To appreciate OS/2 best you'd have to watch the OS/2 NT Shootout. OS/2 still does pre-emptive multithreaded multitasking better than windows as far as protecting the application's system resources as to prevent a video from skipping for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
I have seen that video before, and also now. I did not find any such
things that supports your claims that the the multitasking or
multithreading is not as good in NT as OS/2.
Personally I used DOS/W3.1, OS/2 2.11 and Warp 3, NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4,
and FreeBSD. Each had it + and -, and even if I liked many aspects of
OS/2 (better DOS support), I did not have any problems with either NT or
*BSD (DOS and Win3.x was of course sub par technically).
On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:39:21 -0700, martinot wrote:
I have seen that video before, and also now. I did not find any such
things that supports your claims that the the multitasking or multithreading is not as good in NT as OS/2.
Personally I used DOS/W3.1, OS/2 2.11 and Warp 3, NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4,
and FreeBSD. Each had it + and -, and even if I liked many aspects of
OS/2 (better DOS support), I did not have any problems with either NT or *BSD (DOS and Win3.x was of course sub par technically).
Windows 10 is also sub-par technically, martinot, not to mention it spies
on you and you can't turn that off, nor the auto-updater that takes
features away (e.g. Restore previous versions) so Microsoft can rent them back to you (e.g. ads for Microsoft OneDrive cluttering up your Explorer windows that no longer have Restore previous versions).
You won't find OS/2 pulling such shenanigans, martinot.
Den lördag 19 maj 2018 kl. 18:30:45 UTC+2 skrev tholen:
You won't find OS/2 pulling such shenanigans, martinot.
Yes, that can be irritating. But not that different from my macOS
machines, or iOS and Android devices. Or many modern web apps and
services like from Google, Amazon and Facebook.
A clear plus for old systems like NT and OS/2, or modern OSS
alternatives, like *BSD and Linux.
On Sat, 19 May 2018 12:50:28 -0700, martinot wrote:
Den lördag 19 maj 2018 kl. 18:30:45 UTC+2 skrev tholen:
You won't find OS/2 pulling such shenanigans, martinot.
Yes, that can be irritating. But not that different from my macOS
machines, or iOS and Android devices. Or many modern web apps and
services like from Google, Amazon and Facebook.
A clear plus for old systems like NT and OS/2, or modern OSS
alternatives, like *BSD and Linux.
Or just for OS/2, martinot. What can NT, BSD, or Linux do that OS/2
cannot, martinot?
Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it
the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I
must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2 machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered
from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
On Sat, 19 May 2018 12:50:28 -0700, martinot wrote:
Den lördag 19 maj 2018 kl. 18:30:45 UTC+2 skrev tholen:Or just for OS/2, martinot. What can NT, BSD, or Linux do that OS/2
You won't find OS/2 pulling such shenanigans, martinot.Yes, that can be irritating. But not that different from my macOS
machines, or iOS and Android devices. Or many modern web apps and
services like from Google, Amazon and Facebook.
A clear plus for old systems like NT and OS/2, or modern OSS
alternatives, like *BSD and Linux.
cannot, martinot?
Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
pretty useless.
Wireless is another example.
Dave
On Sun, 20 May 2018 11:14:12 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is pretty useless.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
Wireless is another example.
Of what, Yeo?
Dave
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
Why?
Something that doesn't work on OS/2.
The real question is why are you posting from Windows to an OS/2
advocacy group.
Note that I'm actually posting from OS/2.
Dave
tholen wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2018 11:14:12 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is pretty useless.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
Why?
Wireless is another example.
Of what, Yeo?
Something that doesn't work on OS/2.
Dave
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
The real question is why are you posting from Windows to an OS/2
advocacy group. Note that I'm actually posting from OS/2.
Dave
On Sun, 20 May 2018 00:50:52 -0700, martinot wrote:
Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2 machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
Classic nostalgia.
But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
But what good are those, if they won't run OS/2?
Indeed!
Haha - good question! :D
On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:16:54 -0700, Double-A wrote:
1042> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1042> I am shocked that Tholen is not even using OS/2 to post here!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Oh the hypocrisy!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1042> For shame!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Double-A
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Double-A?
martinot wrote:
But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
But what good are those, if they won't run OS/2?
Dave Yeo wrote:
Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
pretty useless.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
Wireless is another example.
Of what, Yeo?
Dave
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
In article <r8negd5uffgdmfdn2udfrb7lk1gu2mbhn2@4ax.com>
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
th003n tholed:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:08:25 -0500, dizzy wrote:
9159> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
9159> The tholokook is back,
Who is "The tholokook", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using >that alias.
9159> calls himself "th003n", now.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do >with OS/2, dizzy?
Why your long hiatuses, kooky?
Zzzz.
Newsgroups: alt.test,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Zzzz.
On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:59:35 -0500, dizzy wrote:
1857> Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with >OS/2, dizzy?
1857> What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 81:11:59 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,696 |