NS404 Works Great!!
L. Mark Bruffey
http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
Mark
--
L. Mark Bruffey
mbru...@netcarrier.com
http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
**********************************************
Have you experienced the good news?
"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
(Romans 10:13)
**********************************************
Richard Hevron
Charles Patterson
"B|| Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
"B|| http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
"B|| Mark
Can this be installed in a separate partition and not affect my
current setup?
Regards, Charles...
VP ('97-'98) BB&C PC Users Assoc. Victoria, BC.
-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Eclecticisms:
VENI, VIDI, VICE --I came, I saw, I partied.
.. <A HREF mailto:cb...@islandnet.com><A>=http://www.islandnet.com/~cbear
-- MR/2 2.26 NR
John Twelker
L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
> Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>
> http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
> Mark
>
> --
> L. Mark Bruffey
> mbru...@netcarrier.com
> http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
> **********************************************
> Have you experienced the good news?
> "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
> (Romans 10:13)
> **********************************************
Aloha from Maui,
KUDOS to the IBM/Netcape team ... Netscape Communicator 4.04 is a great
app! I love it!
--
Aloha,
John Twelker
RaceManPro Windsurfing Software, Co-Developer
http://www.ultranet.com/~lefebvre/RaceManPro/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
After 14 years of Microsoft, now happily running OS/2 Warp 4.0 ... while
we still have a choice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When Microsoft finally becomes "King of the Software World", then our
choices will be very easy ... whether or not to own a computer :-) .
Brent White
>Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>
>http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
>Mark
>
>--
>L. Mark Bruffey
>mbru...@netcarrier.com
>http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
>**********************************************
>Have you experienced the good news?
>"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
>(Romans 10:13)
>**********************************************
>
>
the referred-to page that will help you do that (it's free).
Robato Yao
Although I am posting this with IBM Newsreader, heck I am running Comm
4.04 right now on another session.
I actually have to rub my own eyes in disbelief but I am finally running
Communicator for OS/2.
Rgds,
Chris
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
flm...@ibm.net
>Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>
>http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
>Mark
Have you tried mediabeans on 404. See
http://www.alphaWorks.ibm.com/formula/mediabeans.
Platform(s): All Java Platforms
OS/2 is the premier platform for Java.
Tim Martin
>
> You're right! Very nice beta, so far!
Are you NOT impressed Mr. Hevron? This is a nice piece of
work and for my nickle, well worth the wait. I've been running
it all evening long now - even cut dinner short and took a
movie reincheck (The Avengers no less!) just to sit and play
with it. I'm very impressed. Having some small problems but
nothing earth shattering - and nothing like the betas we went
through with NS/2! No SIQ hangs, no Communicator freezes
and all the new features, functions and fun things. I'm not
sure I'll ever go back to NS/2 now... :-)
Steve Drewell
called os2en404.exe. It was only just over 1MB and couldn't be executed or
unzipped. Has another version been uploaded since 20:00 (ish) BST on 30th
July?
Cheers,
Steve
On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
¯ From: "L. Mark Bruffey" <mbru...@netcarrier.com>
¯ Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
¯ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:49:54 -0400
¯ Subject: NS404 Works Great!!
¯
¯ Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
¯
¯ http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
¯
¯ Mark
¯
¯ --
¯
¯
¯
¯
Richard Hevron
Tim Martin wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tim Martin <OS2...@warpcity.com>
> Web Master
> Warp City Web Site (http://www.warpcity.com)
>
> Tim Martin
> Web Master <OS2...@warpcity.com>
> Warp City Web Site (http://www.warpcity.com)
> Netscape Conference Address
> Netscape Conference DLS Server
> Additional Information:
> Last Name Martin
> First Name Tim
> Version 2.1
Christian Gustafson
L. Mark Bruffey wrote in message <35C106A2...@netcarrier.com>...
Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
At what point do you pack it in?
--
:::::===== Christian Gustafson
:::::===== Marina City -- Chicago, Illinois
========== It is not the fault of the strong that the many are weak.
========== Steve Forbes forever! http://www.ahgo.org
Gilbert Saint-flour
Gustafson" <xti...@ibm.net> said:
>>Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many
>times can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
Communicator 4.04 wasn't out "over a year ago", it's been out only a
couple of months.
>At what point do you pack it in?
Chris, it's not because you "packed it in" and went to NT to subsidize
Bill's golfing equipment that everybody has to do the same.
Am I sensing some regrets, deep inside ? C'mon, tell us, we won't eat you
!
Gilbert Saint-flour <g...@ibm.net>
Brad BARCLAY
>Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
>can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>
Huh? Where's the poke in the eye? I'd say that if anything OS/2 users
have had it good in the browser wars: quality has not been sacrificed for the
need to be the first to release the X.0 release. A year ago when Netscape and
MS were releasing NS 4.0 and IE 4.0, both were quite buggy at their release.
They should have had another 3 months of development. But the race to be
"first" became more important than quality.
All of the bug fixes in the Windows versions of Communicator 4.x have
made it into the OS/2 version. In a sense, you Windows users have been our
guinea pigs. :)
Sound like someone trying to justify the absurd? To some of us, quickly
released, poorly tested software is *not* preferable to rock-solid software
with a slower release cycle. Besides - the existing GA version of Netscape
for OS/2 continues to work perfectly - and still has the best Java support in
the industry.
At what point will I pack it in? The day when quality and customer
satisfaction takes second-seat to forced preloads and monopolistic tie-ins.
These are the very reasons why I'm no longer a Microsoft customer.
Brad Barclay.
---------------
From the OS/2 WARP v4 Desktop of Brad Barclay.
E-Mail: yazt...@idirect.com WWW: http://warp.idirect.com
Public PGP Key available upon request. [ ] VoiceType Dictated.
Richard Hevron
fine because you're not zinging OS/2?
By your logic one assumes also that you are packing-it-in on NT 5.0.
Christian Gustafson wrote:
> L. Mark Bruffey wrote in message <35C106A2...@netcarrier.com>...
> >Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
> >
> >http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
> Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
> can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>
> At what point do you pack it in?
>
Chris Smith
>
>L. Mark Bruffey wrote in message <35C106A2...@netcarrier.com>...
>>Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>>
>>http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
>
>Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
>can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>
>At what point do you pack it in?
We only use OS/2 to get on some zealots nerves, like you for example.
When you, McCoy, and your ilk go crawl into a hole somewhere, then
we'll all switch to Windows!!!
Chris Smith
cmsmi...@wingnetxyz.netxyz
*** The above contains my true email address! Remove
*** the letters 'xyz' everywhere they occur!!!
John Hong
: Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
: can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
: At what point do you pack it in?
At what point do you give up nagging us? You are not changing
anyone's mind here. At least, not mine. However fine and dandy WinNT,
Linux, etc is, I have no plans on moving onto it just yet. I'm still
happy running OS/2. As great as those other OS's are, they probably have
their own little problems just like OS/2 does.
Perhaps the question should be asked to you... At what point do
*you* pack it in?
Robato Yao
>After going through the signup procedure and downloading, the file was
>called os2en404.exe. It was only just over 1MB and couldn't be executed or
>unzipped. Has another version been uploaded since 20:00 (ish) BST on 30th
>July?
>
>Cheers,
>Steve
The full version is like 7MB and yes IBM has fixed that file problem.
The plug in pack is like 2MB.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
>On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
>
>=AF From: "L. Mark Bruffey" <mbru...@netcarrier.com>
>=AF Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>=AF Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:49:54 -0400
>=AF Subject: NS404 Works Great!!
>=AF=20
>=AF Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>=AF=20
>=AF http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>=AF=20
>=AF Mark
>=AF=20
>=AF --
>=AF L. Mark Bruffey
>=AF mbru...@netcarrier.com
>=AF http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
>=AF **********************************************
>=AF Have you experienced the good news?
>=AF "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
>=AF (Romans 10:13)
>=AF **********************************************
>=AF=20
>=AF=20
>=AF=20
>=AF=20
Robato Yao
>In <35c20...@news3.ibm.net>, "Christian Gustafson" <xti...@ibm.net> writes:
>>can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>>
>>At what point do you pack it in?
>
>have had it good in the browser wars: quality has not been sacrificed for the
>need to be the first to release the X.0 release. A year ago when Netscape and
>MS were releasing NS 4.0 and IE 4.0, both were quite buggy at their release.
>They should have had another 3 months of development. But the race to be
>"first" became more important than quality.
>
> All of the bug fixes in the Windows versions of Communicator 4.x have
>made it into the OS/2 version. In a sense, you Windows users have been our
>guinea pigs. :)
>
> Sound like someone trying to justify the absurd? To some of us, quickly
>released, poorly tested software is *not* preferable to rock-solid software
>with a slower release cycle. Besides - the existing GA version of Netscape
>for OS/2 continues to work perfectly - and still has the best Java support in
>the industry.
>
> At what point will I pack it in? The day when quality and customer
>satisfaction takes second-seat to forced preloads and monopolistic tie-ins.
>These are the very reasons why I'm no longer a Microsoft customer.
>
>Brad Barclay.
