Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Snip
To: cameronm
Subject: Seybold report on office computing
Date: Wed Apr 29 19:11:02 PDT 1992
Date: Wed Jul 24 23:42:16 1991
>From billg Wed Jul 24 10:51:31 1991
To: jonl steveb
Subject: Seybold report on office computing
Cc: carls jeffr martyta mikehal paulma russw W-pamed
Date: Wed Jul 24 10:51:16 1991
This report highlights our failure to get our message out.
It praises Os/2 2.0 endlessly using the charts from the IBM
white papers. For example the chart showing windows giving you
only 506k of memory and Os/2 giving you 620k.
It praises the better windows than windows capability - including
“one of the best attributes of windows applications run within
Os/2 is the superior system intgrity. Should an application crash you
can just closre the session and continue. No need to close down and
restart. Performance is helped by Os/2 preemptive multitasking and
the ability to share I/o. At the roll out bash in New York IBM
demonstated the same windows application running on a Windows
machine and on an Os/2 machine. Certainly there is no performance
trade off for the greater stability offered by Os/2 2.0″
Very interesting article on Os/2 2.0 !
My experiences with Os/2 were not good but what were yours ?
How did you find Os2 yourself ?
Did you have any problems with it ?
Was it quicker to boot up than Windows ?
Did you feel it had some really good native software written for it ?
Do you feel that computing would have been much better if Os2 have
become the main dominate OS ?
Peter
|
