"OS/2 Disease"
Steven C. Den Beste
use Windows, they seem to have (or at least report having) far more trouble
with it than experienced users do.
There are actually several reasons why this happens. I thought it would be
interesting to list some of them.
1. LEGACY HARDWARE: Generally, older hardware (especially ISA and older bus
controller chips) don't work as well with Windows as newer hardware does. In
particular, a computer based exclusively on PCI hardware will work far
better under Windows than one which mixes the two. OS/2 users tend to have
older hardware (because the newest hardware largely doesn't have OS/2
drivers) and so they are more likely to have trouble because of it.
2. HAIR TRIGGER: When something goes wrong, an OS/2 user is predisposed to
blame Microsoft for it, and to decide that it can't be fixed because
Microsoft always screws everything up. A Windows user is more patient and
more willing to look for answers.
3. MISLEADING VIVIDNESS: This is the name of a common fallacy which says
that because something is vivid that it must also be common. It's well
explained here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
A good example of "misleading vividness" is someone who hears about an
airline accident and sees pictures of lots of mangled bodies, and thus
decides he'd rather drive from LA to Chicago than fly "because it's safer".
In fact it isn't safer; per passenger mile travel by car is at least ten
times as likely to kill you.
When something goes wrong while using Windows, an OS/2 user is far more
likely to blow it out of proportion.
4. EXPERIENCE TELLS: Generally, any system has reliable areas and weak
areas. Without even realizing it, a long term user of such a system tends to
learn what works well and what doesn't, and learns to not use the things
which don't work well. Without knowing it, they start steering around the
potholes. A new user doesn't know where they are, and thus is more likely to
hit them.
--------
Steven C. Den Beste sden...@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste
CDMA FAQ: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/cdmafaq.html
"I'm a 21st century kid trapped in a 19th centure family"
-- Calvin
the hallucinator
news:4kp2es44jial40jo3...@4ax.com...
> That's not my term, but it refers to the fact that when OS/2 users try to
> use Windows, they seem to have (or at least report having) far more
trouble
> with it than experienced users do.
The first time you use an o.s. and it crashes or reboots by itself or my
favorite: the blue screen that won't go away, you will not be impressed with
it right away. But then I shouldn't be typing any of this since you've
encountered some of these, right?
> There are actually several reasons why this happens. I thought it would be
> interesting to list some of them.
>
> 1. LEGACY HARDWARE: Generally, older hardware (especially ISA and older
bus
> controller chips) don't work as well with Windows as newer hardware does.
In
> particular, a computer based exclusively on PCI hardware will work far
> better under Windows than one which mixes the two. OS/2 users tend to have
> older hardware (because the newest hardware largely doesn't have OS/2
> drivers) and so they are more likely to have trouble because of it.
For the last time, OS/2 is a product destined for the corporate environment.
Most home computers that have Warp installed are Power Users and hobbyists.
Get over it man. It was never meant to be. Tend to have older hardware...
Sheesh!
> 2. HAIR TRIGGER: When something goes wrong, an OS/2 user is predisposed to
> blame Microsoft for it, and to decide that it can't be fixed because
> Microsoft always screws everything up. A Windows user is more patient and
> more willing to look for answers.
No no no! Where do you get this stuff? Windows user are not more patient
and more willing to get the answers.
READ: Experienced users(of any o.s.) are more likely to do look for answers.
> 3. MISLEADING VIVIDNESS: This is the name of a common fallacy which says
> that because something is vivid that it must also be common. It's well
> explained here:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
>
> A good example of "misleading vividness" is someone who hears about an
> airline accident and sees pictures of lots of mangled bodies, and thus
> decides he'd rather drive from LA to Chicago than fly "because it's
safer".
> In fact it isn't safer; per passenger mile travel by car is at least ten
> times as likely to kill you.
Are you unconscious half the time or what? IT IS COMMON!!! It's the mostly
used o.s. in world. So bug are gonna be discovered way faster than on the
OS/2 platform.
> When something goes wrong while using Windows, an OS/2 user is far more
> likely to blow it out of proportion.
LOL! That's because OS/2 users don't have a habit of pushing the only
Microsoft-made innovation they ever built for the PC: the Reset button!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
;)
> 4. EXPERIENCE TELLS: Generally, any system has reliable areas and weak
> areas. Without even realizing it, a long term user of such a system tends
to
> learn what works well and what doesn't, and learns to not use the things
> which don't work well. Without knowing it, they start steering around the
> potholes. A new user doesn't know where they are, and thus is more likely
to
> hit them.
Can't argue with you there.
Rainer Sarnow
>the Reset button!
What is a RESET BUTTON?
Gruss
Rainer Sarnow
Michael Block
> That's not my term, but it refers to the fact that when OS/2 users try to
> use Windows, they seem to have (or at least report having) far more trouble
> with it than experienced users do.
>
> There are actually several reasons why this happens. I thought it would be
> interesting to list some of them.
>
> 1. LEGACY HARDWARE: Generally, older hardware (especially ISA and older bus
> controller chips) don't work as well with Windows as newer hardware does. In
> particular, a computer based exclusively on PCI hardware will work far
> better under Windows than one which mixes the two. OS/2 users tend to have
> older hardware (because the newest hardware largely doesn't have OS/2
> drivers) and so they are more likely to have trouble because of it.
>
> 2. HAIR TRIGGER: When something goes wrong, an OS/2 user is predisposed to
> blame Microsoft for it, and to decide that it can't be fixed because
> Microsoft always screws everything up. A Windows user is more patient and
> more willing to look for answers.
>
> 3. MISLEADING VIVIDNESS: This is the name of a common fallacy which says
> that because something is vivid that it must also be common. It's well
> explained here:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
>
> A good example of "misleading vividness" is someone who hears about an
> airline accident and sees pictures of lots of mangled bodies, and thus
> decides he'd rather drive from LA to Chicago than fly "because it's safer".
> In fact it isn't safer; per passenger mile travel by car is at least ten
> times as likely to kill you.
>
> When something goes wrong while using Windows, an OS/2 user is far more
> likely to blow it out of proportion.
>
> 4. EXPERIENCE TELLS: Generally, any system has reliable areas and weak
> areas. Without even realizing it, a long term user of such a system tends to
> learn what works well and what doesn't, and learns to not use the things
> which don't work well. Without knowing it, they start steering around the
> potholes. A new user doesn't know where they are, and thus is more likely to
> hit them.
>
> --------
> Steven C. Den Beste sden...@san.rr.com
> Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste
> CDMA FAQ: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/cdmafaq.html
>
> "I'm a 21st century kid trapped in a 19th centure family"
> -- Calvin
All of the above PLUS
5. Even Windows is not perfect and also DOES go wrong at times. Even though
there are so few OS/2 users, it will happen to them too.
Hey hang on..... I think I am on to something here - maybe all the OS/2 users of
Windows ABSORB all the bad luck, freeing the Windows only users to enjoy total
stress free windows use. That would account for the reported discrepancy in
problems. <humour>
6. Cognitive Dissonance. Ever spent a couple of $hundred K on a Ferrari and
raved to your friends about it despite the fact that it spends 3 weeks of every
month getting repaired? Perhaps Windows is the Ferrari of OSs? <humour>
--
regards
Michael Block
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
if you assume that there's no hope
you guarantee that there's no hope.
