Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

[Guest Greg Lamonte]

My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if it's

going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware support.

Isn't that a shame? :(

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Google Groups has this thing where you can rate posts. Has anyone

else seen that?

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

XP x64 will be officially supported for a long time. It will get patches and

updates for a long time. I liked it a lot, but I've made the move to Vista

64. It appears to have somewhat better driver support, and I suspect that

driver support will continue to improve and grow. But I think "what you see

is what you get" for XP x64 driver support at this point. There may be some

folks who add drivers for X:P x64 while they're doing the Vista 64 drivers.

But I'm not counting on it. Primarily because of the testing needs. The

actual code changes requjired would be simple and straightforward. No

different than those required to back port to XP 32-bit from Vista 32-bit.

But it adds a whole new layer of testing and supporting, and that's

expensive.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message

news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if

> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware

> support. Isn't that a shame? :(

>

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they

are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well

supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to die

anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version, probably

will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7 the other

day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively short while.

 

Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of their

capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was destined

to die!

 

Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be flushed,

since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested, all of the

new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto Windows instead.

(?)

 

XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly unique

in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely identical to

Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software as they were with

hardware at the time.

 

But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party

developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message

news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if

> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware

> support. Isn't that a shame? :(

>

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

NEWS RELEASE

M-3592

 

 

FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

 

 

Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

 

 

REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

Microsoft Operating System/2 (MS OS/2™), a new personal computer system

operating system. MS OS/2 is planned for phased release to OEM manufacturers

beginning in the fourth quarter of 1987. Designed and developed specifically

to harness the capabilities of personal computers based upon the Intel®

80286 and 80386 microprocessors, MS OS/2 provides significant new benefits

to personal computer application software developers and end-users.

 

 

MS OS/2, a multi-tasking operating system which allows applications software

to use up to 16 Mb of memory on 80286 and 80386-based personal computers,

can be adapted for use on most personal computers based on the 80286 and

80386 processors, including the IBM® PC AT and other popular systems in use

today. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is an integral part of the

MS OS/2 product, providing a sophisticated graphical user interface to the

MS OS/2 system. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is derived from the

existing Microsoft® Windows product developed and marketed by Microsoft for

the current generation of IBM personal computers and compatible machines.

 

 

The MS OS/2 product is the first to be announced as the result of the Joint

Development Agreement announced by IBM and Microsoft in August 1985.

Microsoft will be offering MS OS/2, including the MS OS/2 Windows

presentation manager, to all its existing OEM customers.

 

 

"Microsoft Operating System/2 provides the foundation for the next phase of

exciting growth in the personal computer industry," said Bill Gates,

chairman of Microsoft. "Microsoft is committed to providing outstanding

systems software products to the personal computer industry. MS OS/2 will be

the platform upon which the next 1000 exciting personal computer

applications software products are built. In particular, our commitment to

the power of the graphical user interface has been realized with the

announcement of the MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager and the new IBM

Personal System/2™ series. We believe that these machines represent a new

standard in personal computer graphics capabilities which will drive the

software industry toward the creation of incredible new graphics-based

applications software products."

 

.....

 

Tom

 

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

news:OucKc0wRIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they

> are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well

> supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to

> die anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version,

> probably will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7 the

> other day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively short

> while.

>

> Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of

> their capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was

> destined to die!

>

> Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be

> flushed, since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested,

> all of the new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto

> Windows instead. (?)

>

> XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly

> unique in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely

> identical to Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software as

> they were with hardware at the time.

>

> But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party

> developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?

>

>

> Tony. . .

>

>

> "Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message

> news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if

>> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware

>> support. Isn't that a shame? :(

>>

>

>

[Guest Nero]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Tom Ferguson wrote:

> NEWS RELEASE

> M-3592

>

>

> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>

>

> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>

>

> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

> Microsoft Operating System/2

 

Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a

TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true

multitasking OS.

 

"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message

news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Tom Ferguson wrote:

>> NEWS RELEASE

>> M-3592

>>

>>

>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>>

>>

>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>>

>>

>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

>> Microsoft Operating System/2

>

> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a

> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

I remember John Dvorac sometime around 91 - 92, when he said that in order

to do any kind of mlti-tasking, you needed a minimum of two machines!

 

Personally, I think that J.D. said many well balanced horrendues'nesses -

but that one got to take the buiscuit?

