🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul21.173816.3666@ms.uky.edu> kramer@ms.uky.edu (Mike Andrews) writes:
 >
 >....or OS/2 2.0, if you have 8+ meg of RAM and 32+ meg of free disk.
 >It's a good deal better than DESQview (which in turn is a good deal better
 >than Windoze) at multitasking DOS apps.  I've been running my BBS under it
 >for quite a while now, and it's a lot more stable and smooth than DESQview was.
 >(I'm using a USR Dual Std on a 386/40 with some custom-hacked BBS software)
 >
 >BTW, if you do go with OS/2, you'll need to use the newest X00 (v1.49a); 
 >BNU (1.70) dosen't like OS/2 very much (well, there's a com driver patch for 
 >OS/2, maybe that fixed the BNU problem, but X00 works fine -- I should try 
 >BNU with the new com drivers and see if it works now...)  

Are you able to get full speed (14.4kbps) sends from your DOS based BBS
under OS/2 2.0? I agree that OS/2 2.0 is a much better multi-tasker than
Desqview. I really like OS/2, but it's comm drivers suck for DOS programs.
It has to do with a 1000 interrupt per second limit through the VDM IBM
tells me. I have been running my DOS based BBS (Telegard) for a few months
under OS/2 2.0 and it works OK except for high speed sends from my 
computer. They are too slow, only like 1200 cps.



-- 
Guy W. Kendall - Applications Engineer            Guy.Kendall@ColoSpgs.NCR.COM
NCR Microelectronic Products Division               Voice: 719-596-5795 x465
1635 Aeroplaza Drive                                  Fax: 719-570-6045
Colorado Springs, CO 80916                            BBS: 719-596-1649