




           ۻ  ۻ  ۻ   ۻ        ۻ   ۻ
          ͼ ۻ ۻ  ۺ        ۻ ۻ
          ۺ      ۺ ۻ ۺ ۻ ۺ  ۺ ۺ   ۺ
          ۺ      ۺ ۺۻۺ ͼ ۺ  ۺ ۺ   ۺ
          ۻ ۺ  ۺ ۺ ۺ        ɼ ɼ
           ͼ ͼ  ͼ ͼ  ͼ        ͼ   ͼ
                   ۻ  ۻ     ۻ ۻ
                  ۻ ͼ    ɼ ۻ
                  ۺ   ۺ ۻ   ɼ   ɼ
                  ۺ   ۺ ۺ  ɼ   ͼ
                  ɼ ۺ ɼ    ۻ
                   ͼ  ͼ ͼ     ͼ

             IBM is waging a good fight to put OS/2 2.1 on
                            your desktop.




    ۻ
    ۺ
    ۺ
    ۺ
    ۺ
    ͼ ncreasingly, experts are realizing that DOS is dead. OK- the
    markit hasn't figured that out, so sale are still strong. Yet people
    are realizing that DOS is a technology from the early 1980's in a
    world of 1990's hardware.

        As a result, developers are jostling their contenders for the next
    great operating system. Nevertheless, These MicroSoft wannables need
    to realize that DOS never will be replaced. The cost and nuisance of
    changing means that most existing machines will never migrate to a new
    operation system. Instead, power users, new installations, and large
    corporations with openings for OS/2, Windows NT, and Unix.

        Unix has always been a technology that might make it " Next Year"; 
    despite its strenghts, Unix probaly never will be big on the desktop.
    MicroSoft's Windows NT is OS/2 bigest Competitor. And OS/2 has a good
    chance of grapping the leading role---- if it gets good suport.

        Windows NT seems to be ahead of its time. Just as OS/2 was first
    built in the days of 286 processors but needed the 386, 486, or 586
    computers to be really successful, Windows NT seems to need more than
    a 486 to do well.

        So where is OS/2? Its growing by leaps and bounds in the strong
    user circle, but it hasn't made much od a inpact on the normal user
    yet for a few reasons: The convenience of DOS and its consort, 
    Windows 3.1; the momentum of DOS; and real and perceved weakness in 
    OS/2.

        In My opinion OS/2 is superior to DOS and Windows 3.1 in many
    aspects. OS/2 runs DOS and Windows 3.1 programs faster with faster
    disk access, giving bigger workspace, and the ability to run all
    programs in a true multitasking enviroment. another aspect to OS/2
    is its ability to run true 32-bit addressing that is not availible
    in DOS or Windows. Until a few month ago, you had little choice but
    OS/2 as an overgrown DOS and Windows duet. Many programs are now
    available in the better 32-bit OS/2 versions. These Versions are
    often faster and more powerful then there DOS equivalents.

        As for the Programmer it is harder for a programmer to write
    a fancy program within the 16-bit limitations of DOS and Windows
    then in the 32-bit enveritment of OS/2 and this will give the
    markit to OS/2 becouse if this advantage, although this advantage
    is shared with Windows NT and Unix.

       Another Advantage to OS/2 is one that takes time to understand.
    DOS and Windows users often become accustomed to doing only one 
    thing at a time were, with OS/2 you can mulitask several things at
    the same time. so you don't need to stop your program and reboot your
    computer so you can run your FAX modem.

       OS/2 helps in maintaining your investment in older programs were
    you spent time in learning them and the cost, and the same time,
    it opens the door to future 32-bit programs you can't run with DOS
    or Windows becouse that offer little suport for 32-bit processing.

       OS/2 requirments are 30mag of HardDisk Space and a min of
    4 mb of RAM it runs a little slow with 4mb of RAM it is perfered
    to have 8-16 mb of RAM to run at its best.