If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom
there are opportunities to change things
there's a chance you may contribute to making a better world.
.......the choice is yours.
Noam Chomsky
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mblock/perinatal.html The www home of perinatal
psychiatry.
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:20:13 -0500, the hallucinator wrote:
>
> >the Reset button!
> What is a RESET BUTTON?
>
its that button that windows 95 users use to reboot their computers
every day.
Wayne Johnson
Windows, I was expecting the worst. However, I found that Windows was not as
bad as I feared, or wanted, it to be. I think I wanted to have all sorts of
problems so that I could then say things like "Life was so much better when I
was using OS/2". I still miss OS/2, I do have trouble with Windows, but it is
not as bad as I thought it would be.
Wayne
Esther Schindler
Beste) wrote:
| That's not my term, but it refers to the fact that when OS/2 users try to
| use Windows, they seem to have (or at least report having) far more trouble
| with it than experienced users do.
|
| There are actually several reasons why this happens. I thought it would be
| interesting to list some of them.. . .
Try: familiarity.
When I get in a rental car, I spend the first day cussing at it -- no
matter how nice or awful a car it is -- because the stick shift isn't
where I expect, or my left foot goes for a clutch that isn't there, or
because the radio buttons don't work the way I've come to expect...
especially since I've been driving my current "real" car since 1991.
It's *very* easy to see any discrepancy from the "expected" as an
affront to the way God Intended a [car|computer] to operate.
And, because of my relative inexperience using that particular brand
and model of car, I'm apt to be a poorer driver when using it. It
doesn't respond the same way on a wet road. When someone tries to cut
me off, on the highway, I might overcompensate with the steering. I'm
apt to have more real problems than someone who knows the features of
that car.
Does this say anything about my ability as a driver? No. Does it say
anything about the relative value or performance of my old clunker or
the new rental? No.
Now -- if you'd like to bash OS/2 and OS/2 users, I wish you'd go
somewhere else. I first came to this newgroup because I felt I could
actually discuss the operating system with other users, for a change.
If that's not the case, I'll take off.
--Esther
Jim Nuytens
wrote:
> Now -- if you'd like to bash OS/2 and OS/2 users, I wish you'd go
> somewhere else. I first came to this newgroup because I felt I could
> actually discuss the operating system with other users, for a change.
> If that's not the case, I'll take off.
But don't you see? It's the only reason he and DM are even here. They
feel this "need" to bash and berate OS/2 users at every turn; to stir
them up and make themselves feel better, or more superior. They have
nothing to contribute. At least, nothing that I can see, or have seen.
All they want to do is insult OS/2 users in general. That's how they
get their "kicks".
You'd be surprised how much more enjoyable OS/2 newsgroups are when
you add twits like these to the twit filter. Responding to people like
them is a waste of time.
It they don't want to help solve a problem I might be having, then
they don't deserve my attention. Trying to constantly convince me that
I should get off of OS/2 isn't helping. Helping would be to simply
shut the hell up if you don't have the answer to the question I'm
asking, thank you.
I don't go poking my nose into Windoze users' lives and their
newsgroups, why can't these 2 do the same? Because they're the ones
with "the disease", that's why.
Jose Bernardo Silva
was on the verge of unsubscribing it, but I still must add my 2 cents...
I have had to work with windows in every flavour, and support it, for over
80 users at a time. At that time, Win98. I've never seen such a bad behaved
OS! In two identical machines, it would install differently, and crash
differently... NT, on the servers, would hold a lot more, but eating up
resources like there was no tomorrow. We had an in-house system we switched
from SCO to NT, and the machine had to have a processor upgrade of 4 times
the speed, and a memory upgrade of 6 times, just to keep the same
performance for the client applications.
After that, I've been working integrating in-house and third-party software,
doing also some development and third-line support. I admit, I only got the
hairiest cases, but sure there were lots of them. One of the worst offenders
is MS cluster service, as some of you might have already experienced.
Now, I've beta-tested win2000 since RC2. I thought it might be finally a
stable OS, and it sure is a lot more than NT4 SP6a, at least on my laptop.
But I've managed to crash explorer a few times already. And I had also a few
nasty surprises... First, if by any reason you can't boot the system (in my
case, a corrupt disk driver file after a crash), and you try to install 2000
over the previous installation, it will delete all your \WINNT subtree.
Well, at least the user profiles are saved, and can be copied back.
The second, was the new mouse and keyboard "handling". I have a switch,
since I have two computers, and if I switch away from the 2000 one, the
mouse and keyboard won't answer anymore. It is documented in the knowledge
base, and there is a fix that doesn't work, that involves editing
msmouse.inf on the installation image, and installing again. For me it
didn't work. So, I had to get another mouse and keyboard, and the switch now
is only for the monitor. So, it still isn't the dream os... And another
thing I hated, is the way it is built for dummies, with almost all of the
management functions buried under a few levels of menus. It is still
installed, and I am sending this message using win2000, but the only reason
is that I have to use it at work. I would gladly trade it for OS/2 or Linux,
in fact my main machine at home keeps running OS/2 very nicely.
And, as you can see from the above, and the fact, that I didn't mention,
that I have all three MSP NT certifications, along with VB6 and Exchange
5.5, I am not what you would call an inexperienced windows user. I've been
using it at work for over 9 years and a few iterations, and I still have to
like it... Especially now, with its "evolution" towards a more "bob" like
interface, and it's huge misuse of memory, HD, and CPU.
"Steven C. Den Beste" <sden...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4kp2es44jial40jo3...@4ax.com...
> That's not my term, but it refers to the fact that when OS/2 users try to
> use Windows, they seem to have (or at least report having) far more
trouble
> with it than experienced users do.
>
> There are actually several reasons why this happens. I thought it would be
Jabel D. Morales - VMan of Mana
Just curious, Steven. Are you making this post because you got bored
and want to trigger someone stupid enough to flame you, so you and McCoy
can later generalize how all OS/2 are like that person?
-------
Jabel D. Morales - VMan of Mana
ja...@cs.utep.edu
http://members.xoom.com/VManOfMana/
http://www.utep.edu/asu/
OS/2 & Anime Fan Extraordinaire
Michael Block
>
> And, as you can see from the above, and the fact, that I didn't mention,
> that I have all three MSP NT certifications, along with VB6 and Exchange
> 5.5, I am not what you would call an inexperienced windows user. I've been
> using it at work for over 9 years and a few iterations, and I still have to
> like it... Especially now, with its "evolution" towards a more "bob" like
> interface, and it's huge misuse of memory, HD, and CPU.
>
so what would you know about it! <humour>
Michael Block
Brad
how about a stardock.os2.bash group for those sort of activities
Brad Wardell
"Jim Nuytens" <n3...@spammers.are.wanks> wrote in message
news:dPy0dpYVIpf7-pn2-WQiLV3k0y9y5@localhost...
Personal attacks are unacceptable. If you don't agree with someone, then
you can filter them. However, it is not okay to make posts attacking
particular people. It certainly doesn't make OS/2 users look good. Steven
and David post their opinions on OS technologies, they are not insulting
people.
Brad
>
>
>
Brad Wardell
"Jabel D. Morales - VMan of Mana" <ja...@cs.utep.edu> wrote in message
news:38E2E27A...@cs.utep.edu...