 

TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the

processor.

 

Windows, or OS/2 - I remain of the firm opinion that OS-based multi-tasking

always relies on time-slicing, so, is not true. With the 'Dual-Cores', the

concept was fianlly realized, but can you use OS/2 for that?

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message

news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Tom Ferguson wrote:

>> NEWS RELEASE

>> M-3592

>>

>>

>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>>

>>

>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>>

>>

>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

>> Microsoft Operating System/2

>

> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a

> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

This is pretty much what I mean. Laying the marketing 'hype' of this example

under the light of historical analysis, there's no escaping the fact that MS

did develop both systems from scratch and that the 'Joint Venture' consisted

of IBM investing in what they believed was the more advanced system, at a

time when MS had already decided to make Windows the OS of the future.

 

The philosophy is clear - you cannot allow yourself to let your production

eat away at your basic capital while all the competition keeps theirs

sitting in the bank. Doing that means that if you invest in the wrong system

you leave your competitors in a position where they can eventually buy you

out. So, you come up with a scheme to make the competition expend a large

sum on the 'hopefully' wrong system! Now, IBM didn't make all that many

stupid business deals to bring them in that position and it took a 'Queen

Sacrifice' to have them make one, but their home turf was in hardware and in

the final end they lost their hardware, didn't they? (All, but the

Winchester HD's and the 'PC' brand name, together with the BIOS - as I

recall. Their hardware brand 'Lexmark' was sold off to an outsider.)

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:evBLIkLSIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> NEWS RELEASE

> M-3592

>

>

> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>

>

> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>

>

> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

> Microsoft Operating System/2 (MS OS/2™), a new personal computer system

> operating system. MS OS/2 is planned for phased release to OEM

> manufacturers beginning in the fourth quarter of 1987. Designed and

> developed specifically to harness the capabilities of personal computers

> based upon the Intel® 80286 and 80386 microprocessors, MS OS/2 provides

> significant new benefits to personal computer application software

> developers and end-users.

>

>

> MS OS/2, a multi-tasking operating system which allows applications

> software to use up to 16 Mb of memory on 80286 and 80386-based personal

> computers, can be adapted for use on most personal computers based on the

> 80286 and 80386 processors, including the IBM® PC AT and other popular

> systems in use today. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager is an

> integral part of the MS OS/2 product, providing a sophisticated graphical

> user interface to the MS OS/2 system. The MS OS/2 Windows presentation

> manager is derived from the existing Microsoft® Windows product developed

> and marketed by Microsoft for the current generation of IBM personal

> computers and compatible machines.

>

>

> The MS OS/2 product is the first to be announced as the result of the

> Joint Development Agreement announced by IBM and Microsoft in August 1985.

> Microsoft will be offering MS OS/2, including the MS OS/2 Windows

> presentation manager, to all its existing OEM customers.

>

>

> "Microsoft Operating System/2 provides the foundation for the next phase

> of exciting growth in the personal computer industry," said Bill Gates,

> chairman of Microsoft. "Microsoft is committed to providing outstanding

> systems software products to the personal computer industry. MS OS/2 will

> be the platform upon which the next 1000 exciting personal computer

> applications software products are built. In particular, our commitment to

> the power of the graphical user interface has been realized with the

> announcement of the MS OS/2 Windows presentation manager and the new IBM

> Personal System/2™ series. We believe that these machines represent a new

> standard in personal computer graphics capabilities which will drive the

> software industry toward the creation of incredible new graphics-based

> applications software products."

>

> ....

>

> Tom

>

> MSMVP 1998-2007

>

> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

> news:OucKc0wRIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Well, isn't there a few obvious differences, though? Those who think they

>> are really going to need XP x64 a few years ahead, still will have a well

>> supported Server version to lean on. I very much doubt that is going to

>> die anytime soon. Those who want to stay with the Workstation version,

>> probably will have a follow-up Vista version (someone mention Windows7

>> the other day?) that might iron out the worst wrinkles in a relatively

>> short while.

>>

>> Do not forget that when IBM was lured into investing a large amount of

>> their capital into OS/2, that OS's objective was fullfilled. That OS was

>> destined to die!

>>

>> Originally, as I've heard it - it was Windows that was doomed to be

>> flushed, since OS/2 was so much more advanced, but as IBM got interested,

>> all of the new (and secret) stuff was amputated and then grafted onto

>> Windows instead. (?)

