

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?
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.

>>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.
>
>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.

>
>>More intelligent OS's like Windows (r) load only those sections of a programs
> ^^^^^^^ You've GOT to be Kidding. Aren't you?
>Everyone knows Windows has some severe problems... If you want to turn someone

[Comments about Windows GUI vs all others deleted]

I am certainly no big Windows fan and am not defending it. You, however,
completely missed the point. Windows is a more intelligent OS in that it
demand loads code and resources. In terms of memory management in general
it certainly qualifies as a second-generation PC operating system,
regardless of other problems it may have. Overlays on the Amiga are a
laughable substitute for VM or demand loading.

>>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!).
>
>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
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
linking capabilities of OS/2, however, allow chunks of code to be shared
between applications with no duplication in memory. DynLink libraries
are one of the major advantages of OS/2 over more primitive PC operating
systems (meaning PC in the generic sense). As everyone is aware, there
is a significant amount of overhead associated with an OS with advanced
networking and memory management capabilities, but that megabyte or two
of overhead most assuredly leads to far more efficient memory utilization
and connectivity.

> Sorry for the length and small flame-fest, I just hate to see someone
>who obviously hasn't gone beyond their own propaganda. (Of course, *I
>never* do that :-) :-) :-))

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.

>* 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! *


--
-- Stephen D. Poole -- t-st...@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! --

Theodore Dennison

unread,
May 7, 1989, 6:39:11 PM5/7/89
to
In article <17...@cisunx.UUCP> ej...@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes:
>I was in a Computerland the other day, and I tried to use a model 50
>running OS/2. It booted, and the first thing I typed *Crashed* the
>machine. I know, OS/2 isn't supposed to crash. But it did.
>First time I ever touched OS/2, too. I'll stick with my Amiga.
>
>I've crashed PC's, Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, etc., but I don't recall
>something ever crashing quite so quickly.

IBM had a big PS2 demo here at TULANE about a month ago and I went to see
what all the fuss was about. They had several displays set up. They had
a stereo MIDI display with a 20 hooked up to a keyboard. No bad, but the
20's are realy just toys. A little farther over I saw a very impressive
looking presentation using touch sensitive screens and impressive graphics.
I tried to see what kind of PS2 was generating this impressive display, but
it was not out. I traced some wire under a table, and found it hidden away.
It was not a PS2 at all! It was some kind of dedicated hardware they had
brought with them that seemed to be made for this one purpose.
A little over from this they had some IBM bigwig explaining how his
company solved some stupid little hardware problem ad nausemum (and calling
it a "revolution" every 4 sentences, to try to keep the audience awake).
I found a PS2/50 and told the salesman, "Impress me!" He opened one window,
then tried to open another one, and the machine froze. He said, "Damn, I
fragmented memory again!" and rebooted the machine! It had just been turned
on when this happened!
Their PS2/70 seemed to work allright, and even had some fairly neat
packages with it. Of course their WP package did not support color, but
you can't have everything, can you? (Sarcasm) The graphics display seemed
ok, but the speed a requester was erased from the screen was actualy slow
enough to watch.

The only computer they had that could physicaly compete with my Amiga 1000
(which I have had for 3 1/2 years) was their top of the line 70 (the 80's
are not AVAILABLE to students). These cost, at the student discount, $4,400
Considering I could buy a top of the line Amiga for $2000 with everything
the IBM has, with NO discount, apparently IBM feels that their corporate
logo is worth at least $2,200, and thousands more to business people.


That's a lot of dough for three little letters!

T.E.D.

Peter da Silva

unread,
May 7, 1989, 11:17:38 PM5/7/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@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.

For the price difference between the Amiga and the OS/2-capable box you can
buy 4 extra megs of RAM, and have enough change left for a down payment on
a Hyundai Excel. Besides, the Amiga is a real-time system. That's a capability
you can't get for OS/2 (or any VM system I know of) for any price.

> 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.

The OS never ate half of *my* 512K. It got loaded into the same address space
as the ROMs, which has nothing to do with the 512K CHIP RAM.

> Now that the OS is in ROM I suppose it's not such

> I am certainly no big Windows fan and am not defending it. You, however,
> completely missed the point. Windows is a more intelligent OS in that it
> demand loads code and resources.

It also demands that you rewrite your application from scratch in an even more
contorted way than the Macintosh does.

Besides, I can demand-load code and resources on my Amiga. It's called using
libraries and overlays, which puts some overhead on the programmer... but
nothing like the demands Windows makes.

> As everyone is aware, there
> is a significant amount of overhead associated with an OS with advanced
> networking and memory management capabilities, but that megabyte or two
> of overhead most assuredly leads to far more efficient memory utilization
> and connectivity.

Why does that stuff need an extra megabyte or two? UNIX does a hell of a lot
more than OS/2, and isn't anywhere near that big.

> 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.

Wow. I can do all that on a 1 Meg machine running a 4-year-old version of
Xenix. I used to do all that on a 512K machine running an 8-year-old version
of UNIX. Yep, OS/2 is a real step forwards.

Richard A. Schafer

unread,
May 7, 1989, 11:33:11 PM5/7/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) says:
>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.
What communications program are you using? I've just started
working with OS/2 (SE 1.1) and I'm looking for a communications
program. (Yes, I know I could spend the money and upgrade to
Extended Edition, and with the 50% educational discount, I just
might do that, but I'm trying to look at other options, too.)

