SPONSORED LINKS
> Yes, I must comment on this.
That's why I asked--I'd like to hear 'em.
> Yes, Windows is a dog - I detest it. However, I have just changed to Warp, a
> that is a revelation. It is undoubtedly superior to MAc OS, for a start it i
> robust multitasker.
Score one for OS/2. Question: Can a Mac download stuff via
a modem in the background while you go about your business? Is it good
enough (as is Windows) to do that? That's about the most multitasking I ever
do. I'm not interested in the famous OS/2 feat of formatting floppies while
you download... ;)
As some of the list already know, I have used OS/2 in every incarnation
except 3.0/Warp. I have been very disappointed every time. Frankly, it
suffers from lack of drivers (though that is being rectified) and worst of
all--lack of software (and no, I see no point to using OS/2 just to run
my Windows software). Most of the major apps I use don't have OS/2 versions
and likely never will. PageMaker, Adobe Photoshop, Aldus Freehand, MS
Excel, (Ami Pro is in OS/2, so I'll make an exception there). In my view,
OS/2 will forever be relegated to a tiny, niche market that is much, much
smaller than the 10% the Macintosh pulls in. That means no apps and few
drivers. That view has held true for a number of years now.
Its a shame too, because as you say, OS/2 is great. Only problem
is that its an orphan too. Aldus turned their back on them. WordPerfect
walked away. Microsoft (of course) did, and Lotus probably *would* have
if they weren't so desparate to stay in the game. Lotus is the only
biggie they have left, and from all appearances, SmartSuite doesn't
particularly sell like hotcakes on the OS/2 platform (at least Ami Pro
has a respectable showing in Windows).
> Yes, I do admire the power PC, but really significant tests (by the Matlab
> people - see their latest newsletter) don't show any real speed advantage ov
> the Pentium (give or take a floating point Bug !!!). The power PC seems about
Would you mind commenting more here? Was the PPC using native code?
Most of the Mac Sys 7.5 has PPC extensions & many major vendors have written
native PPC code already. This means the chip's capabilities are starting
to actually be used. I don't know of *any* x86 software that has been
recompiled to take advantage of the Pentium's capabilties, as has been
suggested by Intel--this after 1 1/2 years of Pentium systems on the market.
The PowerMac has been on the market for what--9 months or less?
Nearly every major app on the platform already has PPC native code out and
available.
> twice the speed on my thinkpad. The current windows emulator on the power PC
> a complete dog. (286 speed).
Partly true--and it only runs Win in Std. Mode. It emulates a
286, but not at 286 speed. Actually its speed is about the same as a
high-end 386 or low-end 486.
Insignia solutions has a full license agreement and access to Windows
code from Microsoft, and claims to have a 486-emulator nearly ready to
run SoftWindows in Enhanced mode and at a faster rate. Their license
also extends to Windows95. Perhaps they'll make it better.
Meanwhile, you can also get a 486-chip on a card and literally have
two different computers under the same hood. If I dump my desktop, I may
get one of those instead. We'll see...
> The next generation may be where power PC really
> kills the Intel competition.
Perhaps. It will be interesting to watch. Even if the P6 holds it
own though, it'll probably be saddled with a rotten operating system--unless
Win95 or future NT actually delivers what they claim.
> So my 2 cents worth is, try Warp first. All your windows stuff will still ru
> and run well.
Maybe--but the question is "why"?
True, it is an interim step to getting code native to your operating
system, but in the case of OS/2--there isn't any. At least with a Mac,
there's applications to move to (though admittedly, they are kind of
drying up somewhat).
> Mac OS has been a great system, but its now outdated. In the
> future, IBM will have a power PC version running OS2.
IBM has been talking about making a PPC machine for a year now--
and still don't have a box put together yet, much less an operating system
to run on it. With the exception of the industrial market where the 601
is being used to replace their old "Power" chip, they haven't a clue what
to do with PPC.
I'd look to Motorola putting a machine together with a PPC chip in
it before IBM does. And you better believe Motorola's machine won't be
running a PPC version of OS/2--it'll be running a PPC version of Windows NT.
> Kind regards
>
> Rob Ballagh
Thanks for the input, Rob.
----- ________________________________
Randy Whittle whittle@usc.edu | Y'know, Tuna just |
USC School of Business (Fight on, 'SC Trojans!)| doesn't taste the same |
(My opinions are mine, but since I'm | since they took the |
right, they should be yours too.) | Dolphin out! |
--------------------------------