🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ognmg$7...@news.globalx.net> dmo...@globalx.net writes:

 > IBM has had access to Microsoft code for WIN16 apps and WIN32s (subset of   
 > WIN32 or something like that), but that changed in 1993 when Microsoft   
 > locked Big Blue out of the house.   
 >  
 > IBM says they can run 32 bit Windows apps today (using WIN32s apps for   
 > OS/2 and WINNT), but seriously, even Microsoft will argue that Win NT is   
 > lacking any serious applications development. WIN NT's main reseaon for   
 > existance is as a Server OS.  The real 32 bit applications programming   
 > will happen under the WIN32 API (WIN 95) and guess what -  these apps   
 > WON'T RUN ON OS/2 Warp.  That will be the end of OS/2 Warp.

 With so much discussion about OS/2 and Win95 on the net lately, my
 interests in OS/2 grows and therefore I went out and read the book
 "Unleash OS/2".

 There is an interesting account of the history before Microsoft and
 IBM part way. Originally, OS/2 is supposed to be the next generation
 operating system for AT class machines. It is supposed to be the
 first OS for microcomputer which can support multitasking and multiple
 users. In fact, OS/2 originated as a character mode based OS!!

 However, the success of Macintosh prompts IBM and Microsoft to enhance
 OS/2 with the presentation manager. It was all done in good intention.
 However, OS/2 became a relatively minor player today due to a few
 reasons :

 1. When OS/2 was first released, 20% of the existing PCs couldn't run
    OS/2. To make things worse, IBM had decided to promote OS/2 and PS/2
    together. This alienated many potential buyers as people were under
    the wrong impressions that they should have PS/2 if they wanted to
    run OS/2.

 2. OS/2 1.x was designed for PC with at least 4Mb RAM. Back in the 80s,
    machines with 4Mb RAM were uncommon with most of them being server
    class machines. When OS/2 was released, there was the memory shortage
    incident and prices had quadrapled. As people refrained from
    upgrading the PCs, so were OS/2 sales suffered.

    Interestingly, approximately the time when Windows NT was released,
    the Japanese resin plant blew up during the earthquake. This had
    probably had hurt NT sales too. I remembered the memory prices were
    falling steadily back in 1993 until the explosion incident. Should
    the memory prices had been as cheap as U$20.00 per megabyte, NT
    sales may have been very different as home users would have been
    more willing to upgrade the PC to 16Mb RAM for the cost of U$320.

 3. OS/2 1.x was designed to run on 286s. However, OS/2 took a long time
    to reach the market. Meanwhile, 386s had become wide spread and
    users were expecting an operating system that could make better use
    of the processing power of the 386 CPU. Microsoft beated IBM to the
    market by releasing Windows 3.0, which has a 386 enhanced mode which
    exploited the 386 architecture. It was an instant success. IBM took
    almost another year before it released the long promised but too
    late OS/2 2.0.

 4. Many developers were anxiously waiting to write applications for
    OS/2 in the 80s. But IBM had failed to deliver the product to the
    market at an earlier time. The success of Windows 3.0 eventually
    lured the developers away.

 If IBM sales figure is to be believed, obviously OS/2 is on the rise
 again now that Win95 has been delayed for several months. It looks
 like IBM did learn their lesson from the past. However, Microsoft has
 also seen fit to let the public test and spread words about Win95 so
 that users would not feel disillusioned by the delay. From what I
 have seen in Win95, it is definitely not a bad product. While people
 are complaining about the monopoly of Microsoft, please don't forget
 IBM was one as well until the market reality hit it. It is just
 natural for a big company to exerts certain degree of control on
 the market. If Microsoft falls, eventually an other company will
 emerge to take its place.

 We should not choose an OS just because we hate monopoly. If we want
 absolute freedom then everyone of us should start using Linux. We should
 choose the operating system based on our needs. For average gamers, I
 think Win95 is a better choice simply because of the better compatibility
 and the ease of everything works right out of the box. For professionals
 who absolutely needs a better crash-proof system, they would probably
 want to run OS/2. I have been using Win95 (beta) for quite awhile and
 it did crash after running certain games. When it did, it was time to
 reboot. Obviously memory protection had been sacrificed in order to
 achieve better compatibility. Though if one runs only Win95 32-bits
 applications, one should have 100% memory protection as well, at least
 in theory.

 The other valid concerns regarding Win95 is the resource utilization
 problems. We have all heard the horror stories regarding thread
 management in Win95. Sadly I do not possess the technical knowledge
 to judge the importance of this.

 I hope both camps of pro-OS/2 and pro-Win95 users can begin to see
 OS/2 and Win95 are both good products, with different emphasis on
 ease of use/compatibility vs protection/performance. They are similar in
 the sense that they both strive to break away from DOS's limitations
 (640K barrier, single tasking, device management nightmare etc) that have
 plagued us for so many years. Technology needs to move ahead and the path
 is either OS/2 or Win95.

 Which one to choose? The one that suits our needs best! I would like to
 see more informed discussions regarding the relative strength/merits
 of both OSes, so that everyone can make the best decision. But we can
 dispense with the flames.

--
Email : hkc...@hkchan.pc.my