Indeed. Communicator 4.04 for OS/2 is definitely more stable and faster
than Communicator 4.01 for Windows, although 4.05 for Windows is
definitely much more improved in speed and stability over 4.01 as well.
We skipped the entire phase of early buggy Communicator versions.
This beta is definitely more stable than the latest edition of NS/2, and
I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
menu and bars.
Caching seems very fast, but screen redraws are slower than NS/2,
indicating a beta phase of development. This is the only beta thing I
have seen with this.
Communicator for OS/2 has two major differences over Communicator in any
other platform. First the Java is configurable and tailored so you can
pick any version of IBM's JVMs, and second it looks like it's capable of
web based updating of the operating system. In Windows, if you need a
new version of Java to work with Communicator, you need a new version of
Communicator as a whole package with the Java. In OS/2, Java can be
installed seperately and you only tell Communicator which directory
your new JVM is.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>---------------
>From the OS/2 WARP v4 Desktop of Brad Barclay.
>E-Mail: yazt...@idirect.com WWW: http://warp.idirect.com
>Public PGP Key available upon request. [ ] VoiceType Dictated.
>
>
David H. McCoy
> >
>
>
> Wasn't this due in GA over a year ago? A beta in Q3 1998. How many times
> can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>
> At what point do you pack it in?
>
> :::::===== Christian Gustafson
> :::::===== Marina City -- Chicago, Illinois
> ========== It is not the fault of the strong that the many are weak.
> ========== Steve Forbes forever! http://www.ahgo.org
>
>
>
>
And these are the SAME people who said that NS/2 was all they needed. I
love it!! Whatever old program is always great until something new
appears, then its the same upgrade-itis that Windows users have, but since
OS/2 users are somehow "smarter," its not quite the same.
A paradox?
--
-----------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
-----------------------------------
David H. McCoy
> Aloha from Maui,
>
> KUDOS to the IBM/Netcape team ... Netscape Communicator 4.04 is a great
> app! I love it!
>
>
Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
David H. McCoy
> This beta is definitely more stable than the latest edition of NS/2, and
> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
> menu and bars.
>
What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
to code around something that doesn't exist?
David H. McCoy
> other platform. First the Java is configurable and tailored so you can
> pick any version of IBM's JVMs, and second it looks like it's capable of
> web based updating of the operating system. In Windows, if you need a
> new version of Java to work with Communicator, you need a new version of
> Communicator as a whole package with the Java. In OS/2, Java can be
> installed seperately and you only tell Communicator which directory
> your new JVM is.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Chris
>
So, it's tailored to allow one to "buy any color car, as long as its
black." You are still stuck using ONE JVM, while with Windows, you have
many choices.
Second, already, the OS/2 version is still one almost two versions behind.
Got SmartBrowsing? Nope.
Bytecode patching? Nope.
The new one even matches IE when it comes to adding plugins in a fairly
seamless manner. Got that? Nope?
I know, you(not you specifically, Chris) don't need those features. I've
heard it before.
OS/2. Still a day late and a dollar short.
David H. McCoy
>
> One notices the frequent delays in NT 5.0. Is that a poke-in-the-eye or just
> fine because you're not zinging OS/2?
>
> By your logic one assumes also that you are packing-it-in on NT 5.0.
>
> Christian Gustafson wrote:
>
I'll tell you the difference. After reading about the feature set of NT,
the file system encryption, DirectX 5 support and the like, I freely admit
that I want it, but what the hey, I'll wait.
As opposed to some people here saying "NS/2 is all they need" or "Windows
users have upgrade-itis." Yet, those same people were first out the chute
to try this new program that's only over a year late.
Christian Gustafson
...
>And these are the SAME people who said that NS/2 was all they needed. I
>love it!! Whatever old program is always great until something new
>appears, then its the same upgrade-itis that Windows users have, but since
>OS/2 users are somehow "smarter," its not quite the same.
Well said. And IBM is throwing them a beta-bone.
>A paradox?
No -- the last version of Paradox that runs on OS/2 is 16-bit version 7,
and you need to patch this one or it bleeds memory like a sieve. :)
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
--
Christian Gustafson
>On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 01:01:13, tho...@spam.ham wrote:
>
>ŻDavid H. McCoy writes:
>Ż> Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
>
>ŻYou have a peculiar definition of "version". Exactly what are the
>Żdifferences?
>
>`Troller' McCoy is just eating his heart out because this is
>*still another* example that proves how full of crap he is
>with his claims of no support for OS/2.
THIS is support? An unannounced beta of Communicator/2, discovered by
some persistent hungry OS/2 user on a lonely IBM ftp site?
OS/2 users are masochists.
Christian Gustafson
...
>We only use OS/2 to get on some zealots nerves, like you for example.
>When you, McCoy, and your ilk go crawl into a hole somewhere, then
>we'll all switch to Windows!!!
You know, we can't ... sleep at night ... knowing ... that you're running that,
that thing ... that awful unwanted orphan OS ... omygod you're still running it ...
stop! ... Jesus Christ someone make them stop ... is there an FDISK in the
house? ...
Anti-aliased screen fonts, Chris. A real task manager. Services. Applications.
Come home, Chris, just come home.
Christian Gustafson
>: Second, already, the OS/2 version is still one almost two versions behind.
>
>: I know, you(not you specifically, Chris) don't need those features. I've
>: heard it before.
>
>: OS/2. Still a day late and a dollar short.
>
>Last weekend, I bought a new Sony notebook with Win98 preinstalled. It
>came with Communicator 4.04 preinstalled too. Now, I had to make a call
>to Sony PC support and I mentioned that I had just downloaded
>Communicator 4.05 and was ready to install it. The techie said NOT TO
>because there are problems with Communicator 4.05 and Win98 and if I
>installed it, Sony would not support it if I experienced problems. Also,
>today I was browsing through Windows Magazine, and saw a blurb about
>conflicts in Win98 with Communicator 4.05. I've decided not to install it
>on my notebook because of these remarks. Just because Netscape has
>released a piece of software with a higher version number doesn't
>automatically mean it's better than the previous version. If the OS/2
>Communicator 4.04 is functionally identical to the Windows version, then
>I'll certainly use it because then, I'll have the same functionally at
>home, at work (and there I'm using the Win31 version!), and on the road.
Yeah, Netscape is junk, you'd be better off running MSIE4. On NT.
--
:::::===== Christian Gustafson
:::::===== Marina City -- Chicago, Illinois
========== It is not the fault of the strong that the many are weak.
========== Steve Forbes forever! http://www.ahgo.org
>--
> -- Joe Heafner
>
>Joe Heafner, Astronomy and Physics Instructor. Work:(828)327-7000 x246
>my surname with my first initial at mercury dot interpath dot com
><URL:http://mercury.interpath.com/~heafnerj/>
Christian Gustafson
>In <35c20...@news3.ibm.net>, on 07/31/98 at 01:13 PM, "Christian
>Gustafson" <xti...@ibm.net> said:
>
>
>>times can you folks stand being poked in the eye like this?
>
>couple of months.
>
>>At what point do you pack it in?
>
>Chris, it's not because you "packed it in" and went to NT to subsidize
>Bill's golfing equipment that everybody has to do the same.
You don't have to, but you will, eventually. I switched to NT with this new
PC back in October 1997, and I have yet to experience a BSOD. I got one
at work, after I mistakenly installed a PIIX bus-master driver that didn't
match my MB chipset. Ouch! With OS/2, I spent so much time fighting off
everyday system hangs, even with System Commander on board. NT4 is a
polished, modern OS.
>Am I sensing some regrets, deep inside ? C'mon, tell us, we won't eat you
>!
No, not at all. I'm running the premiere Java development platform.
My copy of JBuilder 2 should be here any day now. Let's see, what do I miss
about OS/2 ... little touches like being able to configure program objects to
either open a second instance of the app or display the current running one,
that was nice. That and other touches are what an ex-user misses about the
old nag.
Long live the NT home users!
>Gilbert Saint-flour <g...@ibm.net>
Christian Gustafson
>One notices the frequent delays in NT 5.0. Is that a poke-in-the-eye or just
>fine because you're not zinging OS/2?
>
>By your logic one assumes also that you are packing-it-in on NT 5.0.
Are you kidding?! If it ships next year it will be SIX YEARS EARLY. ;)
Christian Gustafson
>everyday system hangs, even with System Commander on board. NT4 is a
Whoops, I meant Process Commander ... you know I did ...
Dennis Peterson
up. The error dialog says to make a change in the Preferences menu but
there is no such option available. Anyone else seeing this?
Otherwise, nice to have the mail filters, finally.
dp
L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
> Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>
> http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
> Mark
>
> --
> L. Mark Bruffey
> mbru...@netcarrier.com
> http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
> **********************************************
> Have you experienced the good news?
> "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
> (Romans 10:13)
> **********************************************
tho...@spam.ham
> Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
You have a peculiar definition of "version". Exactly what are the
differences?
rj friedman
ŻDavid H. McCoy writes:
Ż> Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
ŻYou have a peculiar definition of "version". Exactly what are the
Żdifferences?
