RE: Free OS/400

Some historical persepective on the desktop OS...

There are two distinct flavors of Windows: the "GUI for DOS" versions that
include everything from the first Windows products on through the Windows 98
platform (and probably Windows ME, but I avoid that as much as possible, so
I'm not sure), and those built on the OS/2 base, which include NT and 2000.

The DOS extenders all suffer from the same memory hemmorhage and instability
issues that plague nearly any system built using the DOS memory model.
Since all memory is basically available to any process, it was a regular
occurrence for a badly behaved program to run amok and wipe out memory of
other applications or even the system itself, resulting in lockups and blue
screens.

OS/2, on the other hand, implemented a true protected memory scheme.  I
remember the first time I had a DOS-based graphical games running in a DOS
box, while still running Communications Manager in the background - what a
geek rush <grin>.  This was possible due to the fact that IBM got the memory
protection right, and that's simply because they'd been building such
operating systems for a long time.

NT was Microsoft's first foray into an actual operating system (regardless
of where they got the original code) and, as could be expected, it was a
pretty lousy attempt.  You may be able to steal the code for drawing a
widget (as Windows stole theirs from Apple), but you have to be a pretty
damned good programmer to steal an operating system.  At that time, I don't
think Redmond had anybody who actually understood systems architecture, and
it showecd.  Windows NT was laughable as a mission critical OS until version
4.

However, to give them credit, they seem to have built a staff that
understands system programming (although IMHO they still don't have a clue
on how to deliver quality application programs).  Windows 2000 seems to be a
pretty good operating system.  It's not on par with OS/2, and the Microsoft
applications that are all but bound to the platform (and therefore make up a
large part of the public perception of Windows) are of such poor quality as
to be embarrassing, but it's a far cry from the bad old Windows 3.11 and
prior days.

OS/2 has nothing of Windows 3.11 in it, except perhaps the basic structure
of the graphical user interface APIs (and even those were significantly
enhanced and made more object-like, in keeping with IBM's OS design
philosophies).  NT and 2000, on the other hand, have at their heart OS/2's
basic architecture, bastardized in whatever ways MS can devise to keep a
monopoly on the marketplace.

Thus, as Windows 95 and 98 are replaced with 2000 (and I guess XP - I think
it's built on "the NT kernel" like 2000), what we're seeing is actually a
sort of backhanded triumph of OS/2, although nobody in IBM's marketing
department would see it that way.

Joe

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---