>>

>> XP x64 may well be 'fizzling' out for other reasons, but it is hardly

>> unique in the way OS/2 was. And OS/2 hardware support was completely

>> identical to Window's, wasn't it? IBM just wasn't as good with software

>> as they were with hardware at the time.

>>

>> But I agree, if porting drivers is so difficult why didn't 3rd party

>> developers grab at the chance to use XP x64 as a porting test-bed?

>>

>>

>> Tony. . .

>>

>>

>> "Greg Lamonte" <lagre345@aul.com> wrote in message

>> news:4771040d$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>> My favorite OS was OS/2. I like Windows XP 64 and it looks to me as if

>>> it's going to disappear just like OS/2 did because of lack of hardware

>>> support. Isn't that a shame? :(

>>>

>>

>>

>

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

"Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message

news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Tom Ferguson wrote:

>> NEWS RELEASE

>> M-3592

>>

>>

>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>>

>>

>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>>

>>

>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

>> Microsoft Operating System/2

>

> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a

> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

 

Not even close. MS developed OS2 under a contract with IBM and with their

participation. A few years into that contract, disagreement arose over the

direction of that development. After some discussion, the two parties

severed the joint development. MS continued development and released their

system as Windows 3.0. IBM continued development and released OS2. There

were those who thought OS2 "better". Others voted with their money for

Windows 3.0. After continuing to support OS2 for a short period, IBM ceased

all development.

 

All of this is public information if one wants to seek it out.

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

What's really meta is when I am in XP64, multitasking, and I also have

OS/2 running in a virtual machine on Virtualbox, and in OS/2 I'm

multitasking.

 

Doing more with two dead OS's than many people with with one live OS.

[Guest Marc Desiderius]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

 

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message

> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true

> multitasking OS.

 

Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

 

I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute

of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you are

a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

[Guest Marc Desiderius]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

 

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

>I remember John Dvorac sometime around 91 - 92, when he said that in order

>to do any kind of mlti-tasking, you needed a minimum of two machines!

 

You are lost in time, dude... With today's dual-processors what do you think

CAN/SHOULD take place?

 

> TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the

> processor.

 

You are an encyclopaedia, man. Spread your knowledge sparingly so that you

don't confuse the geeks reading this crap

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

I don't know why you feel being insulting is macho, but that stuff is not

welcome in this ng. Take to AOL.

 

"Marc Desiderius" <lmarcode@lefeuvre.net> wrote in message

news:4775189e$0$8856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message

>

>> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true

>> multitasking OS.

>

> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

>

> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute

> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you

> are a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

>

>

[Guest John John]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Marc Desiderius wrote:

> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message

>

>

>>So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true

>>multitasking OS.

>

>

> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

>

> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute

> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you are

> a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

 

Colin didn't use insults to make his point, and he has not pushed the

conversation to levels warranting a strongly worded reply. Why do you

resort to insults to try to make your point?

 

John

[Guest Homer J. Simpson]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

> I suppose that if you think Windoze is a multitasker you must be destitute

> of knowledge about what really constitutes a multitasking OS but, if you

> are a M$ lemming, that surely explains your position, doesn't it? :)

 

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, at least stop with the childish

"Windoze" and "M$". That's so 1990's.

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,

especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and easily checked

with commonly-available resources.

 

...........

Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to run several

programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU. This is done by

switching from one program to another fast enough to create the appearance

that all programs are executing simultaneously. There are two types of

multitasking:

Preemptive multitasking. In preemptive multitasking, the operating system

decides how to allocate CPU time slices to each program. At the end of a

time slice, the currently active program is forced to yield control to the

operating system, whether it wants to or not. Examples of operating systems

that support premptive multitasking are Unix®, Windows® 95/98, Windows® NT

and the planned release of Mac® OS X.

Cooperative multitasking. In cooperative multitasking, each program controls

how much CPU time it needs. This means that a program must cooperate in

yielding control to other programs, or else it will hog the CPU. Examples of

operating systems that support cooperative multitasking are Windows® 3.1 and

Mac® OS 8.5.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Civil-and-Environmental-Engineering/1-124JFall2000/LectureNotes/detail/multithreading.htm

 

...........