`Troller' McCoy is just eating his heart out because this is
*still another* example that proves how full of crap he is
with his claims of no support for OS/2.
Poor little Davey - every time he blesses this newsgroup
with another installment of his verbal diarhea, he winds up
eating it himself. He must love the taste of it the way he
does it so often.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan r...@xxxmail.sysnet.net.tw
To send email - remove the `xxx'
________________________________________________________
rj friedman
(David H. McCoy) wrote:
Ż> One notices the frequent delays in NT 5.0. Is that a poke-in-the-eye or just
Ż> fine because you're not zinging OS/2?
Ż>
Ż> By your logic one assumes also that you are packing-it-in on NT 5.0.
ŻI'll tell you the difference. After reading about the feature set of NT,
Żthe file system encryption, DirectX 5 support and the like, I freely admit
Żthat I want it, but what the hey, I'll wait.
Sure you will. MS dangles a new carrot out in front of the
donkey's nose, and the dumb donkey just keeps on pulling the
cart. Never mind that when you get the carrot it isn't the
shiny, fresh, delicious item you thought it was; that when
you bite into the carrot you find that it is rotten to the
core. They just dangle a new carrot
in front of you. And you - donkey that you are - conditioned
as you are - bray in delight and start pulling again.
Ż David H. McCoy
Pull that cart, you donkey!
P.S. How many people did you blow up in Quakeworld today?
rro...@ibm.net
>In <35C106A2...@netcarrier.com>, "L. Mark Bruffey" <mbru...@netcarrier.com> writes:
>>Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>>
>>http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>>
>>Mark
>
>http://www.alphaWorks.ibm.com/formula/mediabeans.
>Platform(s): All Java Platforms
>
>OS/2 is the premier platform for Java.
>
Yeah and Windows is the premier platform for lockups and crashes! :)
Roger
rro...@ibm.net
>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>> menu and bars.
>>
>
>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>to code around something that doesn't exist?
>--
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
McCoy you obviously have a serious personal problem. Why don't you give
it a rest and go do something constructive!
Roger
flm...@ibm.net
>
>OS/2. Still a day late and a dollar short.
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
NT. Still Not There and likely the Next Titanic!
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
Truman Phillips
David H. McCoy wrote:
> In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
> > Communicator for OS/2 has two major differences over Communicator in any
> > other platform. First the Java is configurable and tailored so you can
> > pick any version of IBM's JVMs, and second it looks like it's capable of
> > web based updating of the operating system. In Windows, if you need a
> > new version of Java to work with Communicator, you need a new version of
> > Communicator as a whole package with the Java. In OS/2, Java can be
> > installed seperately and you only tell Communicator which directory
> > your new JVM is.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> So, it's tailored to allow one to "buy any color car, as long as its
> black." You are still stuck using ONE JVM, while with Windows, you have
> many choices.
>
> Second, already, the OS/2 version is still one almost two versions behind.
> Got SmartBrowsing? Nope.
> Bytecode patching? Nope.
> The new one even matches IE when it comes to adding plugins in a fairly
> seamless manner. Got that? Nope?
>
> I know, you(not you specifically, Chris) don't need those features. I've
> heard it before.
>
> OS/2. Still a day late and a dollar short.
> --
>
And you still don't understand it do you McCoy? We really don't care for what
Windoze people care for. I make this as a broad general comment, but feel it's
true. People who use an alternative OS don't have the same reasons as the
sheep that will follow the biggest dollar signs.
--
Truman Phillips
Computers -N- Such
109 1/2 W. Indiana Ave.
Perrysburg, OH 43551
Phone: 419-872-6557
Fax: 419-872-9329
Homepage: http://www.nwonline.net/cns
Matthew C Weigel
>>
>> One notices the frequent delays in NT 5.0. Is that a poke-in-the-eye or just
>>
>
Well hell, I'll freely admit I want NS Communicator. I'm willing to wait
too -- mainly because I want to have one set of accelator keys, though.
>As opposed to some people here saying "NS/2 is all they need" or "Windows
>users have upgrade-itis." Yet, those same people were first out the chute
>to try this new program that's only over a year late.
Bah- everyone wants the version that does them good, psychologically or
functionally or (usually) both. As soon as functionality is provided,
though, the rest is just icing. In my opinion and experience, NT 5 -- if it
lives up to hype ;-) -- will achieve functionality. OS/2, with version 3,
achieved functionality (gah- I used 2.1 recently -- didn't like it at all),
and with 4, added nice benefits.
Also IMO, OS/2 is allowed to sit on its laurels wrt new technology -- it had
all the new tech, long time ago, and the technology fell through. Not
OS/2's fault -- but a lot of the power it could possess was taken away.
Still functional, though, and it will still be functional wrt technology
that IBM considers necessary. Good enough for me, for now- if there's a
change in that, I'll add a good gui to Linux and keep on moving.
--
Matthew
Matthew C Weigel
>You know, we can't ... sleep at night ... knowing ... that you're running
>that, that thing ... that awful unwanted orphan OS ... omygod you're still
>running it ... stop! ... Jesus Christ someone make them stop ... is there
>an FDISK in the house? ...
>
>Anti-aliased screen fonts, Chris. A real task manager. Services.
>Applications. Come home, Chris, just come home.
Brought a tear to my eye and a smile to my lips -- thanks.
Don't worry, I'm installing 95 in a little while -- there it will know
brotherhood booting from LILO with Be, OS/2, Linux, OpenBSD, and eventually
NeXt. God but I feel like a slut.
--
Matthew
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
<snip>
> And these are the SAME people who said that NS/2 was all they
> needed. I love it!! Whatever old program is always great until
> something new appears, then its the same upgrade-itis that Windows
> users have, but since OS/2 users are somehow "smarter," its not
> quite the same.
Are you not the *same* David H. McCoy, (aka John Ominor) who used
OS/2, advocated OS/2, and said that NT was laughable at best?
I love it!
Here are some fun posts to browse at your leasure:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=316018394
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=245441277
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=223639977
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=220753461
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=142094453
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=203332749
Here's a good one: In this post, McCoy talks about how crappy IE 4.0
is.
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=232181111
Yet in this thread (NS404 Works Great!!) he praises it!
And my favorite web-page:
http://www.monumental.com/dmccoy/cal/dissect/dissect.htm
(Wow... Can anyone say self-contradiction?)
I can find more if needed... There are TONS of these posts in
DejaNews' database.
(Ironically, McCoy was just as pretentious, annoying, and
self-important then as he is now... Except that he was pro-OS/2.)
> A paradox?
Quite so...
McCoy, is the pennicle of hypocracy, and every post he makes that
"bashes" OS/2, promotes NT, or pokes fun at OS/2 users, only adds to
this laughable display of pompousness.
-Steven Hunter
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
<snip>
> I'll tell you the difference. After reading about the feature set of
> NT, the file system encryption, DirectX 5 support and the like, I
> freely admit that I want it, but what the hey, I'll wait.
Ah... Mmm Hmm...
Wait wait wait... Seems like you've bitched in the past about people
having to wait for something... Ummm, what was it... Oh gee, let me
think... It has something to do with... (memory don't fail me now!)...
OH YEAH! It was Netscape Communicator 4.04 for OS/2!!!
Well shit.... Don't that just beat all... People having to WAIT for
software that was promised at an earlier date. What is the world
coming to, eh?
MS is not saint, nor are Netscape and IBM. Deal with it.
> As opposed to some people here saying "NS/2 is all they need" or
> "Windows users have upgrade-itis." Yet, those same people were first
> out the chute to try this new program that's only over a year late.
As someone who said "NS/2 is great... Boy I wish I had
Communicator/2": Bite me.
tho...@spam.ham
> OS/2 users are masochists.
How interesting, coming from someone who has to go out of his way to
read and respond to articles that appear in an OS/2 newsgroup.
Bob O
wrote:
>In article <35C12BA7...@ibm.net>, twe...@ibm.net says...
>> Aloha from Maui,
>>
>> KUDOS to the IBM/Netcape team ... Netscape Communicator 4.04 is a great
>> app! I love it!
>>
>>
>
>Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
No doubt this will reinforce your theory that IBM has abandoned OS/2,
at least in your own mind.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Robato Yao
>rj friedman wrote in message ...
>>
>>ŻDavid H. McCoy writes:
>>Ż> Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
>>
>>ŻYou have a peculiar definition of "version". Exactly what are the
>>Żdifferences?
>>
>>`Troller' McCoy is just eating his heart out because this is
>>*still another* example that proves how full of crap he is
>>with his claims of no support for OS/2.
>
>
>some persistent hungry OS/2 user on a lonely IBM ftp site?
You go through a series of nicely laid out web pages
with registration notices and license agreements before you download.
This is not an obscure IBM FTP web site. It is certainly very formal.
Rgds,
Chris
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
Robato Yao
>David H. McCoy wrote in message ...
>>And these are the SAME people who said that NS/2 was all they needed. I
>>love it!! Whatever old program is always great until something new
>>appears, then its the same upgrade-itis that Windows users have, but since
>>OS/2 users are somehow "smarter," its not quite the same.
