🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 798228637@bgsuvax, jha...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Tarquelne) writes:
> 	I just run DOS right now, but I'm interested in getting a new OS, so I've been 
> following this thread with interest.
> 
> 	Right now OS/2 seems to be the best choice.  Why?  Well, I haven't 
> learned much about Win95 or OS/2 from the thread, but I have recieved a definite
> impression of their users from the messages in this thread.
> 
> 	The OS/2 users seemed to be reasonable, intelligent people attempting to have a discussion.
> 
> 	Most of the Win95 users (not all, but most) seemed immature and ill
> informed.
> 	Personally, I'm much more inclined to trust the opinions of the OS/2 
> users rather than the Win95 users.  As far as "character" references go, OS/2
> is way ahead.  
> 	"Good job!" OS/2 people!
> 	And, if there are any Win95 users worth hearing from, please post!  I
> want to hear both sides of the story.  Not the OS/2 side and some ranting.

OK, you asked for it. ;-)

I use Warp, OS/2 2.11, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Win NT 3.5, and Win
95 (M8) on at least a weekly basis. I have used Windows since 2.1, OS/2 since 
beta 0.8, and Win 95 since M5; usually as a GUI developer. 'nough said?

They ALL have some problems - and they all have some strong points. Here a
just a few (I could go on forever...)

Warp:
    + You can buy it now. Fairly cheap.
    + 32 bit.
    = Runs most DOS games, except for sound on some.
    = Mostly just 2.11 with a face-lift and some cheapo apps.
    - In my experience, buggier than even Win95.
    - Not true pre-emptive multi-tasking (system queue blocking is allowed)
    - Hardware compatibility problems.
    - Still a resource hog.
    - Does a sorry job running Windows apps, and doesn't have enough native ones.

OS/2 2.11
    + Less buggy than Warp (for now)
    - Uglier and clumsier than the others (especially in 1024x768 - ugh!)
    - Expensive resource hog.
    - Not true pre-emptive multi-tasking (system queue blocking is allowed)
    - Hard to install and configure.

WFW 3.11
    + Runs more software than the others.
    + Its EVERYWHERE.
    - It's only as stable as the apps it runs (I have no problems with MS-Office;
      but Lotus Notes will take it down a couple of times a day. For a fun trick,
      load the debugging kernels, start Notes, and fax the list of API violations
      to Lotus. B-) ) 
    - Pitiful multitasking.
    - Crippled resource mangement.
    - Old, patchwork system that needs to be retired.

Win NT 3.5
    + Only true multitasker in the bunch.
    + Pure 32-bit environment.
    + Most stable platform.
    + Multiple platform support! (Which is wwhy it will win in the long run.)
    - Too expensive.
    - Some hardware compatibility problems.
    - Not very backward compatible.
    - Worst resource hog in the bunch.
    - Still no software! But it does run Win 95 apps...

Win 95 M8
    + Best user-interface by a very wide margin. (It swiped the best features from
      OS/2 and the Mac, saved the good ones from Win 3.1, and added some new stuff)
    + Best DOS compatibility.
    + Easiest to install and use.
    - Crippled multi-tasking when running 16-bit apps.
    - Still in beta.
    - Is likely to be too expensive. MS needs to sell it at $40, IMHO.

And to be fair, remember that all of these OSs are crippled by sitting on a 12 year
old architecture - ISA busses (even hybrid ones), IRQ handling, and even the Intel
instruction set make it a real pain to write a stable OS.

So what do I recommend?

Choose the => APPLICATIONS <= you want, and then go with the OS that runs them.
For most people, that will be WFW/DOS. After Win 95 ships, and the first patches are 
released, upgrade. Save the money and skip Warp - it won't run your Windows apps 
worth squat.

Of course, if you use OS/2 at work and you don't own any Windows software, get Warp. 
Or if you need a server, asymmetric multi-processing, or a bulletproof OS, get NT. 

Any of them will get the job done until Cairo ships... 8-O

 ____                     ____                                          ____
(____)-------------------(____)----------------------------------------(____)
 |  |  Thomas W. Cox      |  |          ****      *****          ****   |  |
 |  |                     |  |        ***       ***  **        ***      |  |
 |  |  System Developer   |  |       ***       ***   **       ***       |  |
 |  |  SAS Institute      |  |      ****      ****   **      ****       |  |
 |  |  Office R4147       |  |      ****      ****   **      ****       |  |
 |  |  Cary NC 27513      |  |      ***       *********      ***        |  |
 |  |  919.677.8000x6295  |  |      ***       ***    **      ***        |  |
 |  |                     |  |     ***       ***     **     ***         |  |
 |__|  sas...@unx.sas.com |__|  ****      ****       **  ****           |__|
(____)-------------------(____)----------------------------------------(____)