🚀 go-pugleaf

[I should know better, but it's been along night...]

In article <627@bogart.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
> You fail to mention, however, that the current MacOS is a far cry from the
> functionality offered by the current OS/2 (1.2).  The latter is a real OS,
> while MacOS is more like MS-DOS with menus and big filenames (which are
> unreadable after you do a "Clean Up Window" by the way).

Have you used a Mac lately?  OS/2 plus PM is the first
PC system software that even comes close to providing the richness that the
Macintosh OS has had for years (and most of it from the beginning).  Little
things like:

 - Asynchronous I/O
 - Dynamically loadable device drivers & code segments
 - Device-independent graphics

And there are things that OS/2 *still* doesn't have:

 - Built-in networking (specifically, printer sharing and file server client
   software as part of the OS, not an extra-cost add on)
 - A Resource Manager
 - A published, stable set of human interface guidelines
 - Standardized interface to non-roman writing systems
 - 32-bit color graphics support
 - HyperCard

and so on.

> If we're talking about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS
> to OS/2?

The OS where windows are an extra?  Or network support?  Sure, why not?

> Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require
> any more memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB.

I thought we weren't comparing 7.0 to OS/2.  But hey, if you insist:

 - Remote database access (SQL)
 - Outline Fonts
 - Paged Virtual Memory on hardware that will support it
 - Foreign File System Manager
 - Comprehensive audio & MIDI support
 - B*-tree manager
 - High-speed file system searching
 - Communications Toolbox
 - Inter Application Communication

Just because it doesn't look like OS/2 doesn't mean it's a toy.  Sigh.
This is getting worse than the NeXT flamewar.

Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
Purveyors of fine Macintosh and PC networking software worldwide.
--