>
>
Except that it's not as broken as the ones Netscape threw to Windows
users last year. This one seems more solid than 1997 Communicators (I
have a CD for 4.01 for Windows).
I now have Communicators in all four versions---Windows, Mac, Linux and
OS/2.
Robato Yao
>On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:23:59, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <35C12BA7...@ibm.net>, twe...@ibm.net says...
>>> Aloha from Maui,
>>>
>>> KUDOS to the IBM/Netcape team ... Netscape Communicator 4.04 is a great
>>> app! I love it!
>>>
>>>
>>
It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
4.5 preview release 1.
>>--
>>-----------------------------------
>>David H. McCoy
>>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>>-----------------------------------
>
>No doubt this will reinforce your theory that IBM has abandoned OS/2,
>at least in your own mind.
>
>
>
>Bob O - Computing for fun
Rgds,
Robato Yao
>In <MPG.102c2b011...@news1.mnsinc.com>, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) writes:
>>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>>> menu and bars.
>>>
>>
>>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>>to code around something that doesn't exist?
FP 6 and 7 only allows momentary SIQ hangs, then the OS returns control
to the desktop or bring up the task window.
Communicator entirely avoids SIQ hangs at all. It remains completely
responsive in any situation. The first solution works, but this is
even better.
Rgds,
Chris
>>--
>>-----------------------------------
>>David H. McCoy
>>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>>-----------------------------------
>
>
>McCoy you obviously have a serious personal problem. Why don't you give
>it a rest and go do something constructive!
>
>Roger
Christian Gustafson
>In <35c28...@news3.ibm.net>, "Christian Gustafson" <xti...@ibm.net> writes:
...
>>THIS is support? An unannounced beta of Communicator/2, discovered by
>>some persistent hungry OS/2 user on a lonely IBM ftp site?
>
>You go through a series of nicely laid out web pages
>with registration notices and license agreements before you download.
>This is not an obscure IBM FTP web site. It is certainly very formal.
My error, since I'm not downloading it. Yes, it's a web page and not
a quiet ftp bequest to the OS/2 world.
Paul Clarke
<mbru...@netcarrier.com> wrote:
> Try it for yourself. nets404.exe.
>
> http://service5.boulder.ibm.com/pcpd.nsf/OCOMM40+Main?openform
>
> Mark
>
> --
> L. Mark Bruffey
> mbru...@netcarrier.com
> http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~mbruffey
> **********************************************
> Have you experienced the good news?
> "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
> (Romans 10:13)
> **********************************************
>
>
Hello,
I think this is an excellent effort and all should be pround except...
When I download a page that has graphics I sometimes get regular white
horizontal lines across the graphic. If I scroll up and back or if
another window covers them the white lines disappear. I never had
this problem with 202. Other that that bring on the final version.
Regard
Paul Clarke
Canberra
William H. Pridgen
[snip]
>(Ironically, McCoy was just as pretentious, annoying, and
>self-important then as he is now... Except that he was pro-OS/2.)
>McCoy, is the pennicle of hypocracy, and every post he makes that
>"bashes" OS/2, promotes NT, or pokes fun at OS/2 users, only adds to
>this laughable display of pompousness.
McCoy may be pretentious, annoying, self-important, hypocritical, and
pompous, or none of those things, but be that as it may, I firmly
believe in the right to change one's mind.
__
Bill Pridgen
__
pri...@texas.net *** "The truth is out there, but so are lies."
rj friedman
Pridgen) wrote:
ŻMcCoy may be pretentious, annoying, self-important, hypocritical, and
Żpompous, or none of those things, but be that as it may, I firmly
Żbelieve in the right to change one's mind.
What about the right to be an asshole? Do you firmly believe
in that, too?
ŻBill Pridgen
rj friedman
Clarke) wrote:
ŻWhen I download a page that has graphics I sometimes get regular white
Żhorizontal lines across the graphic. If I scroll up and back or if
Żanother window covers them the white lines disappear. I never had
Żthis problem with 202...
Read the README file.
ŻPaul Clarke
William H. Pridgen
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:15:41, pri...@texas.net (William H.
>Pridgen) wrote:
>
>ŻMcCoy may be pretentious, annoying, self-important, hypocritical, and
>Żpompous, or none of those things, but be that as it may, I firmly
>Żbelieve in the right to change one's mind.
>
>What about the right to be an asshole? Do you firmly believe
>in that, too?
Yes.
David H. McCoy
>
> And you still don't understand it do you McCoy? We really don't care for what
> Windoze people care for. I make this as a broad general comment, but feel it's
> true. People who use an alternative OS don't have the same reasons as the
> sheep that will follow the biggest dollar signs.
>
>
Indeed. The so-called "sheep" wish for timely software and support. Please
don't do the alternative OS users the disservice of grouping them with
people like you.
David H. McCoy
says...
> In article <MPG.102c2eb0c...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'll tell you the difference. After reading about the feature set of
> > NT, the file system encryption, DirectX 5 support and the like, I
> > freely admit that I want it, but what the hey, I'll wait.
>
> Ah... Mmm Hmm...
>
> Wait wait wait... Seems like you've bitched in the past about people
> having to wait for something... Ummm, what was it... Oh gee, let me
> think... It has something to do with... (memory don't fail me now!)...
> OH YEAH! It was Netscape Communicator 4.04 for OS/2!!!
As usual, shadown, the point escapes you, but you are slow, so I will make
allowances. It is not the waiting that is the problem, but the fact that
so many uses claimes that they didn't want Comm/2. Or SS/97. Or SS/96.
Whatever they had at the time was fine. But as soon as whatever it is
comes out, those same people are first out the chute, but sadly, still
behind the curve.
But it doesn't matter. For what they are currently using is all they need.
Until the next version.....
> Well shit.... Don't that just beat all... People having to WAIT for
> software that was promised at an earlier date. What is the world
> coming to, eh?
>
> MS is not saint, nor are Netscape and IBM. Deal with it.
>
> > As opposed to some people here saying "NS/2 is all they need" or
> > "Windows users have upgrade-itis." Yet, those same people were first
> > out the chute to try this new program that's only over a year late.
>
> As someone who said "NS/2 is great... Boy I wish I had
> Communicator/2": Bite me.
This is the wrong newsgroup for such activity. Find a fetish group......
> -Steven Hunter
> hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
David H. McCoy
>
> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
> 4.5 preview release 1.
>
>
>
>
Steven C. Den Beste
this to the Deja-News archive:
>In <35c27...@news1.ibm.net>, rro...@ibm.net writes:
>>In <MPG.102c2b011...@news1.mnsinc.com>, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) writes:
>>>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>>> This beta is definitely more stable than the latest edition of NS/2, and
>>>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>>>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>>>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>>>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>>>> menu and bars.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>>>to code around something that doesn't exist?
>
>FP 6 and 7 only allows momentary SIQ hangs, then the OS returns control
>to the desktop or bring up the task window.
>
>Communicator entirely avoids SIQ hangs at all. It remains completely
>responsive in any situation. The first solution works, but this is
>even better.
I'd like to be sure I understand something: Does Communicator fix OS/2 so
that nothing whatever can cause SIQ hangs?
Or is it merely the case that Communicator itself no longer induces SIQ
hangs, though something else running at the same time still could?
(And if the latter, how can you be sure? It's only been out a few days, and
maybe they've just reduced the frequency of SIQ hangs but not eliminated
them altogether.)
Matthew C Weigel
>>
>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>
>>
>Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
WTF!?!?!? C'mon, David, you know the difference between major and minor
version numbers... the difference here is a minor version number. Kinda
like OS/2 handles windows proggies up to Win3.1, but not anything for
Win3.11 (if there *are* any programs built specifically for 3.11?) -- does
that mean OS/2 is three versions behind windows emulation? No -- 3.11 is a
minor version number ahead of 3.1, which is insignificant. Windows95 was a
major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
version number behind -- no missing functionality.
In general, minor version releases are for bug fixes, compatibility changes,
updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
--
Matthew
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
pri...@texas.net (William H. Pridgen) wrote:
<snip>
> McCoy may be pretentious, annoying, self-important, hypocritical,
> and pompous, <snip>, but be that as it may, I firmly believe in the
> right to change one's mind.
Too bad McCoy doesn't...
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
> As usual, shadown, the point escapes you, but you are slow, so I
> will make allowances. It is not the waiting that is the problem, but
> the fact that so many uses claimes that they didn't want Comm/2. Or
> SS/97. Or SS/96. Whatever they had at the time was fine. But as soon
> as whatever it is comes out, those same people are first out the
> chute, but sadly, still behind the curve.
I'd really like to see some proof that any (sane) person ever said
that they didn't want, or need, Communicator/2, that is using, and
sing the priases of it, now. I have allways wanted Communicator/2, and
SmartSuit 97. Now I have them. Good things come to thoose who wait.
As for behind the curve, I can't think of anything, *besides games*
(which is why I have Win95), that OS/2 does not have (application
wise), now that Communicator/2 (albeit a beta) is out.
