OS/2 vs Win3.1
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Sun Oct 16 08:31:40 CDT 2005
>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>
>> How does OS/2 warp V3 compare to other PC OSs like CDR Concurrnet386 or
>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
>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.
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.
More information about the cctech