>
> Just curious, Steven. Are you making this post because you got bored
> and want to trigger someone stupid enough to flame you, so you and McCoy
> can later generalize how all OS/2 are like that person?
Final warning. No personal attacks. I deleted 3 posts this morning similar
to this one. If you want to make personal attacks, go to Usenet where
comp.os.os2.advocacy has long since left the realm of talking about OS/2 and
gotten into prsonal attacks.
This group is for talking about OS/2 as well as other OSes. We have an OS/2
support group. Anyone who is posting on topic and is not making personal
attacks is welcome here.
Brad
<moderator>
Jim Nuytens
wrote:
(nothing of any importance, either)
Twit filter engaged.....
Brad Wardell
"Michael Block" <mbl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:38E33C00...@optusnet.com.au...
> "Jabel D. Morales - VMan of Mana" wrote:
>
> > Just curious, Steven. Are you making this post because you got bored
> > and want to trigger someone stupid enough to flame you, so you and McCoy
> > can later generalize how all OS/2 are like that person?
> >
> > http://www.utep.edu/asu/
> >
> > OS/2 & Anime Fan Extraordinaire
>
> Brad
> how about a stardock.os2.bash group for those sort of activities
Why should the people who rationally stay on topic be punished because there
is a group of people who prefer to make personal attacks on people? OS/2
extremists have already destroyed the regular Usenet OS/2 groups. That will
not be allowed here.
I should point out that anyone who has followed the topic will know that it
was OS/2 users who began bashing Windows on this news group and Steven/David
merely defended and pressed their advantage. They have not been making
posts insulting or attacking people, they have made posts arguing their view
on certain group behaviors as well as OS specific features.
Additionally, open source was a legitimate topic in this news group as well.
As a fairly neutral observer (I don't think anyone can say I'm a Windows
"advocate") I would say that it is the OS/2 users, as a group, that are
coming across as vindictive.
Brad
Jim Nuytens
as well.
Rainer Sarnow
>> >the Reset button!
>> What is a RESET BUTTON?
>>
>
>its that button that windows 95 users use to reboot their computers
>every day.
Is it necessary to curse before they use it? Will it be a better reset?
And why every day?
Gruss
Rainer Sarnow
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> >> >the Reset button!
> >> What is a RESET BUTTON?
> >>
> >
> >its that button that windows 95 users use to reboot their computers
> >every day.
>
> Is it necessary to curse before they use it? Will it be a better reset?
> And why every day?
>
Absolutely necessary to curse before using. A program locked up.
Every day cause MS still has not given the average consumer an OS that
has adequate crash protection. The average consumer shouldn't even
know what a crash is. W2K doesnt count as it is not for the average
consumer.... yet
As for the arguement about computers are complicated and you can't
expect them to be that good (serval people have used this arguement on
me)...
If My car worked as much worse than a big rig as does w95 works worse
than your average big computer, I'd be cursing it every day and
calling it the worse piece of crap ever invented. Instead, cars
actually work nearly as well as those big rigs. Don't hit me with the
milage difference, if all you ever did was highway speeds and
performed good maintenance practices, your car could get a million
miles too.
So yes, I think the average consumer SHOULD expect thier computers to
almost never crash on them. That the consumer OS doesn't is evidence
of the monopoly. Every windows user I have seen that poked around
with linux as said to me, "have you seen it crash yet?". My answer
is, "I've got news for you, This should be the NORMAL way all pc's
operate and the consumer should expect it."
James Jones
> You'd be surprised how much more enjoyable OS/2 newsgroups are when
> you add twits like these to the twit filter. Responding to people like
> them is a waste of time.
Agreed...and I think I'll need to add a check for [list of OS/2 bashers]
in the message bodies as well as the From lines as well.
James Jones
Opinions herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of
any organization.
Mike Trettel
>
>So yes, I think the average consumer SHOULD expect thier computers to
>almost never crash on them. That the consumer OS doesn't is evidence
>of the monopoly. Every windows user I have seen that poked around
>with linux as said to me, "have you seen it crash yet?". My answer
>is, "I've got news for you, This should be the NORMAL way all pc's
>operate and the consumer should expect it."
>
In the many years I've been fooling with Linux (starting back in the 0.99
kernel days, with Slackware 2.something or other) I've seen exactly one
kernel trap. That was with a freshly compiled kernel in which I had used
a wrong set of build options for my hardware. I've also seen some half
dozen or so X Server related lockups/crashes, most of which I got out of
by pressing CTL-ALT-BCKSPC. This is from what some people disparingly
refer to as a "hobbyist" OS based upon "old" technology. Linux may be
based upon "old" technology, but it's technology that works as promised.
--
===========
Mike Trettel trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net
I don't buy from spammers. No exceptions. Fix the reply line to mail me.
David S. Eckard
> In the many years I've been fooling with Linux (starting back in the 0.99
> kernel days, with Slackware 2.something or other) I've seen exactly one
> kernel trap. That was with a freshly compiled kernel in which I had used
> a wrong set of build options for my hardware. I've also seen some half
> dozen or so X Server related lockups/crashes, most of which I got out of
> by pressing CTL-ALT-BCKSPC. This is from what some people disparingly
> refer to as a "hobbyist" OS based upon "old" technology. Linux may be
> based upon "old" technology, but it's technology that works as promised.
>
That Microsoft is apparently unwilling to outdo a bunch of hobbiest is
very very sad.
And your story is both common for linux and proves the point.
Brad Wardell
"Jim Nuytens" <n3...@spammers.are.wanks> wrote in message
> Oh, and I'm sure that I'll find all my further posts removed from here
> as well.
If they are personal attacks, yes they will be deleted.
Brad
>
Jim Nuytens
Funny, SDB and DHM can post inflamitory BS here any time they want.
But, let someone post a response to the BS and suddenly the
Politically Correct police come out because I said something "bad".
Oh, gee, I might hurt someone's feelings. How terrible of me. Bad Jim,
bad! Go to your room!
It's a shame that (on a supposed OS/2 newsgroup) an OS/2 user
expresses how pissed he is about what he sees as a perfect example of
how other people's only purpose for being here is to bait OS/2 users,
and suddenly he's the one getting crap dumped on him.
I think Esther had it right. Time to leave this place. There's no real
discussion of OS/2 issues here. Just the continued baiting BS of SDB
and DHM.
Of course, that's also another one of their goals because, as I said
before, they're the ones with "the disease".
Brad Wardell
Stardock
> bidding to release a new OS/2 client. The newsgroup was enthusiastic and
perhaps
> naive, but generated goodwill and enthusiasm. I can't remember if there
was any
> 'windows advocacy' on the group then, but I think not. The newsgroup lost
it's
> direction after IBM rejected or refused to consider the Stardock proposal.
Brad
> decided to direct the energies of his company elsewhere, as he is
perfectly
> entitled to do (if he wants to eat).
> This newgroup has changed. I welcome knowledgeable participants such as
Esther,
> (and even Steve) but the thrust of many posts appears provocative on both
sides
> (because it has become adversarial in some instances). Of course there
should be
> a space for comparative debate and discussion, but what is the point in
> highlighting how few OS/2 users there are? This is not debateable, it is
fact.
