Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde! zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!skesterk From: skest...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Windowing environments Message-ID: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: 14 Apr 91 22:22:18 GMT Sender: n...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Distribution: na Organization: The Ohio State University Lines: 15 Originator: skest...@right.magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: right.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu I've been working on a Spac station at work for the past month now and I just love it. Before then I just had a regular PC-350 terminal. The Sparc Station is like an unlimited number of PC-350's at your disposal that all operate at the same time. So I began to wonder how nice it would be to have this kind of environment on my 386SX at home. Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then let me know. Thanks a lot!!
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet! bywater!arnor!ibmman!larrys From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <1991Apr15.150907.15913@watson.ibm.com> Date: 15 Apr 91 15:07:30 GMT References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Sender: lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv Distribution: na Organization: IBM Research Lines: 33 News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman In <1991Apr14.222218.11...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, skest...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) writes: > >I've been working on a Spac station at work for the past month now and I >just love it. Before then I just had a regular PC-350 terminal. The >Sparc Station is like an unlimited number of PC-350's at your disposal that >all operate at the same time. So I began to wonder how nice it would be >to have this kind of environment on my 386SX at home. >Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. >I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the >kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that >will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from >one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only >open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS >window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into >an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. >Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then >let me know. Thanks a lot!! MS-Windows is NOT an operating system. Windows is simply a GUI (like PM is to OS/2). Windows is based on DOS which was designed to be a single-user, single-program operating system. According to IBM, OS/2 2.0 is supposed to support multiple DOS sessions, using the 386's "virtual DOS machine" mode. If you do not need an OS immediately, I would recommend waiting until 2.0 comes out. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano.sw.mcc.com! czech.sw.mcc.com!daneman From: dane...@czech.sw.mcc.com (Michael Daneman) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> Date: 15 Apr 91 21:40:51 GMT References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Distribution: na Organization: MCC Software Technology Program Lines: 36 In article <1991Apr14.222218.11...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu|> skest...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shane Kesterke) writes: |> Now I've heard of X-windows for MS-DOS, but I also heard it's like $500. |> I was wondering, how close do OS's like MS-Windows and OS/2 come to the |> kind of an environment a Sparc station gets you. In other words, a OS that |> will allow you to open up multiple MS-DOS windows, cut-n-paste text from |> one window to another, etc. From what I understand MS-Windows will only |> open windows to MS-Windows specific programs and OS/2 will open an MS-DOS |> window but cannot multitask with MS-DOS. If anyone can enlighten me into |> an OS that can do what I described I'd really appreciate it. |> Please e-mail your responses and if anyone's interested in a summary then |> let me know. Thanks a lot!! MS-Windows is a pretty good windowing environment. On a 386 it allows you to multitask DOS sessions and you can even put them in a window in many cases. Plus you can run all the Windows applications that are coming out now a days. It it similar, though not identical, to X. MS-Windows is easier to use that X, however it is not as powerfull as X (it still runs on top of DOS and also it's not as customizable). OS/2 is probably a better operating environment (though I have never used it). It is a whole separate operating system which supports multitasking, virtual machines, etc. The OS/2 version 2.0 is 386 specific and will allow you to multitask DOS session. However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, 2) not very well supported right now. There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. For now, however, I would recommend MS-Windows. It has a few bugs in it, but all in all it is quite a nice environment with a rather low learning curve and it is currently very well supported by software. -Mike.-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The oppinions stated above are not mine. In fact, I don't know where they came from. It scares me sometimes. -Mike (dane...@sw.mcc.com)
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive! uwm.edu!lll-winken!taco!garfield.catt.ncsu.edu!eagle From: ea...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> Date: 16 Apr 91 00:47:56 GMT References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> Sender: n...@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Distribution: na Organization: NCSU Computers and Technologies Theme Program Lines: 44 dane...@czech.sw.mcc.com (Michael Daneman) writes: >MS-Windows is a pretty good windowing environment. On a 386 it allows >you to multitask DOS sessions and you can even put them in a window >in many cases. Plus you can run all the Windows applications that are >coming out now a days. It it similar, though not identical, to X. >MS-Windows is easier to use that X, however it is not as powerfull as X >(it still runs on top of DOS and also it's not as customizable). How is MS-Windows easier to use than X? Now, I understand MS Windows is easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows. No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments. Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too. > However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination (that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. > 2) Not very well supported right now. OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since the announcement of 32-bit v2.0. > There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in >the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. Should happen with version 2.0. If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows. This is because OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same time. >-Mike.-- Daniel -- Name: Daniel C. L'Hommedieu III Snail: NCSU Box 21531/Raleigh/NC/27607 INet: ea...@catt.ncsu.edu Prodigy ID: bccj33d Tel:919 737 6143 Hey...who did you say you thought I spoke for?
