Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:379 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7371 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10173
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Message-ID: <1993May1.211741.25086@wam.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <C6BGzv.7MK@uceng.uc.edu> <1993May1.154707.10177@hubcap.clemson.edu> <C6D616.25M@uceng.uc.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 21:17:41 GMT
Lines: 134

In article <C6D616.25M@uceng.uc.edu> bferrell@ant.occ.uc.edu (Brett Ferrell) writes:
>In article <1993May1.154707.10177@hubcap.clemson.edu> ludes@hubcap.clemson.edu (Larry "Ludes" Ludwig) writes:


	[munch]


>>You must of read too many OS/2 advertisements.  "Crash Protection" is such
>>a marketing gimick, it isn't funny..  Out of 4 months of using Windows on my 
>>new machine I've only had it crash ONCE, and I don't have a "run of the mill"
>>configuration.


	[munch  following is reformatted]


>It does sound funny, I will admit.  But for me it is true.  Windows
> crashed on
>all of the time (and from what I have read in PC Mag, this is not
> the exception)


	I'd say that the massive crash problems are exceedingly rare.
	Windows _itself_ almost never crashes, but it can be crashed by
	an errant application (My personal favorite?  Any one of the Corel
	3.0 programs).  On the other hand, I have had OS/2 crash randomly
	a number of times, mostly just running it's own applications.

	For instance.  Today I discovered a new one.  While I was downloading
	with Procomm Plus For Windows (running seamless with the standard
	VGA drivers on a run-o' da mill VGA card--640x480), I decided that
	I wanted to edit a copy of a quote that I wanted to add to my 
	.finger.  But since I've learned not to really trust seamless, 
	I fired up a full screen WinOS/23.1 session.  Whoops, the download
	finished while WinOS/2 was loading.  It had _just_ gotten
	the pointer up, so I hit alt-escape to get back t the desktop
	(I have a lot of fonts, so loading takes a good long while).
	
	Blam.  Screen trashed, Procomm hangs up.  Hm.  Well, I can sorta
	see the mouse, so I clicked on the minimized WINOS/2 session 
	and got back my fullscreen Windows session (but the color were
	off--red and green and yellow and brown instead of blues and greys).
	So I closed this, and got back to the desktop (now fully restored).

	PP+ was still sitting, window open, but it was no longer 
	"connected" to the com port--so I exited it (the normal way--
	it told me I was still online and it would hang up, though it
	was _already_ hung up).  Hm.  Well, load anothe--no, bad idea. 
	Shutdown and reboot.

	Ok, refresh first.. Now, shutdown.  Yes, everything is closed...

	Hm.  Nothing seems to be happening.  Let's see.. Ah, the 
	windows list still comes up.  OK, let's try shutdown again.

	No go.  Huh.

	Alright, wait 60 seconds to see if it's just running slow.

	Hmm.  Still seems to be running OS/2.  Try shutdown again.
	Nothing.  Oh well.  Reboot.  Enjoy the checkdisk time.
  
	In this case, a part of the OS crashed not only itself, but
	OS/2 entirely (which isn't even smart enough to tell when it;s
	been compromised, I guess).  In everyday (specifically _today_)
	use.


> OS/2 gives each windows app a VDM and they can't touch each other or
>(generally) anything they aren't supposed to have.


	That's the idea, anyway.  In truth, when a program crashes on 
	OS/2, it will bring the system down with it.  The programs that
	would just GPF under Windows do the same under OS/2, but programs
	that are fine under DOS and Windows bring OS/2 screaming to a halt,
	task protection or no.  

	For instance, I'm still wondering why print preview in a windowed
	WP 5.1 (DOS) locks up my system.  It works fine under DOS or even in
	a dos box under Windows 3.1.  (Admittedly, it doesn't crash if I run
	WP51 full screen, but the first time this bug big me, it bit hard).



>  If windows works for you,
>then great.  Maybe this is why some people don't see why OS/2 is the OS of 
>choice.  If windows doesn't crash on you, and you don't mind waiting on each
>task,


	Please explain.  The only time I wait on anything under Windows is
	when I'm copying or formatting a floppy, or when printing (and even
	then, not long--I get 9 to 11 pages dumped to the printman per 
	minute, and can _still_ go do things--slowly--while it's doing 
	this--I've downloaded with PP+ @9600 while printing).



> and not being able to adress your memory better than DOS,


	Not sure what you mean here.  OS/2 sees 16 megs, uses 5 or six
	of these for it's own use (more if you want to count WinOS/2). 
	Windows sees 16 megs, uses 3 or 4 (more like 5 if you count the
	disk cache as I am for OS/2) for itself.  If memory efficiency 
	were a big issue, PC GEOS would be the current king of the 
	Intel desktop.  


> some of the
>key reasons for using OS/2 are gone.  I probably  would still use it, but it
>would be more of an even fight.


	On the other hand.. I am finally able to say with some confidence
	that both OS/2 and Windows have a bit of hardware sensitivity to
	them.  For instance, the machine I am sitting at runs both fine, 
	while the machine next to me constantly locks up under Windows. 
	(But ran OS/2 without a hitch once I got it through a 5-crash 
	install).  On the whole, I'd say OS/2 is a whole lot more sensitive
	than Windows, but there are (I suppose) machines that Windows
	just doesn't like.  


>Wittism of th week: "I think that it's wrong to believe in an ism, you should
>                     believe in yourself"  Ferrish Bueller 

	
	Wasn't this _Ferris_ Bueller?


-- 
There are stupid laws, and then there are stupider than normal laws.