This remains valid across multi-core and multi-processor systems. It is the

OS that arbitrates core and processor tasking.

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

 

 

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

news:%23BY%23dfPSIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

{Snip}

> TRUE multi-tasking, therefore is not a property of the OS, but one of the

> processor.

>

> Windows, or OS/2 - I remain of the firm opinion that OS-based

> multi-tasking always relies on time-slicing, so, is not true. With the

> 'Dual-Cores', the concept was fianlly realized, but can you use OS/2 for

> that?

>

>

> Tony. . .

>

>

> "Nero" <noroac5490@ael.com> wrote in message

> news:47743a86$0$15385$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Tom Ferguson wrote:

>>> NEWS RELEASE

>>> M-3592

>>>

>>>

>>> FOR RELEASE APRIL 2, 1987

>>>

>>>

>>> Microsoft Operating System/2™ With Windows Presentation Manager Provides

>>> Foundation for Next Generation of Personal Computer Industry

>>>

>>>

>>> REDMOND, WA • April 2, 1987 • Microsoft Corporation today announced

>>> Microsoft Operating System/2

>>

>> Hmmm, so Microsoft called Windows 3.1 OS/2? Shame on them. OS/2 was a

>> TRUE, real-time mult-itasker unlike any flavors of Windoze ever since

>

>

[Guest XS11E]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:

> You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,

> especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and

> easily checked with commonly-available resources.

>

> ..........

> Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to

> run several programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU.

 

As far as computers are concerned, your definition is correct but

multitasking is a term reserved for computers, it is a general term and

the meaning is much broader.

 

http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=Multitasking

 

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project:

http://improve-usenet.org

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

 

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9A148FF07E91Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> You might want to do a bit of research before you make statements,

>> especially those that are stock-in-trade to the audience and

>> easily checked with commonly-available resources.

>>

>> ..........

>> Multitasking is the ability of a computer's operating system to

>> run several programs (or processes) concurrently on a single CPU.

>

> As far as computers are concerned, your definition is correct but

> multitasking is a term reserved for computers, it is a general term and

> the meaning is much broader.

>

> http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=Multitasking

>

>

>

>

> --

> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

> The Usenet Improvement Project:

> http://improve-usenet.org

 

Thanks. Very useful to know, I am sure. However, was that discussion not

about computers? Such a long time ago. Memory fades, and fades....

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

PS

It was not my definition. ;-)

[Guest Tony Harding]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Marc Desiderius wrote:

> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message

>

>> So what is true multitasking to you, Linux? Of course Windows is a true

>> multitasking OS.

>

> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

 

So kindly enlighten us as to what constitutes a "TRUE multitasking OS"

to your way of thinking.

[Guest Chris Campbell]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

 

"Tony Harding" <ToHard@nowhere.org> wrote in message

>> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

>> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

>> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

>

> So kindly enlighten us as to what constitutes a "TRUE multitasking OS" to

> your way of thinking.

 

try here...

http://www.databook.bz/default.nsf/8525608c005e322585255d7c00545af7/4349d4081cd07b4d8525641500701bef?OpenDocument

 

and here

http://www.palmerpatent.com/CL718/dependency_cooperative_programs_accomplish_task_106/5590323_optimal_parallel_architecture_real_multitasking.html

 

If this stuff is above your head, try here:

http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/

[Guest Tony Harding]

Re: Is Windows XP 64bit going down the way OS/2 did?

 

Chris Campbell wrote:

> "Tony Harding" <ToHard@nowhere.org> wrote in message

>

>>> Although I don't yet use Linux - but I am sure I will once it gets ironed

>>> out - yes, Linux - unlike Windoze - is a TRUE multitasking OS, and so was

>>> OS/2 (not the windoze variety).

>> So kindly enlighten us as to what constitutes a "TRUE multitasking OS" to

>> your way of thinking.

>

> try here...

> http://www.databook.bz/default.nsf/8525608c005e322585255d7c00545af7/4349d4081cd07b4d8525641500701bef?OpenDocument

>

> and here

> http://www.palmerpatent.com/CL718/dependency_cooperative_programs_accomplish_task_106/5590323_optimal_parallel_architecture_real_multitasking.html

 

Thanks for the links, BTW. I'm not here everyday but I do appreciate them.

> If this stuff is above your head, try here:

> http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/

 

AH, Curious George, one of my favorites! :)