🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk> paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> [ ... ]
> 
> On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the
> press, which it doesn't deserve at all.
> 
> What does anyone else think?
> 
> Paul Butcher
> JANET:paulb@uk.ac.york.minster


actually, i would say just the opposite.  considering the fact that
OS/2 has been hyped for 2 years now with for all practical purposes
_no_ applications or users, i would say that OS/2 has been given a
really good deal by the PC press.  yes, i know, OS/2 _does_ have users
and some applications now, but i doubt that it has as many as the atari
ST does.  how often do you see many page articles on the ST in the
press? 

basically, i think the _consumer_ has been/will be given a raw deal by
OS/2.  if ibm, microsoft and the pc press had put as much thought,
work and hype into unix, we would have a much nice, easier to use and
popular unix around today.  unix can do for the entire computer
industry, from micros to mainframes to supercomputers, what msdos did
for the pc market: one standard platform that you can develop software
for.

yes, unix does have problems.  lots of them.  but so dos OS/2, msdos,
vms, mvs/xa and every other operating system.  as i see it, OS/2
offers the same advantages and disadvantages and unix, or any other
"real" operating system.  it's just that OS/2 only runs on the intel
80x86 processors.  yeah, i know.  microsoft is re-writing OS/2 into C
so that it can be portable, but as i said, if they had put as much
effort into unix has they have into os/2...

basically, i can see real advantages for microsoft and ibm to get
people to use os/2 instead of unix, but i dont see many advantages for
the consumer.  

-wayne