16 Oct
2005
16 Oct
'05
9:31 a.m.
Subject: OS/2 vs Win3.1
From: Bert Thomas <bert at brothom.nl>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:15:19 +0100
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Allison wrote:
Thankyou for the informative comparison. I know 3.1 was 16 bit, I really
didn't bother bringing W9x up and Concurrent386 was the other.
Concurrent is interesting as the copy I have is a 10 user license. I
fully read everything but it appears to support multiple users on one system
as a time sharing and task sharing alternative to DOS. I susuect it's also
32bit or has some core task controls as 32bit code.
Allison
How does OS/2 warp V3 compare to other PC OSs
like CDR Concurrnet386 or
win3.1?
I don't know anything about Concurrent386, but comparing OS/2 Warp with
win 3.1 is like comparing pigs with streetlights.
Win3.1 is a graphical shell around DOS. To overcome DOS' memory
limitations is uses some more advanced techniques of the processor, such
as protected mode. However, win3.1 programs are 16-bit. Win3.1 itself is
16 bit. Win 3.1 only allows cooperative multitasking. That means that a
another program can only get control if the running program gives it up.
This is a very short summery of Win3.1
OS/2 2.0 and higher are 32-bit operating systems. However, compatibility
with older OS/2 applications was considered very important and therefore
parts of the kernel and all device drivers are mainly 16 bit. Only
recently some 32-bit device drivers were written.
OS/2 has its own graphical subsystem - a very advanced one. It can run
DOS programs in 'virtual dos machines' or VDM. A special mode of the 386
processor allows a task to act as if it where a real mode task. Anything
that task does can trap the processor and thus can be handled by
exception handlers. OS/2 is very strong is this area.
OS/2 has its own file system with some special features like "extended
attributes".
OS/2 has dynamic priorities for tasks, that makes it more responsive.
For example, a task that has focus in the GUI is slightly raised in
priority. Or when a background task was blocking for something it might
receive a slight priority boost when that something becomes available.
OS/2's time critical priority is handled "soft realtime". I've used OS/2
in the past for process control, dosing in particular. For such
applications realtime behaviour is very important as a lattency of 1 sec
or more is disasterous for the product being manufactered.
I can go on and on, but if you want to know more let me know and I write
it down later on.
Regards,
Bert