> Some newsgroups members experience this as having their noses rubbed in it
and
> become angry and frustrated. Sure, we all have our own issues and
sensitivities,
> but how about some empathy and respect for each other? Perhaps there could
be a
> newsgroup for people who wish to discuss OS/2 and those who wish to
challenge
> those in denial (if that is how you see it). Brad, you may not wish to do
this,
> and this is your server and so your right, but the refreshing thing about
this
> newsgroup when it was established was that it was a haven from groups such
as
> c.o.o.a.
This group is meant to be a haven from Usenet. If people want to discuss OS
issues, they can do so in a calm and rational way. Most OS/2 users here
behave very well jsut as most Windows users do.
What we don't want is situations where someone advocates OS/2, a Windows
user calls them on their advocacy and when the Windows user seems to be
getting the upper hand the OS/2 users begn making personal attacks and
making "Why are you here?" posts. If someone wants to advocate OS/2 that is
good. If they want to talk about OS issues, that is good.
But personal attacks are not good. Period. I don't know why I would need
to even defend that. Even the arguemnt that "Well, OS/2 users were incited
by Windows users into personal attacks" isn't a good argument.
Brad
Brad Wardell
It is unfortunate when people can't make the distinction between a personal
attack and a debate. You may find debating OS/2 "inflammatory" but that
does not give you the right to make personal attacks on people.
If you cannot live by the rules, then yes, you should leave.
Brad
"Jim Nuytens" <n3...@spammers.are.wanks> wrote in message
news:4yFiSL3Nwexr-p...@pm3-6-23.phl.magpage.com...
Esther Schindler
I applaud your efforts to remove posts that construe personal attacks.
On this we are in full agreement.
But the tenor here recently, of the "here's all the things wrong with
OS/2 and OS/2 users" has become upsetting. It reminds me of going to
synogogue, as a child, and having the rabbi rant from the pulpit about
how few people were attending synogogue. It certainly didn't give me a
good reason to come back. Eventually, I didn't. Just as it's useless
to preach to the choir, it's unhelpful to chase away the people who
*are* interested in using, enjoying, and exploiting the best of the
operating system.
I'm perfectly happy to defend myself when necessary -- and &deity
knows that it's been necessary, on some occasions. I think you and the
lurkers know that I'm not an apologist for IBM, nor have I ever
claimed that OS/2 is perfect. It is, however, my operating system of
choice, and defending it is *not* my hobby. I'd much prefer to
correspond with people who share my interests, not those who question
them or tell me what an idiot I am to have them.
I thought this newsgroup was about OS/2. If you want this to be a
forum for debating the relative merits of operating systems, that's
fine; it's your sandbox and you make the rules. But in that case, I'll
find myself another place to hang out.
--Esther
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:32:30, "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com>
wrote:
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> I just don't agree with this. I've recently tried about 5 Linux
> distributions, Red Hat 6.1, Red Hat beta 6.2, Linux Mandrake, Caldera,
> and Corel and all but Corel were STILL asking about monitor refresh
> rates!
>
> Mandrake DrakConf tool definitely didn't work as promised.
>
> Now, I like Unix and I like Linux, but I still believe that Win2k is
> ahead. Heck, Linux doesn't have USB, just got PnP, doesn't have an
> multimedia API to match DirectX.
>
ONE,, I said Consumer OS... MS does not consider W2K a Consumer OS.
MS is calling the next consumer OS Windows ME (Millenium Edition). I
doubt that its stability will be much improved over existing W98
setups with the latest fixes that you get from the computer dealer
now.
TWO.. Linux was used as an example of OS stability on PC's. It was
NOT mentioned as especially usefull for the non power user. I do not
believe it is at that point yet. Close but not yet.. pretty good for
a hobby effort.
Monitor Refresh is about setup... With Linux, at this point, you must
know exactly what your machine has. This is one reason I say it is
not ready for prime time.
As for device drivers, something is getting in the way of the effort
to move all of that to the device itself, or it is just slower than I
thought it would be. The cynical side of me thinks MS since it is in
their interest for that to NOT happen.
Brad Wardell
"Esther Schindler" <est...@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com...
> Brad,
>
> I applaud your efforts to remove posts that construe personal attacks.
> On this we are in full agreement.
>
> But the tenor here recently, of the "here's all the things wrong with
> OS/2 and OS/2 users" has become upsetting. It reminds me of going to
> synogogue, as a child, and having the rabbi rant from the pulpit about
> how few people were attending synogogue. It certainly didn't give me a
> good reason to come back. Eventually, I didn't. Just as it's useless
> to preach to the choir, it's unhelpful to chase away the people who
> *are* interested in using, enjoying, and exploiting the best of the
> operating system.
>
> I'm perfectly happy to defend myself when necessary -- and &deity
> knows that it's been necessary, on some occasions. I think you and the
> lurkers know that I'm not an apologist for IBM, nor have I ever
> claimed that OS/2 is perfect. It is, however, my operating system of
> choice, and defending it is *not* my hobby. I'd much prefer to
> correspond with people who share my interests, not those who question
> them or tell me what an idiot I am to have them.
>
> I thought this newsgroup was about OS/2. If you want this to be a
> forum for debating the relative merits of operating systems, that's
> fine; it's your sandbox and you make the rules. But in that case, I'll
> find myself another place to hang out.
With regards to the tenor, it has to be taken in the context of the
discussions that have been going on. Steven's "OS/2 Disease" didn't come
out of the blue. It came after a good half dozen or so OS/2 users who were
attacking Windows NT or Windows 2000 based purely on personal experiences
that while I have no reason to not believe them, fly in the face of any sort
of technical problems I read on the various Usenet groups. So when you have
one side saying "I like X because of A, B, and C" and the other side saying
"I don't like X because of <insert unverifiable strange problem here>" a
pattern emerges. It was that pattern that Steven was posting about as "OS/2
Disease".
I haven't found the posts by either side generally mean or belligerent.
What I have seen in the last couple of days are a couple of users who happen
to be OS/2 users making *personal* attacks on people. It is that sort of
behavior that ruined the OS/2 news groups. I don't care what the
motivations or personal hygene habits of a given user are, I am only
interested in the content of their words. And if I don't agree with the
content of their words then I will try to debate that content. But never
should I get into trying to personally attack the person making that
content.
The personal views of that user on operating systems is irrelevant, they
should not have to suffer being called mentally deficient or "losers" or
whatever. That sort of behavior does not belong here.
The OS discussion that lead to "OS/2 Disease" was on topic -- it was about
OS/2 and the alleged pros/cons of releasing ones source code on OS/2.
I do not agree that we should silence those who play devil's advocate.
People need to be able to make informed choices and sometimes, advocates
(regardless of their platform) overstate their case. I think it's a healthy
thing if there are detractors of such advocacy as long as they are able to
provide a clear, reasoned and polite debate on that topic.
Obviously it is a thin line between a debate and a flame war. I don't think
we have seen an outright flame war. But clearly, when people start making
personal attacks, the quality of the forum is lessoned.
This news group has been priviledged enough to see some really interesting
discussions (many off topic admittedly) ranging from US versus Soviet
aircraft design, the merits of open source, the strengths and weaknesses of
OS/2 as a desktop OS, etc. (look at "What a great debate") subject titles
from as recently as a few days ago.
It was only when a few people who weren't even posting in those great
discussions jumped in and started making personal attacks that things got
ugly.