Do you know any good source of public domain/shareware programs for
OS/2, or is it too early for things like that?
-------
Richard A. Schafer
Manager, Systems Support

Richard Griffith

unread,
May 8, 1989, 12:23:51 PM5/8/89
to

In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes:
>>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@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-st...@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
--

Dave Haynie

unread,
May 8, 1989, 2:31:56 PM5/8/89
to
in article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) says:
> Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.ibm.pc:32990 comp.sys.amiga:36021

> I am certainly no big Windows fan and am not defending it. You, however,
> completely missed the point. Windows is a more intelligent OS in that it
> demand loads code and resources. In terms of memory management in general
> it certainly qualifies as a second-generation PC operating system,
> regardless of other problems it may have. Overlays on the Amiga are a
> laughable substitute for VM or demand loading.

Amiga shared libraries, fonts, and device drivers are all demand-loaded. Any
more sophisticated form of demand loading should be, IMHO, based on a hardware
driven virtual memory manager. If you haven't isolated the things that are
to be loaded on demand, you're going to be pretty inefficient it would seem.
And without any obvious indication of useage, such as in an Amiga device or
font, or a VM manager's page count tags, the system isn't going to know enough
to unload stuff that hasn't been recently used, at least not without some
serious software overhead.

Of course, I have yet to hear complaints about OS/2 being too fast...

> That's a ridiculous question. What do you expect the operating system to
> 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.

You certainly need to have the driver you're booting the system from around
before you boot the system. But obviously, any driver that gets loaded from
that boot volume need only be loaded when that driver is actually accessed.
The Amiga system has demand loaded device drivers -- are you sure OS/2 doesn't?
Sounds pretty primitive if it doesn't. Next thing you're going to be letting
me that an OS/2 machine has to be put though some expert-level configuration
process to add or possibly even remove a device or memory board.

> The dynamic linking capabilities of OS/2, however, allow chunks of code to
> be shared between applications with no duplication in memory. DynLink
> libraries are one of the major advantages of OS/2 over more primitive PC
> operating systems (meaning PC in the generic sense).

Of course they are. We know. We've had demand-loaded shared libraries since
the Amiga OS first was released in 1985. It's a great idea.

> I have been using OS/2 for about nine months now, and can honestly say
> that it is a tremendous pleasure to use.

That's really the bottom line. If you like it, you'll use it, tell your
friends, and the thing may be successful. With IBM behind, it might be
anyway.

> 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.

It's a good thing that IBM-world folks, or at least some of 'em, are going to
start seeing what a real multitasking OS can do for them. We Amigaoids have
been shouting this for years, and the typical reaction from a PClone user was,
"I won't ever need multitasking, all I want is a few pop-up programs/DAs/
whateveryacallems". I've had several terminal programs, several compilations,
a text editor or two, floppy formats, the usual 5 or 10 utility things that
run in the background, all running on my Amiga, all at once for a long, long
time. Only with about 1/2 that memory...

> -- Stephen D. Poole -- t-st...@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic --
--

Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy
Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession

Eric Green

unread,
May 8, 1989, 9:03:17 PM5/8/89
to
in article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) says:
> I am certainly no big Windows fan and am not defending it. You, however,
> completely missed the point. Windows is a more intelligent OS in that it
> demand loads code and resources. In terms of memory management in general
> it certainly qualifies as a second-generation PC operating system,
> regardless of other problems it may have. Overlays on the Amiga are a
> laughable substitute for VM or demand loading.

From the Manx "C" documentation:

" +O[_I_] option: The linker now handles segmentation (overlay) using this
option. THe executable code in the object modules that follow will be
placed in code sgement _i_. If _i_ is not specified, use the first
empty segment number. If the segment already exists, append the code
to its end. When segments are used, the linker generates a reference
to the symbol .segload which is defined in a library module,
_segload.o_. This module MUST be in the root segment for the program
to function properly. The module is also available directly in the
_lib_ directory.

"Segments are loaded into memory as needed and remain in memory
until explicitly removed by the program. The program does this by
calling the _freeseg()_ routine with the address of a function which
is in the segment to be unloaded.

"For more information, see the new Code Segmentation section of the
Technical Information Chaptor."

So, Mr. Microsloth, does this sound a lot like what Windows is doing?
I don't know if AmigaDOS itself supports segmentation of this sort,
but Manx "C" certainly does, and for quite a while Manx was the choice
of the developer community (until Lattice came out with 5.0... I don't
know if 5.0 has a similar functionality, not having used Lattice).
Amiga programmers haven't generally used this capability, probably
because most Amiga programs run quite well in 1 meg of RAM (the Amiga
has not yet spawned the mega-program, although Excellence and its ilk
are coming close). In any event, all that's required for this kind of
thing is an OS that allocates all data structures and programs
dynamically, the OS doesn't necessarily have to directly support it.

--
| // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 |
| // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 |

| // Join the Church of HAL, and worship at the altar of all computers |
|\X/ with three-letter names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional.|

Tom Limoncelli

unread,
May 9, 1989, 1:13:33 AM5/9/89
to
In article <67...@cbmvax.UUCP> da...@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:

> The Amiga system has demand loaded device drivers--are you sure OS/2 doesn't?


> Sounds pretty primitive if it doesn't. Next thing you're going to be letting
> me that an OS/2 machine has to be put though some expert-level configuration
> process to add or possibly even remove a device or memory board.

[much deleted]

Actually, OS/half builds a directed graph (remember your graph theory
from undergrad?) of each resource on the system being a node, and the
edges are pointers to which resource requested to use which resource.
It then does some graph theory algorithms and determines if a node is
unreachable; and therefore should be unloaded.

Don't believe me? Read Inside OS/2. ...and people wonder why it uses
so much memory. Ha! I sort of thought that keeping counts with
16-bit integers would have worked a bit better myself.

>Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests"
> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy
> Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession

--
Tom Limoncelli -- tlim...@drunivac.Bitnet -- lim...@pilot.njin.net
Drew University -- Box 1060, Madison, NJ -- 201-408-5389
Standard Disclaimer: I am not the mouth-piece of Drew University

Jack Hudler

unread,
May 9, 1989, 2:16:25 AM5/9/89
to

Jesus! some people. IF a 6809 is so damn good then why don't we see more
of them. I have programed under OS9 and UNIFLEX, and let me tell you,
that they cannot hold a candle to OS/2 in feature/performance!
So don't cry to us! blame it on SWTP. they wanted to stay small..
and they still are! As for OS9 for 80x86?? It will be just like
any other operating system try to horn in on this market, and they
will still be small potatos.

Ralf....@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu

unread,
May 9, 1989, 9:15:49 AM5/9/89
to
In article <GRIFF.89M...@intelob.intel.com>, gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes:
} 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....

Not too surprising, considering the specialized graphics-handling hardware
in the Amiga. The 386 has to do all the work itself, usually through a 20
or so wait-state bottleneck at the video board.... (My 10 MHz 286 experiences
an average of nine wait states, since the video memory is only available every
1.1 microseconds)
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ra...@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I claimed something?
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

Dale Luck

unread,
May 9, 1989, 11:00:17 AM5/9/89
to
In article <67...@cbmvax.UUCP> da...@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>
>Amiga shared libraries, fonts, and device drivers are all demand-loaded. Any
>more sophisticated form of demand loading should be, IMHO, based on a hardware
>driven virtual memory manager. If you haven't isolated the things that are
>to be loaded on demand, you're going to be pretty inefficient it would seem.
>And without any obvious indication of useage, such as in an Amiga device or
>font, or a VM manager's page count tags, the system isn't going to know enough
>to unload stuff that hasn't been recently used, at least not without some
>serious software overhead.
>

I think we could granularize the demand loading a bit further. When a
demand loaded library is opened it presently loads all the functions.
We could instead just load stubs that would then load individual
functions as they are actually used. I think this would save alot on
memory since many functions are not even used in these libraries.

In the instance of the ieee transcendental library, they most used
function is sqrt, the hyperbolic cosines just are not used that often. ;+)

I'm sure this is true for most demand loaded libraries.

--
Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc.
{uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale

Les Milash

unread,
May 9, 1989, 4:45:24 PM5/9/89
to
In article <7...@boing.UUCP> da...@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes:
>In article <67...@cbmvax.UUCP> da...@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>>Amiga shared libraries, fonts, and device drivers are all demand-loaded. Any
>>more sophisticated form of demand loading should be, IMHO, based on a hardware
>>driven virtual memory manager.
>
>I think we could granularize the demand loading a bit further. When a
>demand loaded library is opened it presently loads all the functions.
>We could instead just load stubs that would then load individual
>functions as they are actually used.

I humbly agree with Dale Luck's Humble Opinion.

Alex White

unread,
May 9, 1989, 4:52:31 PM5/9/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:
>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
Overwhelming array of multitasking primitives?
You've got to be kidding.
You're right -- it has more than are ever likely to be needed, but
it doesn't have standard simple ones like fork().
It doesn't have very good ways to inherit things like signals.
The session manager interface is undocumented. [When I asked microsoft
it was pointed out to me that you'd only want it for shells, and
they provide 3 different shells, and shells are not application programs.]

Les Milash

unread,
May 9, 1989, 4:54:58 PM5/9/89
to
no i don't!
!!BLUSH!! i MEANT i agreed with Dave Haynie's opinion; good thing i was
humble that time!!!!

i'm one of those who hate OS/2 even without having used it, but the
gentleman who said he could use all 16M without buying the other 12M had
a good point, i must admit.

i checked real carefully, and i am fairly sure i mean what is written in
this and the previous paragraph. up there with all the ">>>" stuff i'm
not so sure, every time i check it comes out different.

Blair MacIntyre

unread,
May 9, 1989, 7:09:17 PM5/9/89
to
In article <9...@mks.UUCP> al...@mks.UUCP (Alex White) writes:
>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:
>>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
>Overwhelming array of multitasking primitives?
>You've got to be kidding.
>You're right -- it has more than are ever likely to be needed, but
>it doesn't have standard simple ones like fork().

I hate to disappoint you, but fork() is not what most people would
consider a "standard multitasking primitive". It is a Unix'ism designed
to get over the fact that Unix didn't have any Standard_Multitasking_
Primitives. Considering how old it is, the things that most people
would consider standard were still being argued about long after
Unix was developed.

Standard? SRR, Monitors, Semaphores, maybe pipes (naaa), etc. ...
Fork()????
Nope.

>It doesn't have very good ways to inherit things like signals.

Inherit? Sounds like you're getting back to fork ... but, yes that
would be needed for things like process groups I suppose.

#define standard (I_LIKE_IT)

Blair
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-///-=
= Blair MacIntyre, bmacintyre@watcgl.{waterloo.edu, UWaterloo.ca} \\\/// =
= now appearing at the Computer Graphics Lab, U of Waterloo! \XX/ =
= "Don't be mean ... remember, no matter where you go, there you are." BBanzai=

Stephen Poole

unread,
May 9, 1989, 10:22:17 PM5/9/89
to
In article <GRIFF.89M...@intelob.intel.com> gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes:
>
>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> t-st...@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.

> 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....

Oh, I know about the graphics speed! That's what I enjoy the most about
using the Amiga.

>>>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...

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
I could from my machine (shutting down the DOS box, not loading network
drivers, no PM) and booted with 2M of memory. It was slower to be
sure, considering the increased application swapping, but was still
usable. Networking under OS/2 is awfully convenient, though.

>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.

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.

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
showered me with a variety of information. Some if it was pretty
contradictory, so I'm not sure what to think about it now. A couple
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
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
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
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.

