🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes:
>From what little I know of OS/2 2.0, you do have a multitasking OS which can
>run DOS applications in a window (even different versions of DOS itself).
This is said to be true.

>This appeals to my DOS side.  The only question I have is - is it still easy
>to bootstrap a Unix from another partition with OS/2 like I can with DOS?
You allways be able to to this (I have tried this with OS/2 1.3 and
there is no reason why OS/2 2.0 should prevent you from this).

>Is it possible to run one of the Unix knock-offs in a window (not MKS)?
What do you call a Unix knock-off?
I run many ported Unix tools (mostly GNU, or perl, for example) already
under OS/2 1.3 (of course in a Windows).

>The other question is what does OS/2 get me?  I mean aside from doing what 
>windows 3.0 can't do - multitask (or for that matter run for more than 30
>minutes before crashing)?  What runs on OS/2?  What would I do with it other
>that treat it as an environment for running windows et. al.?
OS/2 provides users with continuity in software and user interfaces when
they switch from DOS. It looks all familiar to DOS/Windows users. And it
provides them who need it with the full power of a 32bit system as it
could no Unix system do better. It simply has a more robust base system
when you compare it to DOS/Windows or even to a future 32bit Windows.

>So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...?
Mine looks like OS/2 2.0. Alreay 1.3 is *much* more an operating system
I can use than DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0 are together.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams (MS)