OS/2 2.1 vs. OS/2 For Windows

OS/2 2.1 vs. OS/2 For Windows

Post by Janne Matti Pietari » Wed, 09 Mar 1994 06:54:24



Hi!

I just bought my first PC to run OS/2. But now I have difficulties
in deciding whether to buy Windows and OS/2 For Windows or
OS/2 2.1. I understand that that if I had no need to run Windows
programs, OS/2 For Windows would be the ideal solution. However,
I need to run Mathematica in Windows (hope that OS/2 version comes
soon...). IBM has told me that there are no differencies between
OS/2.1 and OS/2 For Windows. Is that true? Which of them is
cheaper to upgrade to future versions of OS/2. And how about
installing - is another easier to install than another?
What other factors there are I should consider before making
my decision?

I'm really eager to have OS/2, becouse currently I have
only a DOS in my machine...Just please help me to decide
which one buy.

        Thanks!

                Janne Pietarila

 
 
 

1. OS/2 2.1 vs. OS/2 For Windows

In a message from this newsgroup, Janne Pietarila asks:

Ij> I understand that that if I had no need to run Windows
Ij> programs, OS/2 For Windows would be the ideal solution. However,
Ij> I need to run Mathematica in Windows (hope that OS/2 version comes
Ij> soon...). IBM has told me that there are no differencies between
Ij> OS/2.1 and OS/2 For Windows. Is that true? Which of them is
Ij> cheaper to upgrade to future versions of OS/2. And how about
Ij> installing - is another easier to install than another?

Hey Janne!

    Well, it all depends on what you already have on your system, and what
you want to do.  I've been running OS/2 for Windows for over a month
now with no functional differences from OS/2 2.1GA.  Here are the few
major differences:

    1) OS/2 For Windows is cheaper, because it has no windows code
included in the         system.

    2) in order to run Windows software, you need Windows installed on
your machine         before you install OS/2 For Windows.  OS/2 2.1GA has
windows code built in,         so there is no need to have Windows 3.1
preinstalled.

    3) If you already have Windows on your system, OS/2 for Windows is a
lot easier         to install.  If you don't have Windows 3.1, OS/2 2.1GA is
easier to install.

    4) As for upgrading, OS/2 for Windows requires its own Service Pack to
be                upgraded to OS/2 2.11, which is really not a bad thing.  This
way IBM can          hopefully work out some of the problems with the
current CSD before it is          released, so we OS/2 for Windows users
don't have to worry about having          those problems ourselves. [grin]

    Other than that, both versions are functionaly the same.  You don't
HAVE to have Windows 3.1 to install OS/2 for Windows - but if you don't
you'll only be able to run OS/2 and DOS software.

    From what you explained of your setup (you didn't mention if you had
Windows...I assume you don't), OS/2 GA would be the best way for you to
go.  Of course, if you have Windows on your machine already, save
yourself some money and install the OS/2 for Windows package.  Later!

Brad Barclay,
WAFFER! MMP

-------------------
Message from WAFFER! MultiMedia Productions.




---
 t KWQ/2 1.2d t "God id Dead" - Neiztche.  "Neiztche is dead" - God.

2. :Where is operator new[] & operator delete[]

3. OS/2 for Windows vs OS/2 2.1, WAV playing from CMD file

4. Newbie: Pls HELP

5. OS/2 2.0 vs OS/2 2.1 : Differences in DOS/Windows compatibility

6. I hope gold drops to $200 after the rollover and I 'lose my ass'

7. OS/2 2.1 for Windows and OS/2 2.1 'full pack'

8. Windows NT vs OS/2 2.1

9. Windows NT vs. OS/2 2.1 Review

10. Windows NT vs OS/2 2.1

11. OS/2 2.1 vs windows CD ROM