>* Richard E. Griffith * Cyrus Hammerhand *


--

Mark Griffith

unread,
May 10, 1989, 9:32:50 AM5/10/89
to
In article <27...@csccat.UUCP>, ja...@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) writes:
>
> Jesus! some people. IF a 6809 is so damn good then why don't we see more
> of them. I have programed under OS9 and UNIFLEX, and let me tell you,
> that they cannot hold a candle to OS/2 in feature/performance!
> So don't cry to us! blame it on SWTP. they wanted to stay small..
> and they still are! As for OS9 for 80x86?? It will be just like
> any other operating system try to horn in on this market, and they
> will still be small potatos.

I was waiting for this one. Come on, give me a break. I didn't say
anything about the CPU, just the OS. I thought this discussion was
about micro-computers and multitasking, i.e., which of the new breed is
better than the other.

I can only base my opinion (which is only an opinion) upon what others
and friends have told me about OS/2 and what I have read. I can't base
it on any fact since I have never used OS/2. Since I didn't say
anything against it (OS/2) or the CPU's it runs on, I guess I didn't
talk about anything I didn't know about.

All I said was multi-tasking on micros has been around for a long time
and you do not need megabytes of memory to do it on. Of course, the
more you have the better it is. What I did say was I thought it was
kinda cute that MicroSoft and Commodore see fit to re-invent something
that has been around for years, and then claim they thought of it first.
Sorta like the companies that are asking for copyright on file name
extensions.

Microware (makers of OS9) are not trying to hone in on the OS market.
They are simply providing an alternative solution that in many persons
opinions is better than what is available. If you or others choose to
use OS/2 or AmigaDos, then I'm glad you feel comfortable with it and are
happy with your choice. I wouldn't make the same.

As for not seeing OS9 around, it is there in many areas that you and I
never see. It is not a premiere OS for personal or business computers,
and it probably never will be. But then NASA didn't pick DOS to run the
Shuttle computers with either. I do think though that computer users
will start seeing more about OS9 in the near future.

Finally, I sometimes think many DOS and Amiga users hate the mention of
OS9 so much because it does what everyone else says can't be done.....
at least in the limited resources that it can work in.

Take care,

Orn E. Hansen

unread,
May 10, 1989, 1:51:05 PM5/10/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) says:
>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.

WOW! How'd'ya'do'that?
Currently I've got PS/2 Model 80/111 with 4Mb of memory installed running
OS/2 EE 1.1 and francly mydear, It's a real horror! If I turn on my
communications manager and start an emulation, it can hardly emulate 4800
bps let alone doing all that you mention! I turn on compilation, start
formatting a floppy, start up the communications manager and start loading
the telecomunications software (for pm) and go take a brake!

What TURBINE are you using?

In article <1034SCHAFER@RICE>, SCH...@RICE.BITNET (Richard A. Schafer) writes:
> What communications program are you using? I've just started
> working with OS/2 (SE 1.1) and I'm looking for a communications
> program. (Yes, I know I could spend the money and upgrade to
> Extended Edition, and with the 50% educational discount, I just
> might do that, but I'm trying to look at other options, too.)
>
> Do you know any good source of public domain/shareware programs for
> OS/2, or is it too early for things like that?

I'd suggest you use the DOS part of your machine for that sort of thing
because all communications packages I've seen for OS/2 are horrible. Well
maybe not if you don't mind emulating at 2400 or 4800 bps. If you wanted to
use an emulation within PM, you probably wouldn't mind. The communications
manager for OS/2 comes with a VT100 emulator (7 bit version), if you can't
use that (I can't) I know of ANSI X3.64 emulator for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orn Hansen
UUCP: ...!mcvax!hafro!krafla!rispa2!orn
Internet: o...@rsp.is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My desktop calculator's performance is still unsatisfactory.

Richard Griffith

unread,
May 10, 1989, 4:03:38 PM5/10/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes:

>In article <GRIFF.89M...@intelob.intel.com> gr...@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes:
>>
>>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> t-st...@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-st...@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic --

- griff
--


* Richard E. Griffith * Cyrus Hammerhand *

Jim Hutchison

unread,
May 11, 1989, 12:10:25 PM5/11/89
to

That would seem to be similar to what Dave is suggesting. Or atleast it
has possibilities. You could fault in chunks of the library as they were
called. Now whether you "fault" them in by having a stub load the chunks,
or a memory management routine is...a matter of whether or not you have an
MMU, eh? :-) Could this feature be snuck into scatter loading, by pointing
all unfaulted-in chunks at a loader? Pardon me if I have missed the point.

/* Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!celerity!hutch */
/* Disclaimor: I am not an official spokesman for FPS computing */

Alex White

unread,
May 11, 1989, 1:36:31 PM5/11/89
to
In article <96...@watcgl.waterloo.edu> bmaci...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:
>In article <9...@mks.UUCP> al...@mks.UUCP (Alex White) writes:
>>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:
>>>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
>>Overwhelming array of multitasking primitives?
>>You've got to be kidding.
>>You're right -- it has more than are ever likely to be needed, but
>>it doesn't have standard simple ones like fork().
>
>I hate to disappoint you, but fork() is not what most people would
>consider a "standard multitasking primitive". It is a Unix'ism designed

Great.
Ok, how do I do it without fork?
DosExecPgm has a lot of options, but it doesn't have an array of
open file descriptors to pass to the child. You have to go to grotesque
contortions of dup'ing and moving file descriptors around, setting close-
on-exec bits in order to set the child's file descriptors up the way you
want. (You CAN however do it)
It doesn't have an array of signal settings to set up default signals
for the child. (You CAN'T do this properly)
Sure this kind of stuff isn't used very often in strict application
programs, but how do you reasonably join things together with pipes?
Without fork, it is NOT possible to implement say the standard unix shell
because of () [subshells using the environment of the parent shell].
I've cobbled together a fork(), but its hardly the same doing it at the
user level as if the kernel did it.