> But it doesn't matter. For what they are currently using is all they
> need. Until the next version.....
Ah, just like NT 5, right?
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy "Hypocracy is my *middle* name."
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
<snip>
> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
So 4.05 - 4.04 = 1? Ah yes...
It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
nothing major.
Bob O
wrote:
IMO, the whole conversation is a misnomer. First of all to have an SIQ
hang you need an application to stop responding to its messages. Then
you need the system to not allow other input to be accepted as a result
of the first.
Near as I can tell IBM fixed the latter problem sometime in the past.
Or at least this specific problem disappeared quite a while ago for me.
Another problem was applications hanging, utilizing resources, and not
being killable and or creating a hole in the desktop. This problem
became fixed for me with a recent fixpak (not the most recent as I only
installed that today).
Also Netscape became much more killable with the recent refreshes as
well. (again I just installed the most recent refresh this a.m.- but
not Communicator the most recent NS/2 refresh). NS/2 crashed as
frequently but it crashed cleanly allowing an immediate restart.
So I would surmise the person is talking about fixing the first problem
which only affects the application. In other words the application may
be more stable or that when it does crash it crashes cleanly and clears
itself. Don't know for sure if the NS/2 refresh did this or the
fixpack.
Steven C. Den Beste
to the Deja-News archive:
>David H. McCoy <dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com> wrote:
>>In article <6pubg4$2cj$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>>
>>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>>
>>>
>>Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>
>WTF!?!?!? C'mon, David, you know the difference between major and minor
>version numbers... the difference here is a minor version number. Kinda
>like OS/2 handles windows proggies up to Win3.1, but not anything for
>Win3.11 (if there *are* any programs built specifically for 3.11?) -- does
>that mean OS/2 is three versions behind windows emulation? No -- 3.11 is a
>minor version number ahead of 3.1, which is insignificant. Windows95 was a
I'm afraid your memory is failing you. 3.11 included standard networking
support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
exactly a small change.
>major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
>talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
>OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
>version number behind -- no missing functionality.
You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
any consistency in how they are used.
Steven C. Den Beste
to the Deja-News archive:
>In article <MPG.102d11507...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>
>So 4.05 - 4.04 = 1? Ah yes...
>
>It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
>diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
>nothing major.
>
>-Steven Hunter
Between Win 95 and Win 95 A an entire filesystem was added.
Win 95 B integrated IE4, IIRC.
These are minor additions?
Bob O
wrote:
>On 1 Aug 1998 06:23:13 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) added
>this to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>In <35c27...@news1.ibm.net>, rro...@ibm.net writes:
>>>In <MPG.102c2b011...@news1.mnsinc.com>, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) writes:
>>>>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>>>> This beta is definitely more stable than the latest edition of NS/2, and
>>>>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>>>>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>>>>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>>>>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>>>>> menu and bars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>>>>to code around something that doesn't exist?
>>
>>FP 6 and 7 only allows momentary SIQ hangs, then the OS returns control
>>to the desktop or bring up the task window.
>>
>>Communicator entirely avoids SIQ hangs at all. It remains completely
>>responsive in any situation. The first solution works, but this is
>>even better.
>
>I'd like to be sure I understand something: Does Communicator fix OS/2 so
>that nothing whatever can cause SIQ hangs?
>
Try reading it again. He said that OS/2 allows momentary hangs (as set
by the user in setting the focus change parameter) This parameter is
provided to users so they can run programs that are slow to pick up
messages but otherwise run fine. This provides you with some additional
controls rather than shuttling aside such programs and potentially
causing problems for the program instead.
>Or is it merely the case that Communicator itself no longer induces SIQ
>hangs, though something else running at the same time still could?
You need to understand that a program must either hang or be balky in
picking up messages to induce an SIQ hang. What the fellow appears to
be saying is that the program is no longer balky and/or no longer hangs
itself and as such it is a misnomer to call such behavior an SIQ hang.
SIQ hangs are something down a chain of events that seem no longer to
occur at least here.
>(And if the latter, how can you be sure? It's only been out a few days, and
>maybe they've just reduced the frequency of SIQ hangs but not eliminated
>them altogether.)
Maybe but I have gone about a year without an SIQ hang and about 3
months or so without a NS/2 hang (though it still crashes from time to
time but not with the latest refresh, now in its 3rd hour, which isn't
remarkable as crashes seemed to occur about once a week or every other
week.)
Bob O
wrote:
>In article <6pubg4$2cj$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>
>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
So is 4.05 an actual version or mostly just a bug refresh of 4.0 which
was about as badly needed as any new version ever issued?
Bob O
wrote:
>On 1 Aug 1998 18:06:33 GMT, mcws...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weigel) added this
>to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>David H. McCoy <dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com> wrote:
>>>In article <6pubg4$2cj$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>>>
>>>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>>>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>>
>>WTF!?!?!? C'mon, David, you know the difference between major and minor
>>version numbers... the difference here is a minor version number. Kinda
>>like OS/2 handles windows proggies up to Win3.1, but not anything for
>>Win3.11 (if there *are* any programs built specifically for 3.11?) -- does
>>that mean OS/2 is three versions behind windows emulation? No -- 3.11 is a
>>minor version number ahead of 3.1, which is insignificant. Windows95 was a
>
>I'm afraid your memory is failing you. 3.11 included standard networking
>support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
>exactly a small change.
Are you not confusing WFWG 3.11 with Windows 3.11? I thought Windows
3.11 was only issued to cause problems with OS/2 2.1, they may have
included some new networking clients to entice installation, but it
seems that WFWG was the networking version they were pushing.
>>major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
>>talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
>>OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
>>version number behind -- no missing functionality.
>
>You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
>any consistency in how they are used.
Well the press had a field day on the bugginess of NS 4.0, one would
expect some minor refreshes after that. Like the WFWG 3.1 to 3.11
refresh.
>>In general, minor version releases are for bug fixes, compatibility changes,
>>updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
>>are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
>>-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
>>programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
>
Bob O
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Aug 1998 19:53:13 GMT, hun...@thunder.indstate.edu added this
>to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>In article <MPG.102d11507...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
>> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>>
>>So 4.05 - 4.04 = 1? Ah yes...
>>
>>It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
>>diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
>>nothing major.
>>
>>-Steven Hunter
>
>Between Win 95 and Win 95 A an entire filesystem was added.
>
>Win 95 B integrated IE4, IIRC.
>
>These are minor additions?
>
They were alternative versions not available to the general public as an
upgrade for one thing and were designed to address the deficiencies of
the long file names in Win95.
Even this is a traditional use. It has been traditional to assign a
letter upgrade to upgrades not designed for universal application.
Microsoft even did that with Win 3.0.
david raoul derbes
rj friedman <r...@xxxmail.sysnet.net.tw> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:15:41, pri...@texas.net (William H.
>Pridgen) wrote:
>
>ŻMcCoy may be pretentious, annoying, self-important, hypocritical, and
>Żpompous, or none of those things, but be that as it may, I firmly
>Żbelieve in the right to change one's mind.
>
>What about the right to be an asshole? Do you firmly believe
>in that, too?
I hate to disagree with R.J. in public, because most of the time he expresses
clearly what I haven't said out loud; but this time I hafta side with Bill P.:
I think everyone has a God-given right to be an asshole. Unfortunately.
(It's called "free will.")
Of course, everyone else has a right to tell those who avail themselves of
this right to f* off.
Hoping that I've offended neither Bill P. nor R.J.,
David Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
>
>ŻBill Pridgen
Steven C. Den Beste
to the Deja-News archive:
>As for behind the curve, I can't think of anything, *besides games*
>(which is why I have Win95), that OS/2 does not have (application
>wise), now that Communicator/2 (albeit a beta) is out.
While OS/2 may have programs which perform somewhat the same functions. you
are definitely behind the curve for high quality image processing software
and CAD, just to name two areas.
Yes, programs in both categories exist for OS/2. But they are not as
capable as the state-of-the-art releases for WIN32.
flm...@ibm.net
||On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 01:01:13, tho...@spam.ham wrote:
||
||/David H. McCoy writes:
||/| Yeah. Now OS/2 is only, well, ONE version behind everyone else.
||
||/You have a peculiar definition of "version". Exactly what are the
||/differences?
||
||`Troller' McCoy is just eating his heart out because this is
||*still another* example that proves how full of crap he is
||with his claims of no support for OS/2.
|
|
|THIS is support? An unannounced beta of Communicator/2, discovered by
|some persistent hungry OS/2 user on a lonely IBM ftp site?
|
|
|--
|:::::===== Christian Gustafson
So sorry. It is the NT users that are masochists. NT 5.0 can not ship
this year unless it is in a reduced-feature version. NT Alpha uses can
not easily transfer SQL applications and data to NT Intel servers.
(I know, I have tryed.) NT makes a very poor Internet server owing to
security issues and Java -- NT can not currently go there. And now
with Bill Gates gone from day to day operations NT is orphaned.
Balmer has not and probably will not voice support for it.