There were some incredible posts over the weekend for instance that really
made it worth having this discussion area. Some incredibly good OS/2
advocacy as well as strong defenses of Linux, Windows, and even the Amiga.
When people aren't afraid of being personally attacked, good discussion can
take place. My first priority for this group is to provide a safe place for
people to discuss issues -- usually about OS/2 but off topic posts are
tolerated as long as they are interesting and civil.
I don't think anyone would condemn me for simply asking for people to be
civil to one another. The it's not as much of a slipperly slope to get from
here to having what has happened on os2.advocacy.
I'd also like to take this time to point out that we also have a
stardock.discussion.politics and stardock.discussion.technology and a
stardock.discussion group which have had some really good discussions as
well.
Brad
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> Then may I ask why, in a newsgroup purportedly for OS/2 users to support one
> another, we must suffer Windows zealots who seem to enjoy nothing more than
> belittling our choice of operating system??
>
Some people have nothing better to do than trash others. Ignore them
if you can.
David H. McCoy
est...@bitranch.com says...
> claimed that OS/2 is perfect. It is, however, my operating system of
> choice, and defending it is *not* my hobby. I'd much prefer to
> correspond with people who share my interests, not those who question
> them or tell me what an idiot I am to have them.
>
>
This is rich. Find ONE posts where anyone who debated that OS/2 is no
longer a viable operating system said that anyone who uses it is an
idiot.
There are apps groups, game, setup, etc.. and even a .misc catch all
group for people, like you Esther who want to correspond. Brad has said
from the beginning that this is a group to discuss OS/2. However it seems
clear to me that you and others feel that this means only "roses" and
little reality. It seem that people take straight talk about OS/2
personally.
Look at yourselves. When has Steven called you are anyone an idiot for
using OS/2? When have I? Last week Brian said that when I say OS/2 is
stagnating (and let's be real, it is) that it is a shot at him.
How on earth can anyone internalize a piece of software that they didn't
write so? How can people read one thing (OS/2 is bad) and see another
(that guy said I'm an idiot for using OS/2).
This attitude is exactly what's wrong with so many OS/2 users today. COOA
used to be a place where you can defend the merits of your so-called
choice. That group went bad because as OS/2 slipped and people moved on,
only a fringe hate filled element remained. Look at COOA. OS/2 users are
defend blatant bigots because the bigots are OS/2 users and the other
guys are Windows users. But I've yet to see any OS/2 users, including you
Esther, call out the OS/2 user and tell him he's wrong. Not "what does
sexuality have to do with the topic?" but "What you are saying is WRONG."
What is also ironic is that I've seen people in cooa call you names
Esther, but no one here has. What exactly is it that you are reading?
Now, Brad has provide a group where people of differing opinions can get
together and debate like reasonable people. Certainly, Steven, Brad,
Brian, and myself has a spirited debate a few days ago.
Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2? How about some of you guys who
are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
But that is what separates OS/2 users of yesterday from the people of
today. Back then, we weren't afraid to debate the merits of our choice.
Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today. Perhaps that's
why instead of being about to say "This feature is better than that
feature." or "That's a good feature, but OS/2 has the same thing if you
do this. And OS/2 can do this to boot." Instead, all you get is "I don't
need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
"inflammatory"?
David H. McCoy
says...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 18:33:57, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I just don't agree with this. I've recently tried about 5 Linux
> > distributions, Red Hat 6.1, Red Hat beta 6.2, Linux Mandrake, Caldera,
> > and Corel and all but Corel were STILL asking about monitor refresh
> > rates!
> >
> > Mandrake DrakConf tool definitely didn't work as promised.
> >
> > Now, I like Unix and I like Linux, but I still believe that Win2k is
> > ahead. Heck, Linux doesn't have USB, just got PnP, doesn't have an
> > multimedia API to match DirectX.
> >
>
>
> ONE,, I said Consumer OS... MS does not consider W2K a Consumer OS.
> MS is calling the next consumer OS Windows ME (Millenium Edition). I
> doubt that its stability will be much improved over existing W98
> setups with the latest fixes that you get from the computer dealer
> now.
So? What does being a consumer OS have to do with anything?
> TWO.. Linux was used as an example of OS stability on PC's. It was
> NOT mentioned as especially usefull for the non power user. I do not
> believe it is at that point yet. Close but not yet.. pretty good for
> a hobby effort.
It isn't a hobby effort. Most of the advances today that make Linux as
stable and usable as it is is the result of companies like Redhat or the
makers of Mandrake. Hardly some guy in his den.
> Monitor Refresh is about setup... With Linux, at this point, you must
> know exactly what your machine has. This is one reason I say it is
> not ready for prime time.
I know this. That's why I say your statement about MS being unable to do
what hobbyists are doing ludacrious.
> As for device drivers, something is getting in the way of the effort
> to move all of that to the device itself, or it is just slower than I
> thought it would be. The cynical side of me thinks MS since it is in
> their interest for that to NOT happen.
>
Sure. MS is leading on every vendor to doesn't have Linux drivers.
Come on.
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> So? What does being a consumer OS have to do with anything?
>
The point was that the average consumer has a right to expect the kind
of stability that big systems have. MS does not deliver it. You are,
as usual, ignoring the point to avoid looking bad.
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> It isn't a hobby effort. Most of the advances today that make Linux as
> stable and usable as it is is the result of companies like Redhat or the
> makers of Mandrake. Hardly some guy in his den.
>
It was that stable before red hat got involved. Linus did by himself
in 1990 what MS only now did with their industrial strenght system in
terms of stability.... if they indeed did.
David H. McCoy
says...
> >
>
> The point was that the average consumer has a right to expect the kind
> of stability that big systems have. MS does not deliver it. You are,
> as usual, ignoring the point to avoid looking bad.
>
>
No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
power users.
Win2k is the only system that comes close to given people the user-
friendliness they want with the stability they need.
Perhaps you should learn to write.
David H. McCoy
> > stable and usable as it is is the result of companies like Redhat or the
> > makers of Mandrake. Hardly some guy in his den.
> >
>
> It was that stable before red hat got involved. Linus did by himself
> in 1990 what MS only now did with their industrial strenght system in
> terms of stability.... if they indeed did.
>
>
>
Linus didn't do squat by himself.
The reason Linux is hot is because of companies. Those are the people
making Linux easier to install. If Linux was that stable, people wouldn't
be saying how great Open source is for fixing bugs and stabilizing code.
But I'm sure these little details have escaped you.
Esther Schindler
Perhaps there's a proper place for pissing contents. Perhaps you enjoy
"debating the merits" of operating systems -- by which you apparently
mean "find every hole in this one." If you enjoy it -- fine. That's a
game I don't care to play.
I prefer discussions about "which video card do you recommend?" and
"what's the best way to solve this problem?" and "oh! I just
discovered something cool and I want to share it with you." I find my
joy in more pragmatic issues... which is one of the reasons I do
things like volunteer my own time to the computer user group, or
taking on the job of program chair for WarpTech (that's at
http://www.warptech.org, for any OS/2 lurkers who haven't yet signed
up). Because I chose this operating system as my favorite, I do
sometimes like to say "ain't it cool?" with the people who share that
enthusiasm -- and I don't need for something else to be "bad" for me
to think that this is "good."
You see: I don't particularly care whether OS/2 is "better" than
something else. I don't care if it's "viable" by someone else's
standards. It's the OS I use, and I want to get the most I can out of
it.