You can't even pass args in the unix argc, argv
method! Sure, DosExecPgm actually has a real argv formatted just
like unix's argv -- unfortunately DosStartSession doesn't.
Since cmd.exe appears to always use DosStartSession, all args are
passed as argv[1], so on the off chance that you might sometime want
a program called from cmd.exe, you have to have all that cruft to parse
your own args...

By the way, on a slightly different topic, did you know you can't
delete or rename a file that is being executed out of? You can
rename the directory first however, then it works... Talk about bad
implementations...

Bruce Wright

unread,
May 11, 1989, 10:10:56 PM5/11/89
to
In article <67...@cbmvax.UUCP>, da...@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
> Of course, I have yet to hear complaints about OS/2 being too fast...

I have *NEVER* heard anyone complain because their {machine, operating
system} was too fast! (buggy code in process control systems excepted).
Even the people using the Cray think it's a pretty good machine but
needs to be a bit faster ...

Bruce C. Wright

Jeff Martens

unread,
May 12, 1989, 12:31:57 AM5/12/89
to
In article <29...@rti.UUCP> b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:

>I have *NEVER* heard anyone complain because their {machine, operating
>system} was too fast! (buggy code in process control systems excepted).

I have, though it was somewhat tongue in cheek. Several years ago, I
was working on an Perkin-Elmer mini, and we got more memory. As a
result, several OS functions that had been overlayed became resident,
and everything ran much faster. A systems analyst complained that we
had done away with the time she spent daydreaming while waiting for
compiles. Can't please everyone, I guess...
-=-
-- Jeff (mar...@cis.ohio-state.edu)

Heilbronner and Thurow: "There are no predictive laws in economics."
Martens: "No wonder I can't live within a budget!"

Stephen B Coy

unread,
May 12, 1989, 6:24:35 PM5/12/89
to
In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP>, t-st...@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes:
> As everyone is aware, there
> is a significant amount of overhead associated with an OS with advanced
> networking and memory management capabilities, but that megabyte or two
> of overhead most assuredly leads to far more efficient memory utilization
> and connectivity.

What about CPU overhead. Recently I checked out the April issue of
MIPS magazine. In it they review a few 25Mhz 386 machines. In
doing their benchmarks they test the systems running 3 different
OS's; DOS, Xenix, and OS/2. Looking at the benchmark results I get
the impression that system performance under OS/2 is about 40% less
than under DOS. How good can resource management be if it consumes
40% of the CPU? This isn't intended as an OS/2 flame. I don't know
enough about OS/2 to flame it. But the numbers presented by MIPS
make OS/2 look horrible. What's the truth?

> -- Stephen D. Poole -- t-st...@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! --

Stephen Coy
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy

Bush knew.

Doug Merritt

unread,
May 13, 1989, 1:58:43 AM5/13/89
to
In article <29...@rti.UUCP> b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
>
>I have *NEVER* heard anyone complain because their {machine, operating
>system} was too fast!

Naturally. Although in a different area it happens: I read a paper
some years ago discussing problems with an experimental user interface
that was too fast...they had hot special purpose hardware, and found
that when the display changed it often happened too fast to notice,
leaving users confused, and taking several seconds to re-orient.

At the time I said, "wish we had problems like that!" (I was using
9600 baud vt220's on Intel 310's: 286 with 4-6 users running Xenix, blech).

Since then I've experienced this problem frequently, with Blitz on
the Amiga, and various software on Suns. It actually is helpful to
have some finite-time transition to help cue the perceptual system
to the fact that a change occurred. This is one of the charms of wicon.

This is going to be more and more of an issue in user interfaces in
the years to come; y'all be sure to keep it in mind when writing
software!
Doug
--
Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug do...@xdos.com
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary

"Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps

RAMontante

unread,
May 13, 1989, 9:09:34 AM5/13/89
to
c...@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) <26...@ssc-vax.UUCP> :
[MIPS tests 25MHz '386 boxes. In...]
-doing their benchmarks they test the systems running 3 different
-OS's; DOS, Xenix, and OS/2. Looking at the benchmark results I get
-the impression that system performance under OS/2 is about 40% less
-than under DOS. How good can resource management be if it consumes
-40% of the CPU?

40% sounds a bit high, but the contrast to MSDOS isn't really fair. MSDOS
doesn't have to do *any* resource management, in the sense that it needn't
keep track of which process has a resource (since there's only one process
at any time). On the other hand, every TSR has to do its own management
in terms of checking whether it's safe to do disk I/O or whatever.

The amount of CPU spent in overhead is also a function of system load.
It's possible for one OS to be extremely good with a few processes but
degrade badly as it overloads, while another OS can be a bit worse at low
loads but stay pretty much the same until its memory chips begin to smoke.

Bruce Wright

unread,
May 13, 1989, 12:00:28 PM5/13/89
to
In article <26...@ssc-vax.UUCP>, c...@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) writes:
> What about CPU overhead. Recently I checked out the April issue of
> MIPS magazine. In it they review a few 25Mhz 386 machines. In
> doing their benchmarks they test the systems running 3 different
> OS's; DOS, Xenix, and OS/2. Looking at the benchmark results I get
> the impression that system performance under OS/2 is about 40% less
> than under DOS.