"Everything that can go wrong has has said one developer. For example,
features like Kerberos Security and support for Zero Administration for
windows have complicated NT's start up code, and dependencies on
certain Win98 features can not be finalized....."
Brand Chase is now responsible for NT marketing and he is likely to
drop the NT brand name entirely.
see page 42 Windows Magazine, August 1998.
Why not take a look and OS/2 and if not that Linux. You really are
banging your head with NT.
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
Brent White
>In article <MPG.102d11115...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>
>> will make allowances.
>> It is not the waiting that is the problem, but
>> the fact that so many uses claimes that they didn't want Comm/2. Or
>> SS/97. Or SS/96. Whatever they had at the time was fine. But as soon
>> as whatever it is comes out, those same people are first out the
>> chute, but sadly, still behind the curve.
>
Yeah, Mr. McCoy, you just keep spouting that claptrap all you want. I'm sure it
makes you feel so much better in light of the Object-Oriented Vapourware that
NT 4 was supposed to be.
I, and I'm sure quite a few others, patiently waited for Communicator/2 to come out
and wanted to try it. Hey, it's a full-functioning beta.
Mr. McCoy is just pissing in the wind, nothing more.
>I'd really like to see some proof that any (sane) person ever said
>that they didn't want, or need, Communicator/2, that is using, and
>sing the priases of it, now. I have allways wanted Communicator/2, and
>SmartSuit 97. Now I have them. Good things come to thoose who wait.
>
He only hears what he wants to hear, then holds us to things he thought we said.
I never heard of anyone, saying that.
Either David McCoy is manufacturing these quotes to pump up his overinflated ego
or he is full of shit, more likely both.
>As for behind the curve, I can't think of anything, *besides games*
>(which is why I have Win95), that OS/2 does not have (application
>wise), now that Communicator/2 (albeit a beta) is out.
>
It needs some work (Comm/2), but it is rock solid and I, as a regular Communicator/
98 and Communicator/X user, applaud Netscape for coming out with this.
As for the Matrox card, well, I am considering upgrading my video card, but until
they show a little more respect for Linux users, forget it.
I use Windows 98 and don't think a thing about it, but SuSE Linux 5.2 and OS/2
Warp 4 are taking much more of my time computing.
Now if we could just get Access 97 ported to OS/2 or Linux (or Wine runs it), as
that is my main professional area (RDBMS programming), I might just pitch Windows
98 off the drive.
>> But it doesn't matter. For what they are currently using is all they
>> need. Until the next version.....
>
>Ah, just like NT 5, right?
>
Ploy of the MS shills: Just you wait until the next version.
Say, Dave, where is that "Object Oriented" MS OS that was supposed to come out
by now? Gee, wasn't that supposed to be NT 4 (Cairo?)
Or are you not supposed to discuss that because you don't like the answer?
David H. McCoy
> On Sat, 01 Aug 1998 19:53:13 GMT, hun...@thunder.indstate.edu added this
> to the Deja-News archive:
>
> >In article <MPG.102d11507...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> > dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
> >
> >So 4.05 - 4.04 = 1? Ah yes...
> >
> >It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
> >diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
> >nothing major.
> >
> >-Steven Hunter
>
> Between Win 95 and Win 95 A an entire filesystem was added.
>
> Win 95 B integrated IE4, IIRC.
>
> These are minor additions?
>
>
In the world of revisionist history, they are.
David H. McCoy
>
> I'm afraid your memory is failing you. 3.11 included standard networking
> support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
> exactly a small change.
>
> >talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
> >OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
> >version number behind -- no missing functionality.
>
> You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
> any consistency in how they are used.
>
> >updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
> >are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
> >-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
> >programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
>
>
>
That's what happens when you have not pratical experience in software
development. Case in point, for the project that I am currently
developing, the users started planning new requirements and settled on
version 2 for the next release. However, they then wanted a new, fairly
trivial enhancment and the version number was bumped from 1.13 to 1.2.
Then, they decided they needed some major changes, but version 2 was
already taken, therefore, this very major release was named version 1.2.1.
The fact of the matter is, whatever every changes exist between Netscape
4.04 and 4.05, they do not exist in the OS/2 version, be they
enhancements, bugfixes whatever. And when 4.5 comes out, once again, the
OS/2 version will be behind.
Bill Arlofski
wrote:
> You know, we can't ... sleep at night ... knowing ... that you're running that,
> that thing ... that awful unwanted orphan OS ... omygod you're still running it ...
> stop! ... Jesus Christ someone make them stop ... is there an FDISK in the
> house? ...
The only time I offer the 'fdisk' advice is to help a poor mico-softie
fix their win95 and/or NT installation. OS/2 or linux are the choices
offered.
Now, as for NT... HA... Modern OS? How about "johnny come lately" to
be more precise.
I recently witnessed a floppy inserted into an NT server. The floppy
was flawed in some manner (ie: the data couldn't be read from a DOS
machine) So the guy I was with figured that the "modern OS" that you
referred to might be able to read the data... HA ! HA ! The NT
machine first hung, then crashed, requiring a reboot. yeah, great OS
to base a business on.. Not mine though.
Good thing this server was just installed and no one was actually
depending on it for anything remotely mission-critical.
Bill Arlofski <w...@revpol.com> [Team OS/2]
--------------------------------------------------------
For public PGP key, email w/subject of "Send PGP Key"
--------------------------------------------------------
Brought to you by the letters O & S, and by the number 2
--------------------------------------------------------
Robato Yao
>In article <6pubg4$2cj$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>
>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>
>>
>>
>>
One version behind? You are talking about a minor .01 bug clean up,
maintenance and optimization. A .01 level update. You don't call that
a major new version. 4.04 vs. 4.05.
I am talking about the new Communicator 4.5 preview release on Windows
and Mac. That's much closer to a major new I don't understand your
contribution of mentioning 4.05 at all when I already talked about 4.5.
Communicator on Windows and Mac still has more extras, like the push
technology, AOL messengers and even IBM Host on Demand for the
Professional edition. You would think that OS/2's Communicator should
have at least IBM Host on Demand.
But OS/2's Communicator is already one up major against Windows'
Communicator by having a modular, detachable JVM. You can upgrade Java
seperately from Communicator and have Communicator refer to the new Java
directory with a classpath and parameter passing. OS/2 Communicator is
capable of running Java 1.1.6, which the current version of Windows
Communicator isn't even capable of.
Rgds,
Chris
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
Robato Yao
>On 1 Aug 1998 06:23:13 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) added
>this to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>>In <MPG.102c2b011...@news1.mnsinc.com>, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) writes:
>>>>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>>>>> This beta is definitely more stable than the latest edition of NS/2, and
>>>>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>>>>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>>>>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>>>>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>>>>> menu and bars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>>>>to code around something that doesn't exist?
>>
>>FP 6 and 7 only allows momentary SIQ hangs, then the OS returns control
>>to the desktop or bring up the task window.
>>
>>Communicator entirely avoids SIQ hangs at all. It remains completely
>>responsive in any situation. The first solution works, but this is
>>even better.
>
>I'd like to be sure I understand something: Does Communicator fix OS/2 so
>that nothing whatever can cause SIQ hangs?
No. Fixpack 6 fixes SIQ hangs. It means it happens then
the FP6 modification fixes it.
Communicator simply won't cause the condition anymore. This is two
different things.
One is you cause the problem and something else fixes it. The second is
you don't cause the problem at all.
>
>Or is it merely the case that Communicator itself no longer induces SIQ
>hangs, though something else running at the same time still could?
Right now, I don't have any major OS/2 application that causes SIQ
hangs, not Smartsuite, not Galciv, not anything from Stardock, IBM,
Innoval, Sundial, Southsoft, not even among my shareware etc,.
>
>(And if the latter, how can you be sure? It's only been out a few days, and
>maybe they've just reduced the frequency of SIQ hangs but not eliminated
>them altogether.)
>
What? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? You either
fix the problem or you don't. You don't fine tune the frequency of a
bug happening.
Rgds,
Chris
Robato Yao
>
>
>David H. McCoy wrote:
>
>> In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>> > other platform. First the Java is configurable and tailored so you can
>> > pick any version of IBM's JVMs, and second it looks like it's capable of
>> > web based updating of the operating system. In Windows, if you need a
>> > new version of Java to work with Communicator, you need a new version of
>> > Communicator as a whole package with the Java. In OS/2, Java can be
>> > installed seperately and you only tell Communicator which directory
>> > your new JVM is.
>> >
>> > Rgds,
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>>
>> So, it's tailored to allow one to "buy any color car, as long as its
>> black." You are still stuck using ONE JVM, while with Windows, you have
>> many choices.
Which Communicator version that allows you to access all these Windows
JVMs by the way? Zero, nada, zilch.
A JVM is still a JVM, not much of a difference because they all have to
conform to Java's standard. They are not supposed to be different.
What is important is that it's faster and more stable, ergo, IBM's.
The best is that Java can be upgraded seperately from Communicator.
>>
>> Second, already, the OS/2 version is still one almost two versions behind.
>> Got SmartBrowsing? Nope.