I also use several other operating systems -- from Linux to Windows NT
to Windows 95 to Macintosh. (Windows 2000 just arrived last week,
among the gazillion CDs in my MSDN pack, but it isn't on any computer.
A new server just arrived today, and two more workstations are on the
way; it's likely that Win2000 will find its way to one of them.) There
are things that I like about each operating system, and there things I
dislike about each of them. When I want to discuss an operating system
or its use, I go to the appropriate forum and I look for the
appopriate resources -- or, in some cases, I'll clearly mark a Windows
question as off-topic in an OS/2 discussion list (because there are
knowledgeable people I trust on those lists). However, I do *not* go
to the Macintosh newsgroups to say that OS/2 is better, and I don't
waste my time telling Windows users that Macintosh is superior. I have
better things to do with my time (not the least of which, according to
my senior edit staff, is to hand in that software review... but then I
digress).
I have had success running Windows NT and 95 -- not to mention the
other OSes -- and I still prefer OS/2. If I can't use OS/2, I'll take
a Macintosh... but that's *my* personal preference, and I don't have
the gall to decide what's good for someone else. Before someone points
out "but you're a professional reviewer!" I'll ask you to note: I
express *my* opinion of a product, and I give the reader enough
information to help him make his own decision. Almost never do I tell
someone what choice he should make; I simply identify the choice I
made, and my reasons why. That's what I do in print, and I follow the
same philosophy elsewhere.
In short: I'm not incapable of defending my choices. I simply see no
point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
--Esther
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:12:13, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
wrote:
| In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com>,
David H. McCoy
says...
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> > In article <9oDUIVRddqTc-pn2-sGEoTv26P2dy@localhost>, swor...@ntrnet.net
> > says...
> > distributions, Red Hat 6.1, Red Hat beta 6.2, Linux Mandrake, Caldera,
> > and Corel and all but Corel were STILL asking about monitor refresh
> > rates!
> >
> > Mandrake DrakConf tool definitely didn't work as promised.
> >
> > Now, I like Unix and I like Linux, but I still believe that Win2k is
> > ahead. Heck, Linux doesn't have USB, just got PnP, doesn't have an
> > multimedia API to match DirectX.
>
>
I just can't seem to get DrakConf or Linxconf to work. Keep getting core
dumps.
> --
> regards
>
> Michael Block
>
>
--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------
David S. Eckard
wrote:
>
> No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> power users.
>
>
I keep forgeting how futile it is to talk to you.
David H. McCoy
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> > who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> > WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2? How about some of you guys who
> > are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
> > used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
>
> limited utility.
Not if the OS change. Since Win2k and Linux are improving, the
conversation changes. I guess when this doesn't happen, the usefulness
isn't there.
> >
> >
> > I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again
>
> I use both, I even paid for w2000 out of my own pocket. I still use OS/2 AND
> w2000. I don't really compare them, they both have their strengths and
> weaknesses and both CDs will be drink coasters in 5 years.
We'll be dead on 100 yrs so why get out of bed?
> > .
> >
> > But that is what separates OS/2 users of yesterday from the people of
> > today. Back then, we weren't afraid to debate the merits of our choice.
> > Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today.
>
> Perhaps that was yesterday's debate!
With OS/2, I suppose you are right. New abilities should spark new
conversation.
> > Perhaps that's
> > why instead of being about to say "This feature is better than that
> > feature." or "That's a good feature, but OS/2 has the same thing if you
> > do this. And OS/2 can do this to boot." Instead, all you get is "I don't
> > need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
>
> eactly, I agree. That's what makes it monotonous.
>
> >
> >
> > As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> > "inflammatory"?
>
> Everybody's 'truth' can be inflammatory to somebody else - just look at 2000+
> years of religious wars.
>
>
Religion is subject. The fact that OS/2 has barely implemented USB
support and only supports 17 devices is fact for both you and me.
Jim Nuytens
wrote:
That's why I use ye olde twit filter.........
David H. McCoy
> Subject: Re: How about it Brad? (was "OS/2 Disease")
> Newsgroups: stardock.os2
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:54 -0500
>
> David, you're missing my point entirely.
>
> Perhaps there's a proper place for pissing contents. Perhaps you enjoy
> "debating the merits" of operating systems -- by which you apparently
> mean "find every hole in this one." If you enjoy it -- fine. That's a
> game I don't care to play.
>
No, I think that you are missing the point. The purpose of this group
seemed evident, to me anyway, from the beginning. This has nothing to do
wth "pissing" anything.
Can't someone who writes for a living pick better words than "pissing"?
Regardless, OS debates cause an exchange of knowledge. Perhaps those not
interested, those who take such debate personally, those who don't wish
to learn about what is out there, should find someplace where
information exchange isn't so distressing.
David H. McCoy
> point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
> see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
> Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
> But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
> not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
> concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
>
>
Then perhaps you are in the wrong place. Perhaps cooa with the bigots
and homophobes is the place to be as long as all of you can discuss
limited videocard select and share a love for OS/2.
David S. Eckard
wrote:
>
> No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> power users.
>
>
And the futility is NOT cause my arguements are weak. It is because
you are incapable of seeing anything that does not agree with you.
I on the other hand, am not leaving OS/2 yet but see the merits of W2K
(stable but could be better with same features and a fifth the code),
Linux (Stable but lacking drivers and some usibility), Midranges (If
you need say three or four PC's for servers, you are hurting yourself
if you never look at these as part of your solutions and they are NOT
very very expensive, I saw a portable one that came with a think pad
for 10K), and mainframes (had MS used them for MSN, MSN might actually
be a serious threat).
If I leave OS/2, the number one candidate is Linux or FreeBSD (better
networking than linux) It will not be W2k because I strongly disagree
with MS tactics. If they behave themselves for five years min...
maybe. They should earn their market, not threaten others for it.
("OH, I see you are preloading X, here is where my product Y is
better," not, "Oh, I see you are preloading X, your windows license
just expired" (Compaq, Micron, Gateway all had that happen to them))
David H. McCoy
swor...@ntrnet.net says...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 22:29:20, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> > making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> > power users.
> >
> >
>
>
>
Constantly losing debates must seem very futile.
David S. Eckard
wrote:
> Constantly losing debates must seem very futile.
>
It isnt a loss when the other side is unable to comprehend even one
point. Remember, according to Sadam Hussein, he won the gulf war. I
see you in that mode many times.
David H. McCoy
swor...@ntrnet.net says...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 22:29:20, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> > making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> > power users.
> >
> >
>
> you are incapable of seeing anything that does not agree with you.
You would be incorrect. The problem is that when confronted with holes
in your arguements, you do what what so many of your ilk do. You attempt
to change statements instead of defending your original statement.
You said that MS cannot do what hobbyist can. I offered that so far
hobbyist cannot avoid asking for video refresh rates for monitors. I
then submit that hobbyist are no longer creating the software that will
give Linux credibility, but companies. Redhat gave Linux the better
install. Corel is trying to give Linux the ease of use. IBM is giving
linux journaling. Nvidia OpenGL. CreativeLabs sound card drivers. Epic
games like UT. Some other group who's name escapes me clustering.
You said that Linux was stable and Linus did it by himself. I countered
by reminding you that Linus Tolvald didn't invent Linux. He port Minix.