I haven't seen the MIPS issue that you refer to, and I haven't done any
benchmarks on OS/2, but there are a few things you have to be very
careful about when you read "benchmark" articles from the general press:

1) In comparing a multitasking and a singletasking operating system,
it is not fair to compare the multitasking system running several
{jobs, tasks, processes depending on the OS terminology} unless
the tasks are completely heterogeneous. For example, a mix
consisting of the classical CPU-bound "soak" job, a database disk
thrasher, and a terminal I/O bound text editor. If you have
several tasks competing for the same resource it isn't really
very surprising that they can't get that resource to do more than
one task can get it to do! This is especially true of disk drives,
where moving the disk arm can cause a BIG time penalty and make
two task doing disk I/O more than twice as slow as one. This point
seems to elude many of the people who write "benchmark" articles
for the popular press.

2) In general, you should not expect that the multitasking system will
run equally fast as the single tasking system given the same amount
of memory. IF the single tasking system (or the application) can
do things like increase its disk cache or otherwise take advantage
of the larger amount of memory, the single tasking system will win.
(on the other hand, MS-DOS is really not all that intelligent about
taking advantage of memory to increase speed - though some programs
that run under it are).

3) What you are buying with multitasking is the ability to use several
resources at once (like run a compile in the background while you
edit a file in the foreground) and (possibly, depending on your
application) an ability to have several tasks waiting for various
events. All this does take memory, and some CPU time. The hope is
that by allowing different processes to complement their use of
resources that more total work can get done; but you can almost
always set up pathological cases.

4) If they are comparing OS/2 using the Presentation Manager then I
expect it would be slower ... without significant hardware assists
it's hard for a graphics based system to compete with a text based
system.

5) It is quite possible for a benchmark to home in on a particular
bottleneck on the system and make the system look much worse than
it would look in a real environment. Many of the authors of the
benchmark "results" that you see in magazines don't seem to have
a very good grasp of this.

Having said all this I must admit that my experience with OS/2 is limited;
a couple of us played around with it for a couple of days a while back to
get a feel for whether it would be useful for some projects we were thinking
about. My impression at the time (this was before the Presentation Manager)
was that it was not unreasonably slow - 40% sounds awfully high, well within
human perceptual ability to detect for functions which take any amount of
time. This was not on any super machine, something like a 12MHz '286, and
for the most part it didn't feel that different from MS-DOS in terms of its
general throughput and responsiveness. Some things were perhaps a bit
slower, and others perhaps a bit faster, but subjectively a 40% slowdown
sounds unreasonable. We rejected it for other reasons - primarily because
the complexity of the system service interface did not justify the benefits
for our application (which was pretty special-purpose).

Looking at this I realize it's longer than I intended - sorry about that.
Maybe someone who has done more scientific benchmarking on the system can
address the specific questions about the actual speed of OS/2.

Bruce C. Wright

Jack Hudler

unread,
May 13, 1989, 12:50:59 PM5/13/89
to
In article <9...@mks.UUCP> al...@mks.UUCP (Alex White) writes:
>In article <96...@watcgl.waterloo.edu> bmaci...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:
>>In article <9...@mks.UUCP> al...@mks.UUCP (Alex White) writes:
>>>In article <56...@microsoft.UUCP> w-gl...@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes:
>>>>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
>>>Overwhelming array of multitasking primitives?
>>>You've got to be kidding.
>>>You're right -- it has more than are ever likely to be needed, but
>>>it doesn't have standard simple ones like fork().
>>
>>I hate to disappoint you, but fork() is not what most people would
>>consider a "standard multitasking primitive". It is a Unix'ism designed
>
>Great.
>Ok, how do I do it without fork?
>DosExecPgm has a lot of options, but it doesn't have an array of
>open file descriptors to pass to the child. You have to go to grotesque
>contortions of dup'ing and moving file descriptors around, setting close-
>on-exec bits in order to set the child's file descriptors up the way you
>want. (You CAN however do it)
>It doesn't have an array of signal settings to set up default signals
>for the child. (You CAN'T do this properly)

Perhaps you need to redefine your concept of multitasking?
The implementation of multi-tasking under OS/2 is the
'thread', it very powerful, provided you alter your concept.
Our PM app uses threads, and I must say it was more difficult
to implement our app using 'fork', however
it does work using this primitive form of multitasking.

Jack

--
Classic Quotes from STNG: "Pen Pals"
Picard: Her society is aware .. that there is intersteller life?
Data: No Sir.
Picard: Oooops..

Usenet file owner

unread,
May 13, 1989, 4:26:54 PM5/13/89
to
In article <29...@rti.UUCP> b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
>In article <26...@ssc-vax.UUCP>, c...@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) writes:
> 4) If they are comparing OS/2 using the Presentation Manager then I
> expect it would be slower ... without significant hardware assists
> it's hard for a graphics based system to compete with a text based
> system.
Kind of interesting thing. At work I use a Zenith I*Mclone,
8Mhz 8086. Text output on a two plane screen of the Amiga
is very much faster than the clones. Heck, Amiga text output
is even faster than the 12Mhz '286 clones in the office.
Even with the hardware extras on the Amiga, graphics rendered text
is a lot more complex than with a real text display.

Makes me wonder, are the Amiga system programmers that much better than
MicroSloth's? I think so, and for proof look at how slow in general
AmigaBasic is (supposedly written in assembly), and in particular text output!

Is there any chance that AmigaBasic could be replaced by some other
language in future releases? Perhaps TrueBasic, or a C interpreter/compiler?
Hell, A version of LOGO written especially for the Amiga would be
a good choice too.

One more random note: How about a new feature in the input.device, to
support hot-key type programs?
A program could request to be called when Left-Amiga-whatever
is pressed. Intuition would register a hot-key handler when it puts up
yes/no requesters for A-V, A-B; then remove it when the requester
goes away.
The request msg would have a priority field, and a flag for exclusive or
shared access. Intuition would post its a-v, a-b request as shared, with
a high priority, covering up any lower priority handlers.

