Kali McLaughlin wrote: > Our comment on all this is that OS/2 is the all round winner!. James has > been using it for years, and claims that it is - > > a/ The interface is object oriented, useful and consistent. > b/ It not only runs odd dos programs, but allows them access to your > large drives. You can specify allsorts of details, such as direct access > to ports, different autoexec.bat programs, and specify drivers in a > window that are specific to the session. James has a train Control > program that has been in use for 10 years, written in DOS. It uses very > odd video modes, and takes direct control of commports, and hooks the > 18.2Hz clock timer. It works perfectly under OS/2 in a full screen > window, not at all under Windows. > c/ As it has access to OS/2's resources, it allows use of the LAN. > d/ If you cant get drivers for OS/2, you might for DOS, and that works > too. > e/ It runs Win 3.1 natively > f/ It has a 'wine' for Win 95 stuff (dont know if its as good as Linux > wine, tho ) > g/ In a heteregenous network, with floppy traffic as well, it appears > that the OS/2 machine never gets virused while it's associates do. > h/ I use DOS, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win NT 4, Linux 5 - 7, and am familiar > with Win2000 & Win XP - Try running Dos on those and see where you get ! I saw some listed for sale at Ebay. I ordered, but it never showed. forgot about it.
Does it create a flat address space like Phar Lap? I assume it has multiple virtual desktops? I tried coding with DEBUG one time in one drdos TASKMAX window, then running a saved copy of the .com in another one. didnt like that. :^}