And he's had help from the beginning.
But I get it. I don't see your point. I am incapable of seeing anything
that doesn't agree with me.
Sure. You cannot defend your position, so you get personal.
Typical. And weak.
Michael Block
Michael Block
> "Jabel D. Morales - VMan of Mana" <ja...@cs.utep.edu> wrote in message
> news:38E2E27A...@cs.utep.edu...
> >
> > Just curious, Steven. Are you making this post because you got bored
> > and want to trigger someone stupid enough to flame you, so you and McCoy
> > can later generalize how all OS/2 are like that person?
>
> Final warning. No personal attacks. I deleted 3 posts this morning similar
> to this one. If you want to make personal attacks, go to Usenet where
> comp.os.os2.advocacy has long since left the realm of talking about OS/2 and
> gotten into prsonal attacks.
>
> This group is for talking about OS/2 as well as other OSes. We have an OS/2
> support group. Anyone who is posting on topic and is not making personal
> attacks is welcome here.
>
> Brad
> <moderator>
just out of interest, I have just perused stardock.od.windows.general and can
find no posts of OS/2 users suggesting that windows users are ignoring the
superiority of OS/2. This newsgroup is functioning well as I see it.
Michael Block
that's exactly the point Brad. Some of us are disappointed at what is happening
on this group (from some users of all OSs). It's your server and group, but
perhaps you may consider renaming the group to reflect 'comparative OS merits'
rahter than its named focus on one particular OS.
>
>
> I haven't found the posts by either side generally mean or belligerent.
> What I have seen in the last couple of days are a couple of users who happen
> to be OS/2 users making *personal* attacks on people. It is that sort of
> behavior that ruined the OS/2 news groups.
I agree, and I'd like to not see it here. They were also ruined by the 'my dick
is bigger than your dick' type posts from OS/2 and then windows users.
> I don't care what the
> motivations or personal hygene habits of a given user are, I am only
> interested in the content of their words. And if I don't agree with the
> content of their words then I will try to debate that content. But never
> should I get into trying to personally attack the person making that
> content.
>
> The personal views of that user on operating systems is irrelevant, they
> should not have to suffer being called mentally deficient or "losers" or
> whatever. That sort of behavior does not belong here.
>
> The OS discussion that lead to "OS/2 Disease" was on topic -- it was about
> OS/2 and the alleged pros/cons of releasing ones source code on OS/2.
??? I don't see that in Steve's opening paragraph. perhaps it may have been more
accurate to say that all users of unfamiliar OSs have more problems (this is not
an attack on Steve)
>
snip--------------->
Michael Block
>
>
> Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2? How about some of you guys who
> are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
> used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
perhaps Esther is saying that repeated challenges to debate OS merits have
limited utility.
>
>
> I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again
I use both, I even paid for w2000 out of my own pocket. I still use OS/2 AND
w2000. I don't really compare them, they both have their strengths and
weaknesses and both CDs will be drink coasters in 5 years.
> .
>
> But that is what separates OS/2 users of yesterday from the people of
> today. Back then, we weren't afraid to debate the merits of our choice.
> Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today.
Perhaps that was yesterday's debate!
> Perhaps that's
> why instead of being about to say "This feature is better than that
> feature." or "That's a good feature, but OS/2 has the same thing if you
> do this. And OS/2 can do this to boot." Instead, all you get is "I don't
> need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
eactly, I agree. That's what makes it monotonous.
>
>
> As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> "inflammatory"?
Everybody's 'truth' can be inflammatory to somebody else - just look at 2000+
years of religious wars.
--
Michael Block
> In article <9oDUIVRddqTc-pn2-sGEoTv26P2dy@localhost>, swor...@ntrnet.net
> says...
> > On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 13:25:44, pos...@tree.branch (Mike Trettel) wrote:
> >
> > > In the many years I've been fooling with Linux (starting back in the 0.99
> > > kernel days, with Slackware 2.something or other) I've seen exactly one
> > > kernel trap. That was with a freshly compiled kernel in which I had used
> > > a wrong set of build options for my hardware. I've also seen some half
> > > dozen or so X Server related lockups/crashes, most of which I got out of
> > > by pressing CTL-ALT-BCKSPC. This is from what some people disparingly
> > > refer to as a "hobbyist" OS based upon "old" technology. Linux may be
> > > based upon "old" technology, but it's technology that works as promised.
> > >
> >
> > That Microsoft is apparently unwilling to outdo a bunch of hobbiest is
> > very very sad.
> >
> > And your story is both common for linux and proves the point.
> >
>
> I just don't agree with this. I've recently tried about 5 Linux
> distributions, Red Hat 6.1, Red Hat beta 6.2, Linux Mandrake, Caldera,
> and Corel and all but Corel were STILL asking about monitor refresh
> rates!
>
> Mandrake DrakConf tool definitely didn't work as promised.
>
> Now, I like Unix and I like Linux, but I still believe that Win2k is
> ahead. Heck, Linux doesn't have USB, just got PnP, doesn't have an
> multimedia API to match DirectX.
well I have lost 3 KDE desktops through corruption, so it isn't perfect yet!
Jim Nuytens
wrote:
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> > "inflammatory"?
>
> Everybody's 'truth' can be inflammatory to somebody else - just look at 2000+
> years of religious wars.
Especially when that "truth" doesn't hold water for all OS/2 users.
I've used (at one time or another) Win 3.x, Win 95, Win NT, OS/2, and
Linux. Of all of those, I still prefer OS/2.
I don't "find it difficult" to install or run any of them, with the
possible exception of Linux. Getting Linux to do what I want is more a
matter of unfamiliarity than it is anything else.
Blanket statements about the "abilities" of OS/2 users with other OSes
are just as bad as blanket statements about the "abilities" of Windoze
users with other OSes. The "debate" serves no purpose other than to
inflame.
As I've said before, I don't go poking my nose into Windoze users'
lives and their newsgroups; why can't these 2 do the same? Because
they're the ones with "the disease", that's why.
Jason Koeninger
>
Sorry to break in where I haven't been active before, but I was wasting some time reading over
several newsgroups and couldn't ignore this thread.
>
> This is rich. Find ONE posts where anyone who debated that OS/2 is no
> longer a viable operating system said that anyone who uses it is an
> idiot.
If you tell me that the OS I'm using is no longer viable, it's pretty safe to assume that I will
think you're calling me an idiot (or whatever adjective you prefer). Did you say it in the thread?
No. Was it implied? That's debatable. I'm only pointing out the reason some might take offense to
your statements even though you believe you've not said anything explicitly insulting.
>
> Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2?
For the record...I use OS/2 (all versions), Windows 95, Windows NT, and Linux. All of my systems
are stable. In fact, with no updates, I can get Windows 95 to run to the 43 day bug that was fixed
a while back. Are those jaws I hear hitting the floor now? Windows users or OS/2 users? Both?
Admittedly, I use a small subset of the features of the WPS but like the fact that it gives me
options on how to do my work. I like the OS/2 command line and the stability of DOS/Win3.1 support
for continuing maintenance/development of software for those platforms. Rexx is of little interest
to me, and I believe I could get it on Windows anyway. Does that pretty much cover it?