>> Bytecode patching? Nope.
>> The new one even matches IE when it comes to adding plugins in a fairly
>> seamless manner. Got that? Nope?
Frankly I never use so many plugins, other than the basic ones (which
OS/2 also has.) Most sites don't support many features of
nonstandard plugins as well, so they are useless indeed even for many
Windows users.
As for IE, it does not take me long for me to crash it, taking the whole
desktop and Explorer with it as well. The more plugins I have with it,
the flakier it becomes.
>>
>> I know, you(not you specifically, Chris) don't need those features. I've
>> heard it before.
>>
>> OS/2. Still a day late and a dollar short.
>> --
>>
>
>And you still don't understand it do you McCoy? We really don't care for what
>Windoze people care for. I make this as a broad general comment, but feel it's
>true. People who use an alternative OS don't have the same reasons as the
>sheep that will follow the biggest dollar signs.
>
>
>--
>Truman Phillips
>Computers -N- Such
>109 1/2 W. Indiana Ave.
>Perrysburg, OH 43551
>Phone: 419-872-6557
>Fax: 419-872-9329
>Homepage: http://www.nwonline.net/cns
Chris Smith
>Chris Smith wrote in message ...
>....
>>We only use OS/2 to get on some zealots nerves, like you for example.
>>When you, McCoy, and your ilk go crawl into a hole somewhere, then
>>we'll all switch to Windows!!!
>
>
>You know, we can't ... sleep at night ... knowing ... that you're running that,
>that thing ... that awful unwanted orphan OS ... omygod you're still running it ...
>stop! ... Jesus Christ someone make them stop ... is there an FDISK in the
>house? ...
hehehehe You silly zealot.............
>Anti-aliased screen fonts, Chris. A real task manager. Services. Applications.
>Come home, Chris, just come home.
Grow up, Christian, grow up!!
Chris Smith
cmsmi...@wingnetxyz.netxyz
*** Above is my real email address! Remove all
*** occurances of the letters 'xyz' to send my email!
Curtis Bass
-- snip --
> Indeed. The so-called "sheep" wish for timely software and support.
Perhaps, but what they actually *receive* is bug-infested software
(i.e., Windows 98) and "support" for which they get to pay $35.00 *per
incident!*
Timely? Perhaps (if NT 5.0's being several years late can be considered
"timely").
The rest of us will "settle" for quality software that isn't over-hyped.
Curtis
Robato Yao
>In article <MPG.102d11507...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>
>
>It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
>diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
>nothing major.
Much smaller than that, actually.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>-Steven Hunter
>hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
sden...@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
<snip>
> Between Win 95 and Win 95 A an entire filesystem was added.
>
> Win 95 B integrated IE4, IIRC.
Actually, C shipped with IE4... Besides, that's IE4, NOT Win95.
> These are minor additions?
Yes, and C adds USB support. Minor additions, IMHO.
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
<Yqzh521VLZKl-p...@slip129-37-55-12.ca.us.ibm.net>,
osb...@deletemeibm.net (Bob O) wrote:
<snip>
> Are you not confusing WFWG 3.11 with Windows 3.11? I thought
> Windows 3.11 was only issued to cause problems with OS/2 2.1, they
> may have included some new networking clients to entice
> installation, but it seems that WFWG was the networking version they
> were pushing.
Hey yeah! That's right! There WAS a 3.11 that wasn't "Windows For
Workgroups". I had totally forgotten...
As I recall now, the joke was if you enter the equation 3.11 - 3.1
into the Windows caculator, it says that it's 0. (Hinting that there
IS no diffrence between Win3.1 and 3.11.) :) BTW, It's true... The
calculator is THAT bad at math. Yeah Microsoft!
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
sden...@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
<snip>
> While OS/2 may have programs which perform somewhat the same
> functions. you are definitely behind the curve for high quality
I must assume that by "you", you mean the plural you, as in "All you
OS/2 people.".
> image processing software and CAD, just to name two areas.
Although I've not used it myself, I'm told that Gimp for XFree is
quite the ass-kicking image editor.
As for CAD... I think you're right... In fact I can't personally name
any OS/2 CAD programs at all...
> Yes, programs in both categories exist for OS/2. But they are not as
> capable as the state-of-the-art releases for WIN32.
Well hopefully Win32-OS/2 will take care of this problem anyway. ;)
Steven C. Den Beste
this to the Deja-News archive:
>In <35c44aea.912578@news-server>, sden...@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) writes:
>>On 1 Aug 1998 06:23:13 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) added
>>this to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>
>>(And if the latter, how can you be sure? It's only been out a few days, and
>>maybe they've just reduced the frequency of SIQ hangs but not eliminated
>>them altogether.)
>>
>
>What? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? You either
>fix the problem or you don't. You don't fine tune the frequency of a
>bug happening.
>
>Rgds,
>
>Chris
>
Yes, I *do* know what I'm talking about, and I have on many occasions seen
"fixes" which merely made a problem less frequent.
One way that can happen is if a problem requires a coincidence, where one
event (e.g. an interrupt) must happen within a window of opportunity. If
the duration of the window gets shorter, then the probability of the
problem occuring decreases -- but doesn't necessarily go to zero.
This is something that can happen with threaded programs when the threads
compete for shared data structures without proper use of semaphores to
control access.
And if you think "you either fix a problem or you don't", then it's obvious
you've never done any heavy duty software development. It's not always that
clear-cut.
tho...@spam.ham
> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
You still have a peculiar definition of "version".
Steven C. Den Beste
to the Deja-News archive:
>In article <35c77be5.13452943@news-server>,
> sden...@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> While OS/2 may have programs which perform somewhat the same
>> functions. you are definitely behind the curve for high quality
>
>I must assume that by "you", you mean the plural you, as in "All you
>OS/2 people.".
Yes, that's correct.
>> image processing software and CAD, just to name two areas.
>
>Although I've not used it myself, I'm told that Gimp for XFree is
>quite the ass-kicking image editor.
For hobbyists, I'm sure it's quite decent. But it's not going to seriously
compete with Adobe PhotoShop among graphics professionals.
>As for CAD... I think you're right... In fact I can't personally name
>any OS/2 CAD programs at all...
>
>> Yes, programs in both categories exist for OS/2. But they are not as
>> capable as the state-of-the-art releases for WIN32.
>
>Well hopefully Win32-OS/2 will take care of this problem anyway. ;)
Someday... (Real Soon Now...)
Robato Yao
>On 1 Aug 1998 18:06:33 GMT, mcws...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weigel) added this
>to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>David H. McCoy <dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's only going to be half a version release, as Windows and Mac now has
>>>> 4.5 preview release 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>version numbers... the difference here is a minor version number. Kinda
>>like OS/2 handles windows proggies up to Win3.1, but not anything for
>>Win3.11 (if there *are* any programs built specifically for 3.11?) -- does
>>that mean OS/2 is three versions behind windows emulation? No -- 3.11 is a
>>minor version number ahead of 3.1, which is insignificant. Windows95 was a
>
>support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
>exactly a small change.
I'm afraid it's your memory that is failing you, Steven. Windows for
Workgroups 3.11 is the one that has standard networking support, not
Windows 3.11.
Plain Windows never never had any form of networking support in any
version number; only Windows for Workgroups does.
As far as the only difference Windows 3.11 has over 3.1 is change in
memory management and a tweak that causes it to break over DRDOS.
>
>>major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
>>talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
>>OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
>>version number behind -- no missing functionality.
>
>You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
>any consistency in how they are used.
I do not find any missing functionality between 4.04 and 4.05, which is
but a minor bug and speed tweak.
>
>>In general, minor version releases are for bug fixes, compatibility changes,
>>updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
>>are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
>>-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
>>programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
>
Which is why I don't why David has to irrelevantly bring up 4.05 when I
already brought up mentioning the *4.5* preview release.
Rgds,
Chris
Robato Yao
>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>> I suspect, it is deliberately coded to prevent SIQ hangs. My SIQ hangs
>> on this thing is completely zero. If it hangs because it's busy doing
>> something, it will only "busy" the cursor within the application window
>> space, not the entire desktop space and not even the application command
>> menu and bars.
>>
>
>What? I thought fixpack 6 or 7 didn't have SIQ hangs? Why would you need
>to code around something that doesn't exist?
Fixpack 6 and 7 break open SIQ hangs after timing out a
hung application and shifting focus. They don't prevent it.
Rgds,
Chris
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
Robato Yao
>On 1 Aug 1998 23:44:59 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) added
>this to the Deja-News archive:
>
>>>this to the Deja-News archive:
>>
>>>
>>>maybe they've just reduced the frequency of SIQ hangs but not eliminated
>>>them altogether.)
>>>
>>
>>What? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? You either
>>fix the problem or you don't. You don't fine tune the frequency of a
>>bug happening.
>>
>>Rgds,
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>Yes, I *do* know what I'm talking about, and I have on many occasions seen
>"fixes" which merely made a problem less frequent.
