- Message Menu - 56 -86 CYBERPUNK 86 of 95 Posted : 06/13/93 at 3:26 pm Subject : Operating Systems... To : Everyone From : Yoho Yip User Note: Precision Programmer ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ DOS - What most of us here probably use... Was originally designed for and 8088, and was not made with upgradablility in mind, just as the 8088 wasn't exactly made in the best possible manner. Is not very powerful compared to some to some of the other O/S's, because of the fact that it was originally designed for the 8088, and to maintain compatiblility, they have not been able completely re-write the system. SUPPOSEDLY - DOS 7.0 is to break the 640k barrier, with some sort of dos-extender/ virtual-remapping system, but we'll wait and see. Now that Microsoft is pushing NT like a bitch, who knows when the next DOS release will be. DOS EXTENDERS - Used on top of DOS, makes dos make use of the extra memory, (among other things) capabilities of the 286/386/486/Pentium etc. chips protected mode capabilities. There are many O/S shells which use DOS extenders to run on top of DOS. Examples of these are Windows/286 2.11 all the way to Windows 3.1, Desqview, Desqview/X, and some other lesser known systems such as the GeoWorks (correct name, don't remember) system and several other smaller task swappers, and the like. WINDOWS 3.1 - Is a extremely LARGE shell for use on top of DOS, when inside the shell, it offers you the wonderful pleasure (sorry, couldn't resist :] ) of a GUI. It also allows you to task-swap DOS and Windows programs in little virtual windows. I.E., allowing you to do multiple tasks at the same time. The problem with Windows is that it is SLOW, and since it is running on top of DOS, it is not able to make full use of the 386/486/ Pentium chips. OS/2 2.1 - Was originally IBM and Microsoft's attempt to wipe the slate clean and start with a new operating system. Then IBM and Microsoft started feuding (as usual), and it is now solely IBM's product, though IBM has rights to the NT kernal, and/or Microsoft has rights to the OS/2 2.1 or vice-versa, not sure. OS/2 2.1, was supposed to be easily ported to, I.E, changing existing Microsoft Windows applications to run on it, yet it didn't work that way, so the major setbacks that IBM experienced while trying to push OS/2 were a) the well known financial problems the've been having b) it took an extrememly long time to port applications to the system, example: it took 3 years to port Pagemaker from Microsoft Windows to OS/2 c) buggy, the first releases of OS/2 were extremely buggy. OS/2 does have several major advantages over DOS, it is able to make full use of the processing power of the 386/486/Pentium, it is still able to run DOS programs, it's a GUI (plus for some people), and I had another reason but just forgot. WINDOWS NT - Windows NT is Microsoft's baby. It offers many of the same things as OS/2, yet is better in several aspects(OS/2 does have +'s over NT also I just skipped them). For one, there are an extreme large number of people using Windows for DOS right now. Switching to NT (assuming you have the hardware) would be no problem for these (basically) computer-illiterate people who just know how to move the mouse and click the button. Besides a couple extra features here and there (OLE, etc) Windows NT *LOOKS* almost exactly the same as Windows for DOS, with the exception of instead of having (C)lose on your program manager menu, you have (S)ystem Shutdown. The entire "sameness" of the two is a plus for many people because all of the people who's system boots up to the DOS version of Windows, and whose companies spent two years training them on how to move around the mouse and click the button wouldn't have to learn anything new, besides the fact that they need to use (S)hutdown instead (E)xit or (C)lose or whatever it is. Another MAJOR advantage to Windows NT is that it was written with software developer's SPECIFICALLY in mind, so that it is not too tedious of a job to port DOS Windows applications to NT. Another thing is that NT will still run your existing Windows applications(just not as well as if they were re-compiled). (I forgot to mention: OS/2 also runs Windows applications, but not Enhanced mode ones... I think that is coming in the next version, don't remember) Another thing that NT has on its side is that Microsoft is behind it, and Microsoft has one hell of a lot of money to push NT. DESQVIEW - Desqview is a very decent task-swapper for DOS. It works very well, is not bulky like Windows NT(70+ megs), OS/2(30+ megs), etc... and is small and to the point. It is easy to use, and gets the job done, and don't have to maneuver your way around a desktop. DESQVIEW/X - This is a build-off of desqview, which has grown into a full-size kick-ass shell for dos. Like Windows for DOS, Desqview/X runs on top of dos. It uses a graphical interface, but unlike Windows, the interface is completely configurable. The system can look like anything from a straight no-border/no-graphic/text-type desktop, to looking exactly like MOTIF (in fact, they took motif, tore out its desktop section, and made a little library type thing out of it, that you just add on) the desktop/ menus can be manually configured, or you can use the little add on packages which were made to look like other systems. I think there is even a Windows one in there(don't exactly remember). Anyway, like normal Desqview, DV/X runs normal DOS applications, it also runs Desqview/X applications. If you have the need to run Windows applications, you can run Windows in a DV/X Window, and do whatever you like in there. DV/X is also very small... something like 7 megs EVERYTHING installed, and if you just want the very basics, it is only like 1.7 megs or something. The spectacular thing about DV/X is it's X-Windows implimentation. Imagine this senario: Network, 3 IBM's running DV/X, 2 Macs (using and X-windows deally), 3 SUN-Sparcstations(UNIX, using X-windows thingy)... Ok, I'm on one of the IBM's... and open 20 Lotus 1-2-3 windows, and am down to one meg of memory. I need to run Microsoft Windows, but don't have the memory for it... (MS Windows in one Meg? Ha!) So I make a couple config changes, and vwalla, I am running Windows, didn't close any 1-2-3 windows... Check my free memory... STILL one meg. What's happening? I am running windows on a different one of the IBM's on the network, using it's memory. Still runs basically full speed, but is not taking up any of my memory, or virtually any of my processing power either. Ok, another thing, you can set access levels for different users, I.E, what LOCAL drives on the other computers people have access to... I.E, I could copy something on MY A: to the A: on someone elses computer, assuming I had the access. Anyway, assume I have full access to everything. I've seen some 1/2 decent Mac applications out there, so I open up the Mac drive (from my IBM still)... pick a program, and run it. Gee, seems to run fine on my IBM... Lets try the sparcstations... Their Unix applications work too... Anyway... I've done my share of plugging DV/X for now. It (and UNIX) are my personal favorites... but this was just to give you an example of Desqview/X. In a network enviornment, DV/X does the whole other computer deal with any computer that has an X-Windows implimentation. Even Windows NT is going to/does/whatever have one. -End of Plug for Quarterdeck's Desqview/X- :) UNIX - Unix is probably the most time-tested operating systems of the entire microcomputer world. It has implimentations on virtually every major platform. It allows for multi-tasking(task-swapping, depending on the processor), and is just, really neat. (Having trouble describing it) Unix comes in MANY different flavors. It is generally like DOS though, a command-line type operating system. It looks a lot the same, with several little quirks, like different commands than "dir", etc, though some are the same, such as "cd"... Unix uses the '/' slash instead of '\' slash, and can have much longer filenames. It's main +'s are that it is very time-tested, has MANY applications for it, is a GREAT multi-tasker(task-swapper)... and is just plain old neat. I am also very partial to UNIX because my uncle, a vice-president of Intel won the fourth (?) Intel Fellow award, and was named "The Father Of Unix"... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, this is the end of my speal, hopefully it should clear up a COUPLE things in differences between operating systems. I know it was a little biased at parts, but I guess that's life. It did not go into very much detail about everything, so if someone wants a LOT of information on something I could probably give it to them if they ask specific questions. This was also just done of the top of my head, and typed online, so if I screwed or mixed something up, I apologize, feel free to correct me. Also, don't think that this is completely from reading or other people's oppinions. I HAVE used every operating system/dos-extender/whatever that I listed here. And I must say, that ANY of them are pretty spectacular when you are running them on PC's with anywhere from 1 to 32 Pentium processor's parallel processing. (Comdex was GREAT!) Anyway... I didn't go into the Macintosh, or IBM/Apple's joint-venture (PowerPC)... so if there are questions about them there is the possiblity that I could answer them. One last comment I will make is that it looks very promising for Microsoft... They basically have the money to push NT, and that is what really counts.