AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel i7-2600 -- I don't get it!
James Knott
james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org
Fri Oct 14 21:18:46 UTC 2011
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Actually OS/2 1.x's DOS compatibility was terrible. It wasn't until
> OS/2 2.x running on a 386 that DOS compatibility was any good. The 286
> protected mode that OS/2 used was not suited for running DOS applications
> unless they were very well behaved. It could only run one DOS application
> at a time, and that program owned the machine and could crash the
> whole system.
>
That was the case with OS/2 1.x, which was, prior to 1.3 mainly a
product of Microsoft. As for running on the 286, IBM had this peculiar
concept of delivering what they promised the customer. As they promised
mulitasking etc. on the 286, that's what they delivered. However, as I
mentioned, DOS support was excellent, even if it took until 2.0 to
deliver it. Unlike on Windows, you could configure DOS memory
management individually for each app, if needed. You could even
configure it to deliver more usable space than you could with real DOS.
If you were a developer, you could have images of various DOS versions
to test with as well. Now, Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.0 came out at roughly
the same time, but there was simply no comparison in capability. OS/2
was much more stable, had better multitasking and could even run Windows
as an application (which it was back in those days).
BTW, I used to do 3rd level OS/2 support at IBM and worked on the team
that developed standard desktop systems for IBM Canada. I also had to
work with some apps on Windows 95 & NT. There were far more problems
with apps, stability etc. on Windows, compared to OS/2 (essentially none).
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
More information about the Legacy
mailing list