Somehow this method seems better than haveing a bunch of little
input-handlers, each checking for one particular key-sequence.
This is an example of a short .signature j...@frith.cl.msu.edu

Brandon S. Allbery

unread,
May 14, 1989, 4:21:47 PM5/14/89
to
As quoted from <May.9.01.13....@pilot.njin.net> by lim...@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli):
+---------------

| In article <67...@cbmvax.UUCP> da...@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
| > The Amiga system has demand loaded device drivers--are you sure OS/2 doesn't?
| > Sounds pretty primitive if it doesn't. Next thing you're going to be letting
| > me that an OS/2 machine has to be put though some expert-level configuration
| > process to add or possibly even remove a device or memory board.
| [much deleted]
|
| Actually, OS/half builds a directed graph (remember your graph theory
| from undergrad?) of each resource on the system being a node, and the
| edges are pointers to which resource requested to use which resource.
| It then does some graph theory algorithms and determines if a node is
| unreachable; and therefore should be unloaded.
+---------------

AAAAAGH!!!!!

So even if you don't use the d*mned LAN Manager, you have to have enough
memory to load it, along with everything else on the system?

+---------------


| Don't believe me? Read Inside OS/2. ...and people wonder why it uses
| so much memory. Ha! I sort of thought that keeping counts with
| 16-bit integers would have worked a bit better myself.

+---------------

But you still have to load everything first... or load each, one at a time,
and keep an array of references somewhere, then use that array to load the
desired modules *again*... bogus, s-l-o-w!

Funny, the 7300 had runtime-loadable device drivers and ran fine in 2MB of
memory. It even supported virtual memory.

++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc all...@ncoast.org
uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!all...@hal.cwru.edu
Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>
NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser

Brandon S. Allbery

unread,
May 14, 1989, 4:30:29 PM5/14/89
to
As quoted from <27...@csccat.UUCP> by ja...@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler):
+---------------

| In article <2118...@macs.UUCP> m...@macs.UUCP (Mark Griffith) writes:
| <Gee.....we folks that have been running OS-9 on microcomputers for some
| <six or seven years now really get a kick out of the "new kids on the
| <block" boasting about the abilities of their systems.
|
| Jesus! some people. IF a 6809 is so damn good then why don't we see more
| of them. I have programed under OS9 and UNIFLEX, and let me tell you,
| that they cannot hold a candle to OS/2 in feature/performance!
+---------------

Duh. People, may I remind you that the 6809 is to the 68000 as the Z-80 is
to the 8080; i.e. it's not the OS that can't compete, it's the *processor*.
Have you worked with the 680x0 version of OS-9? For that matter, you might
as well compare Unix to the multitasking OS that Morrow Designs used to sell
for its "big" Z-80 boxes, or to MP/M on a Z-80 (I've used it).

OS-9 was inspired by Motorola, so the chances of an 80386 version are slight.
A Mac version is much more likely, and is much more likely to give OS/2 a
run for its money. (Especially if done right... something which *can't* be
said for A/UX.)

Brandon S. Allbery

unread,
May 14, 1989, 4:35:35 PM5/14/89
to
As quoted from <13...@ncoast.ORG> by all...@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery):

+---------------
| Duh. People, may I remind you that the 6809 is to the 68000 as the Z-80 is
+--------------------------------------------------------^^^^^ OOPS!!!

"Duh", indeed! I meant "6800", of course: the precursor to the 6809 and
the inspiration for the 6502 (not that *that* was any better....)

Bill Mayhew

unread,
May 15, 1989, 11:29:00 AM5/15/89
to
In article <2...@xdos.UUCP>, do...@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
> In article <29...@rti.UUCP> b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
> >
> >I have *NEVER* heard anyone complain because their {machine, operating
> >system} was too fast!

That reminds me of the early days of msods. There were a number of
programs that pretended the amount of memory was modulo 512K ..
"what?, I don't think anybody is going to have more more than
512K!". So 640K looked like 128K to those programs which then
politely failed with out-of-memory errors. We wrote a small TSR
program to eat memory so that only 512K available would be reported
by INT 48H.

Bill
w...@impulse.UUCP

Dave Haynie

unread,
May 15, 1989, 4:07:12 PM5/15/89
to
in article <29...@rti.UUCP>, b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) says:
> Summary: Can a machine *REALLY* be too fast?!
> Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.ibm.pc:33258 comp.sys.amiga:36309

Well, my 68030 Amiga with memory resident C Compilers was getting so
fast at compiling C code, I didn't have time to do anything while I ran
the compiler. Not necessarily something everyone's going to mind, I'm
sure, but I just program for fun, and really like to think I can go get
a beer without wasting any useful time. For the moment, I've solved this
problem by switching to the C++ compiler, which should last me until a
faster C++ comes out, or the 68040...

> Bruce C. Wright
--
Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy
Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession

Stephen B Coy

unread,
May 15, 1989, 11:52:41 PM5/15/89
to

In article <20...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bob...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
> c...@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) <26...@ssc-vax.UUCP> :
> [MIPS tests 25MHz '386 boxes. In...]
> -doing their benchmarks they test the systems running 3 different
> -OS's; DOS, Xenix, and OS/2. Looking at the benchmark results I get
> -the impression that system performance under OS/2 is about 40% less
> -than under DOS. How good can resource management be if it consumes
> -40% of the CPU?
>
> 40% sounds a bit high,

OK. Here's the numbers I was referring to:

The benchmark program is the current version of dhrystones. The
benchmark was run both with and without register varaibles. Only
one DOS timing is given since the numbers were the same for both
cases. Under OS/2 the 1st number is without register variables, the
2nd is with. All the systems are 25Mhz 386's.

system DOS OS/2

ACER 1100/25 11970 5925 6153
ALR FlexCache 25 286 12281 6486 6760
Compac Deskpro 386/25 11203 5783 6000
DEL System 325 11671 6000 6153
Everex Step 386/25 12445 6666 6956
IBM PS/2 Model 70A21 11745 6486 6760

Well, the way I count it the overhead is from 42.4% to 50.5%.

> but the contrast to MSDOS isn't really fair. MSDOS
> doesn't have to do *any* resource management, in the sense that it needn't
> keep track of which process has a resource (since there's only one process
> at any time). On the other hand, every TSR has to do its own management
> in terms of checking whether it's safe to do disk I/O or whatever.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I know that MS-DOS is doing
absolutely nothing. Therefore I looked at the DOS numbers as being
the absolute best you could get out of the system ie the bare-bones,
down-to-the-metal raw cpu power available. Then, looking at the
OS/2 numbers, I saw that up to half of that cpu power was lost to
system overhead. And I thought that stunk.

> The amount of CPU spent in overhead is also a function of system load.
> It's possible for one OS to be extremely good with a few processes but
> degrade badly as it overloads, while another OS can be a bit worse at low
> loads but stay pretty much the same until its memory chips begin to smoke.

But an OS that starts with 40% to 50%?!? Unless you think that the
good folks at MIPS magazine were generating Mandelbrot images in the
background while running the benchmarks. :-)

Stephen Coy
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy


Stephen B Coy

unread,
May 16, 1989, 12:38:31 AM5/16/89
to
In article <29...@rti.UUCP>, b...@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
> I haven't seen the MIPS issue that you refer to, and I haven't done any
> benchmarks on OS/2, but there are a few things you have to be very
> careful about when you read "benchmark" articles from the general press:
>
> 1) In comparing a multitasking and a singletasking operating system,
> it is not fair to compare the multitasking system running several
> {jobs, tasks, processes depending on the OS terminology} unless
> the tasks are completely heterogeneous.

True. The benchmark I was refering to was dhrystones. The actual
numbers I have posted in my previous article. I understand that
even "at rest" a multitasking OS usually has at least a handful of
processes active. Fine. But when this system overhead eats up 40
to 50% of a 25Mhz 386 I start to have questions.

re "general press" the people at MIPS magazine seem to have their heads on
straight. I've been told that their benchmarking suite was
discussed in some detail in their February issue.

> 2) In general, you should not expect that the multitasking system will
> run equally fast as the single tasking system given the same amount
> of memory.

The systems benchmarked were all "fully loaded" and as such had
plenty of memory to run the dhrystones benchmark with megs to spare.

> 3) What you are buying with multitasking is the ability to use several
> resources at once (like run a compile in the background while you
> edit a file in the foreground) and (possibly, depending on your
> application) an ability to have several tasks waiting for various
> events. All this does take memory, and some CPU time. The hope is
> that by allowing different processes to complement their use of
> resources that more total work can get done; but you can almost
> always set up pathological cases.

I understand the benefits of multi-tasking. My Amiga has been
cranking along just fine since Oct '85, multi-tasking all the way.
Running the Dhrystones benchmark on an empty machine is not a
pathological case by a long shot. Although the MIPS benchmarks sure
make running it under OS/2 seem like a pathetic case. (Cheap shot,
I know. Sorry :-)

> 4) If they are comparing OS/2 using the Presentation Manager then I
> expect it would be slower ... without significant hardware assists
> it's hard for a graphics based system to compete with a text based
> system.

Dhrystones is not I/O dependent. Next.

> 5) It is quite possible for a benchmark to home in on a particular
> bottleneck on the system and make the system look much worse than
> it would look in a real environment. Many of the authors of the
> benchmark "results" that you see in magazines don't seem to have
> a very good grasp of this.

Ok, so what is it about OS/2 that causes it to slow down dhrystones
so much? Hint: the actual number of cycles executed by dhrystones
under each OS is about the same depending on compiler variations.
The "bottleneck" is not the benchmark picking on the system but the
system being too fat.

> Maybe someone who has done more scientific benchmarking on the system can
> address the specific questions about the actual speed of OS/2.
>
> Bruce C. Wright

I'm sorry if this came off as a flame but the tone of your response
implied that I was too ignorant to know what I was talking about and
this offended me a touch.

I too would like to see some other comparisons done. If anyone has
any, please post.

Stephen Coy
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy

Mark Griffith

unread,
May 16, 1989, 8:52:26 AM5/16/89
to
In article <13...@ncoast.ORG>, all...@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
> As quoted from <27...@csccat.UUCP> by ja...@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler):
> +---------------
> | In article <2118...@macs.UUCP> m...@macs.UUCP (Mark Griffith) writes:

(stuff deleted)

> Duh. People, may I remind you that the 6809 is to the 68000 as the Z-80 is
> to the 8080; i.e. it's not the OS that can't compete, it's the *processor*.
> Have you worked with the 680x0 version of OS-9? For that matter, you might
> as well compare Unix to the multitasking OS that Morrow Designs used to sell
> for its "big" Z-80 boxes, or to MP/M on a Z-80 (I've used it).
>
> OS-9 was inspired by Motorola, so the chances of an 80386 version are slight.
> A Mac version is much more likely, and is much more likely to give OS/2 a
> run for its money. (Especially if done right... something which *can't* be
> said for A/UX.)
>

(clap, clap, clap, clap) Obviously, a man who knows what he is talking
about.

Les Milash

unread,
May 16, 1989, 11:33:30 AM5/16/89