GUI

[James Knott]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:27:18PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
> 
>>Where on earth did you dig up that?  DOS support in OS/2 2.0 and later 
>>was and is excellent.  I never came across a DOS program that wouldn't 
>>work in it, though some required adjustment of settings.  The DOS 
>>problems were in the early days of OS/2 1.x, when MS was developing it. 
>> When IBM took control at v 1.3, it was a much better product.  One 
>>might assume that MS had deliberately crippled it.
> 
> 
> So when exactly did OS/2 2.0 get released?  As far as I remember it was
> around the time of Win 3.1, at which point there was already a decent
> number of windows 3.x programs around, and you could still run dos
> programs on dos of course.

OS/2 2.0 was released in April 1992.  I believe it was out a bit before 
W3.1.  Also, OS/2 2 and later was better at running DOS apps than 
Windows 3 was, particularly if memory management was involved.  You 
could easily dial in as much of whatever type of memory management the 
app required, and it could be done on an individual app basis.


> 
> Besides OS/2 had as far as I could tell already built up a reputation as
> being incompatible with dos programs, which without good marketing to
> fix the general view of it, would have been hard to overcome.

V2 was very different from 1.x in many ways.
> 
> Besides, DOS never impressed me, neither did Windows, nor OS/2.  Being
> and Amiga user, it wasn't until I installed Linux in 92 that I was
> impressed by an OS on a PC.

Prior to using a PC, I had worked on a VAX 11/780, so I also wasn't 
impressed with DOS and wanted something that could multitask.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml