🚀 go-pugleaf

rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:

>Anybody who already works with OS/2 1.x knows, that for serious work, a
>386 is required for 1.x too, because of the speed. I would not recommend
>using OS/2 on a 286 with up to 12MHz. A 386 with 25MHz and no cache is
>just fine. It's the same with memory (at least 8MB). For the 286's even
>Windows 3.0 becomes very slow when used on a machine with less than
>3-4MB. And because of the new capabilities of 2.0 with a 386 (or 486) I
>don't think that the 286 machines will play a big role for the OS/2
>market. Most *existing* 286 machines can rarely be used for OS/2 because
>hardware upgrade costs are too high (many don't even have sockets for
>enough 1MBit chips and require expensive RAM cards).

I think Kai Uwe is absolutely right. It is really a pain in the neck to do
some serious work on a 286 machine. In any case it is a good idea to have
a fast machine for OS/2. It is an old rule that usually you want to use
the advantages of a powerful operating system after some time.
But anyway, the strategic decision of IBM and Microsoft has been to develop
OS/2 already for 286 machines. And I guess that this will be o.k. for some
applications in companies, for instance. So we can't help it, OS/2 is an 
operating system for 286 processors and higher. Maybe we can start a new
discussion on the Windows 3 vs. OS/2 topic seperately.

So, for now we know Kai Uwe's position and mine is very similar. But what about
the rest of the community? It would be really great if somebody else could 
tell us what he thinks. Maybe there is also somebody from a big software 
company who could give us an idea what they want to do concerning software
development for 16-bit and 32-bit versions of OS/2.

Greetings,

    Ulf