>
>One way that can happen is if a problem requires a coincidence, where one
>event (e.g. an interrupt) must happen within a window of opportunity. If
>the duration of the window gets shorter, then the probability of the
>problem occuring decreases -- but doesn't necessarily go to zero.
>
>This is something that can happen with threaded programs when the threads
>compete for shared data structures without proper use of semaphores to
>control access.
That is something that can happen in a control, and yes, if you don't
return to handle the queue in a certain time period under OS/2. But you
can be assured though that the time to handle an interrupt is way way
much smaller that what the time required for a program to return
management to the queue before it's considered a hang.
On the other hand, there is virtually many OS/2 programs I have, (and
kept for years) where the probability for them of causing a queue hang
is by practice nonexistant. Proper use of semaphores is the key here.
This is a question more on how, rather than timing.
More over when Netscape hangs, it certainly isn't due to a random
interrupt. It's through a direct process crash, and a dead Netscape
couldn't release shared data structures compounded by an OS that refuses
to do it as well. Like a corpse with a deathgrip.
Rgds,
Chris
Robato Yao
>In article <6ptj6r$ig9$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>> other platform. First the Java is configurable and tailored so you can
>> pick any version of IBM's JVMs, and second it looks like it's capable of
>> web based updating of the operating system. In Windows, if you need a
>> new version of Java to work with Communicator, you need a new version of
>> Communicator as a whole package with the Java. In OS/2, Java can be
>> installed seperately and you only tell Communicator which directory
>> your new JVM is.
>>
>> Rgds,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>So, it's tailored to allow one to "buy any color car, as long as its
>black." You are still stuck using ONE JVM, while with Windows, you have
>many choices.
JVMs are not supposed to be different. And second, Communicator in
Windows can't use these other JVMs.
>
>Second, already, the OS/2 version is still one almost two versions behind.
Nope. It's only .01 a minor update behind.
>Got SmartBrowsing? Nope.
>Bytecode patching? Nope.
How are they useful? Plenty of websites using them? .
>The new one even matches IE when it comes to adding plugins in a fairly
>seamless manner. Got that? Nope?
IE also crashes the desktop and Explorer in a seamless manner.
(Plugins are also very seamlessly added with OS/2 browsers as well.)
Steven C. Den Beste
It was not my intention to imply that interrupts and windows of opportunity
were the basis for the Navigator SIQ hang. In fact, I haven't got the
slightest idea what caused it (and neither do you).
I was offering a technical explanation of why it is that a bug can diminish
in frequency without going away entirely, and why "it's fixed or it isn't"
Is not all there is to the story for software development and debugging.
Where I work, we say "If you change something and a bug goes away, but you
can't explain why, then you haven't fixed it. Bugs which mysteriously go
away can mysteriously return."
rj friedman
raoul derbes) wrote:
ŻI hate to disagree with R.J. in public, because most of the time he expresses
Żclearly what I haven't said out loud; but this time I hafta side with Bill P.:
Ż
ŻI think everyone has a God-given right to be an asshole. Unfortunately.
Ż(It's called "free will.")
Ż
ŻOf course, everyone else has a right to tell those who avail themselves of
Żthis right to f* off.
Ż
ŻHoping that I've offended neither Bill P. nor R.J.,
I disagree with you, but am certainly not offended. FWIW,
you are one of the people on cooa that I truly admire.
ŻDavid Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
Actually I have some pretty good ideas what can cause Navigator to do a
SIQ hang since I am have able to successfully replicate some of those
conditions. I certainly don't think it's caused by any hardware
interrupt. By the way, when Navigator hangs, FP 6 can take its focus
away from it. Aside from a zombie desktop area where Navigator used to,
the whole OS is in fact, completely operable as well as every
application inside it, unaffected by the zombie. The only purpose to
shutdown is to ultimately terminate the zombie.
>I was offering a technical explanation of why it is that a bug can diminish
>in frequency without going away entirely, and why "it's fixed or it isn't"
>Is not all there is to the story for software development and debugging.
You are offering a technical explanation that I do not see have any
relevance to the Communicator issue, or the way it handles messages or
threads (which seems quite different from the older Navigator).
>
>Where I work, we say "If you change something and a bug goes away, but you
>can't explain why, then you haven't fixed it. Bugs which mysteriously go
>away can mysteriously return."
Then you have not really fixed the problem. You just applied a
statistical bandaid.
I see you are just a far reach just for the sake of making an argument,
whether it's relevant or not at all.
Rgds,
Chris
>
hun...@thunder.indstate.edu
sden...@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
<snip>
> For hobbyists, I'm sure it's quite decent. But it's not going to
> seriously compete with Adobe PhotoShop among graphics professionals.
Well we all know that Adobe favors the Mac version of PhotoShop
anyway... :)
<snip>
> >Well hopefully Win32-OS/2 will take care of this problem anyway. ;)
>
> Someday... (Real Soon Now...)
Aye... RSN...
Bob O
wrote:
>In article <35c47a49.13041093@news-server>, sden...@san.rr.com says...
>>
>> I'm afraid your memory is failing you. 3.11 included standard networking
>> support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
>> exactly a small change.
>>
>> >major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
>> >talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
>> >OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
>> >version number behind -- no missing functionality.
>>
>> You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
>> any consistency in how they are used.
>>
>> >In general, minor version releases are for bug fixes, compatibility changes,
>> >updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
>> >are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
>> >-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
>> >programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>
>That's what happens when you have not pratical experience in software
>development. Case in point, for the project that I am currently
>developing, the users started planning new requirements and settled on
>version 2 for the next release. However, they then wanted a new, fairly
>trivial enhancment and the version number was bumped from 1.13 to 1.2.
>Then, they decided they needed some major changes, but version 2 was
>already taken, therefore, this very major release was named version 1.2.1.
>
>The fact of the matter is, whatever every changes exist between Netscape
>4.04 and 4.05, they do not exist in the OS/2 version, be they
>enhancements, bugfixes whatever. And when 4.5 comes out, once again, the
>OS/2 version will be behind.
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
Pretty stupid for a programmer. The OS/2 version wouldn't have the same
bugs the Windows version has.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Bob O
wrote:
>In article <35c57ad4.13179683@news-server>, sden...@san.rr.com says...
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 1998 19:53:13 GMT, hun...@thunder.indstate.edu added this
>> to the Deja-News archive:
>>
>> >In article <MPG.102d11507...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
>> > dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> Netscape is up to version 4.05, so it is one version behind.
>> >
>> >So 4.05 - 4.04 = 1? Ah yes...
>> >
>> >It is not a version behind... It is a minor update behind. Like the
>> >diffrence between Win95A and B, and between B and C. Minor additions,
>> >nothing major.
>> >
>> >-Steven Hunter
>>
>> Between Win 95 and Win 95 A an entire filesystem was added.
>>
>> Win 95 B integrated IE4, IIRC.
>>
>> These are minor additions?
>>
>>
>
>In the world of revisionist history, they are.
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
Pretty out of touch for a programmer I would say. The letter versions
are usually limited distribution releases like Win 3.0 B. Minor
upgrades to satisfy the needs of a specific group. In this case, it was
an attempt to make a shortcut transition. The problems I understand
have come home to roost in the Win98 release. I guess thats what
happens when you short arm a development budget because you have the
peons locked in.
Bob O
wrote:
>In article <35c47a49.13041093@news-server>, sden...@san.rr.com says...
>>
>> I'm afraid your memory is failing you. 3.11 included standard networking
>> support, which had to be purchased from third parties for 3.1. That's not
>> exactly a small change.
>>
>> >major version number change, so that's one behind. Depending on who you
>> >talk to, Win98 is either a major or minor version change (IMO minor) -- so
>> >OS/2 is between 1 and 2 versions behind. Netscape 4.04 for OS/2 is a minor
>> >version number behind -- no missing functionality.
>>
>> You're reading too much into the use of version numbers. I've never seen
>> any consistency in how they are used.
>>
>> >In general, minor version releases are for bug fixes, compatibility changes,
>> >updates to minor parts, or even switching out minor parts. Major versions
>> >are reserved for enhanced functionality, new components, or massive changes
>> >-- like the difference between Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 (lots of added
>> >programs to the suite, new look, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>
>That's what happens when you have not pratical experience in software
>development. Case in point, for the project that I am currently
>developing, the users started planning new requirements and settled on
>version 2 for the next release. However, they then wanted a new, fairly
>trivial enhancment and the version number was bumped from 1.13 to 1.2.
>Then, they decided they needed some major changes, but version 2 was
>already taken, therefore, this very major release was named version 1.2.1.
Then they decided they needed some major changes? What kind of flake
outfit do you work for? Sounds like a seat-of-the-pants operation with
no vision or overall plan.
Bob O
wrote:
>>> image processing software and CAD, just to name two areas.
>>
>>Although I've not used it myself, I'm told that Gimp for XFree is
>>quite the ass-kicking image editor.
>
>For hobbyists, I'm sure it's quite decent. But it's not going to seriously
>compete with Adobe PhotoShop among graphics professionals.
Now Jeff Glatt fancies himself a graphics professional. What are you
going to pretend to me next week Jeff?