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov! ncar!gatech!prism!vernard From: vern...@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 16 Apr 91 12:42:53 GMT References: <1991Apr14.222218.11479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <5063@czech.sw.mcc.com> <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.misc Distribution: na Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 66 In article <1991Apr16.004756.2...@ncsu.edu> ea...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes: >How is MS-Windows easier to use than X? Now, I understand MS Windows is >easier to program for than X, but I'd much rather USE X than Windows. >No, I have no programming experience in either of those environments. >Well, I'd rather use OS/2 than X (yeah, I've used OS/2 and LOVE it), too. First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the future. >> However, the problem with OS/2 is that it's 1) Expensive, > >OS/2 is cheaper for students than the DOS 4.01/Windows 3.0 combination >(that's educational discounts); I don't know about regular prices. Here >are some numbers: OS/2 1.2 Standard Edition $153.00. DOS 4.0 $115, >Windows 3.0 $100. Add the $115 and $100 and get $215. OS/2 is much >cheaper than Windows 3.0/DOS 4.0 combination. This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG of hard drive space to even install. >> 2) Not very well supported right now. > >OS/2 has gained the support of most of the magazines such as PC since >the announcement of 32-bit v2.0. Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. >> There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows in >>the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. >Should happen with version 2.0. If OS/2 v2.0 is as good as it is >supposed to be, I see a dwindling market for Windows. This is because >OS/2 will then be 100% Windows 3.0 compatible, and pretty-much 100% DOS >compatible, even able to multitask DOS sessions (16, I believe), and >will be able to multitask its own 32-bit programs, all at the same >time. Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! 'Nuff said. ---- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vern...@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me. -- Vernard Martin , System Account Manager College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!gatech!prism!vernard -or- Internet: vern...@prism.gatech.edu "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!bywater! arnor!ibmman!larrys From: lar...@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: <1991Apr17.130938.8382@watson.ibm.com> Date: 17 Apr 91 12:56:37 GMT References: <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> Sender: lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv Distribution: na Organization: IBM Research Lines: 72 News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman I've been waiting for this post for soooo long... In <26...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, vern...@prism.gatech.EDU (Vernard Martin) writes: >First of all OS/2 is an operatoring system that uses not a windowing >environemtn per se. It does have a nice windowing environment that is >integral to it but it is still hard to compare it to X and Windows. I >thought there were plans to use NeXTStep on the OS/2 platform in the >future. HARD TO COMPARE TO WINDOWS??? Either you're kidding or you're blind. Take your pick. How can you say that PM is hard to compare to Windows, when Windows is a true lookalike of PM (in terms of the GUI). >This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run OS/2. I >mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of memory and 16 MEG >of hard drive space to even install. Okay, I'm going to dispell this one once and for all: OS/2 1.3 ***WILL*** run in 2M of memory. This is quite competitive with Windows which requires the same amount to get any decent performance out of it. 1.3 SE only requires 4M of hard disk space plus room for the SWAPPER.DAT file. >Bye support, I think he meant available software, not public appeal. In >general you can say that Windows is more liked than OS/2. If that is too >strong a statement for you then you can say that Windows sells better than >OS/2. The reasons are various and actually may not have much to do with >which is better. All that really matters is that large amounts of folks are >chucking out the dough for Windows 3.0 but NOT OS/2. Maybe so, but if you've been reading the various trade magazines, you'll find that a lot of Windows customers are *NOT* satisfied with what they got. We have an expression here: "On OS/2, the pointer is an arrow; on Windows, it is an hourglass." What about the infamous "UAE" message (Unrecoverable Application Error)? How many times does that happen which requires you to reboot? With OS/2, you simply kill the application and continue, meaning you *don't* have to stop your compiling in another session, you *don't* have to logoff from your mainframe in another session, you *don't* have to stop writing your term paper in another session. >Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the bad >features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the new >OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. Bad features? Please elaborate. This prate about Windows being better than OS/2 without any substance in them is ridiculous. >Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 because >of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 with gobs of memory. >Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to DOS >users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going to work! OS/2 1.3 does not require a 386; it requires a 286, just like Windows. OS/2 2.0 will require a 386, but I can guarantee you that if what the SDK shows is any indication of what 2.0 will be like, MS is going to have a Maalox moment. Also, I have already stated that 1.3 only requires 2M to run, so that point is invalid also. Please, let's discuss these issues with REAL facts and VALID points, so we don't waste bandwidth. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LAR...@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools lar...@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center lar...@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.