This may seem trivial, but my biggest sticking point is the OS/2 Window List. For the way I work,
not having it is a major problem. That's why I'm considering Linux with KDE as my only good
alternative right now. KDE does have a window list, though it doesn't support several features I
use frequently. It's better than Ctrl-Escape bringing up the Start menu, though.
Now, have I proven I don't have a "disease" and that OS/2 is still compelling enough for me to
continue using it? If not, let me know how I have failed.
> I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
And now the reason I bothered to respond. How in the world could you possibly justify making such a
blanket statement? Admittedly, I haven't used Windows 2000, but here's a quick question. What
happens when you hit Ctrl-Escape? Better yet, is there an OS/2-style Windows List? Additionally,
is there a Start menu (as in I don't want one)? These are my "fair shakes" for any platform.
Performance and stability follow closely and yes, I do consider the amount of memory required to run
the OS as part of a performance measurement. Argue cheap memory all you want. That's not the issue
with me.
Before you start discussing how ridiculous it is that a feature like the Window List would keep me
from changing to W2k, keep in mind that you have a problem with Linux asking for monitor refresh
rates. How often do you change a monitor refresh rate? Now, how often do you change between
multiple applications? Hopefully, you understand my point. I'm sure I'll now get a list of 3rd
party applications that can add this capability. If so, I might give them a shot. You might also
try to argue that using the mouse to click buttons is more efficient. Sorry, the mouse kills my
carpal tunnel problems.
Along the fair shake lines....shall we discuss viruses?
> Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today.
Perhaps that's not the problem at all. Perhaps most OS/2 users stay out of these discussions as
they serve no real purpose. This is the first one I've ever gotten into outside of our own company
and its employees.
> "I don't
> need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
How can you disqualify these as valid points? We run a lot of word processing at our office? How
is the fastest and coolest necessary? I can't hardly find 4 Mb video cards anymore so data entry
machines have Matrox cards with 16 Mb of RAM and 3D acceleration. What's the point of that? It's a
waste. Why put 128 Mb of RAM into such a machine to support the newest, feature-laden products when
the same can be accomplished in 32 Mb of RAM with another OS?
I prefer not to upgrade systems because it takes time and could potentially destabilize systems. If
one particular OS is on a frequent upgrade path, that's a valid point in weighing the options.
If you're only interested in a feature comparison table with a bunch of check marks, you're probably
right. OS/2 loses. If you're interested in weighing the merits of the overall solution, you have a
more useful discussion where these points that you've dismissed become major considerations. It
looks like you want to control the rules of the debate to make sure the result is in your favor. I
don't like a comparison of products to be limited to a blind feature comparison as there are lots of
other valid factors to consider.
>
> As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> "inflammatory"?
It's not inflammatory. Are you implying that everything you're saying is the truth, or did you just
want an answer?
Regards,
Jason
Jan Danielsson
>I prefer discussions about "which video card do you recommend?" and
>"what's the best way to solve this problem?" and "oh! I just
>discovered something cool and I want to share it with you." I find my
>joy in more pragmatic issues...
Wonderful! My kind of people! Now, where do I find a place with only people
like you?
IRC, WWW, mailinglists, etc?
/j
Michal Necasek
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >
>
> Sorry to break in where I haven't been active before, but I was wasting
>some time reading over several newsgroups and couldn't ignore this thread.
>
[big snip]
Excellent post, Jason. I certainly couldn't sum it up better. And I'm
sure I'm not the only one who agrees wholeheartedly with you.
While it is interesting to hear about things I might be missing,
I certainly don't hold with those who think that anything that isn't
the latest and greatest actually isn't worth looking at, let alone
using. I for instance don't care about the lack of USB support in OS/2.
I don't have any USB device and I don't need one. Should I throw out my
perfectly good serial modem or SCSI scanner just because USB versions
now exist?
This NG could really use a more appropriate name (someone suggested
stardock.bash.os2.users <g>?), like stardock.discussion.os or something.
The current name is just way off topic ;-)
- Mike
Esther Schindler
I expect to hear folk music -- not people discussing whether folk
music is viable or if the people who prefer it are blind to the
benefits of rock'n'roll or classical music.
Newsgroups are indeed interactive -- but they have a high lurker
quotient. Most people listen for a while before they speak up, and if
they don't like what they hear, they turn to another channel.
--Esther
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:29:01, "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com>
wrote:
| "Esther Schindler" <est...@bitranch.com> wrote in message
| news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com...
| > When I turn on a folk music station, David, I expect to hear folk
| > music.
|
| That's really not a good analogy. This group is interactive. Personally, I
| enjoy debating people as long as all sides are civil, reasonable, and put
| out well thought out arguments. That has been the case in this news group
| for the most part.
|
| It is not an OS/2 advocacy group, it is a group to discuss OS/2 and things
| that are related to OS/2 in tangental ways. People are doing that.
..
Esther Schindler
| I do agree however, that harping on the OS/2 users mentality, or
| even proposing that there is such a mentality, which I have admittedly
| indulged in to some extent, is going a bit overboard and is probably
| uncalled for, especially when it's used as a means to start a discussion
| thread.
Thank you for your graciousness, Allie. I may not always agree with
you, but I respect what you say. <smile>
--Esther
Esther Schindler
people, I have a much larger "microphone" for doing that. 80,000 of
them every damned week.
--Esther
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:51:44, Allie Martin <all...@kasnet.com> wrote:
| On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:54 -0500, Esther Schindler posted :
|
| > In short: I'm not incapable of defending my choices. I simply see no
| > point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
| > see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
| > Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
| > But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
| > not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
| > concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
|
| Well, there's another side to that coin. Many non-Windows OS users
| are of the impression that most Windows OS users choose Windows because
| they don't know better. They therefore place this ignorance as a leading
| cause for the Microsoft monopoly. Get rid of the ignorance and maybe the
| monopoly will go away. This forum would be a nice way to educate Windows
| droids like us don't you think? :) <tongue in cheek>
|
| --
| Allie Martin
| mailto:all...@kasnet.com
| ---
David G. Holm
that considered a personal attack or debating?
--
David G. Holm
Brad Wardell
"Esther Schindler" <est...@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com...
> I expect to hear folk music -- not people discussing whether folk
> music is viable or if the people who prefer it are blind to the
> benefits of rock'n'roll or classical music.
>
> Newsgroups are indeed interactive -- but they have a high lurker
> quotient. Most people listen for a while before they speak up, and if
> they don't like what they hear, they turn to another channel.
>
The analogy still doesn't fit because in this case, it's just as often the
folk music people saying taht people who listen to Rock and Roll being
somehow mentally deficient.
Let's remember the key problem here, we simply ask that people not make
personal attacks as our starting point and move from there. If someone
wants to say folk music is better than any other type of music and someone
says that Rock and Roll is better, I don't expect the folk music person to
call the other guy nasty names (you should see some of the profane posts
I've had to remove).
Additionally, music is subjective. Whether OS/2 supports APCI isn't
subjective, it's a true or false statement.
If someone says that they can do everything on OS X that someone else can do
on OS Y, they need to be prepared to back up that statement.
In this paritcular discussion, it is improtant to know the entire context of
this particular thread. It started out as an open source discussion on
OS/2. It was through a combination of OS/2 users and WIndows users that it
turned into an OS debate.
Personally, anyone reading the posts from March 23 to 25th I think will be
impressed with the quality and intelligence of the posts.
Brad
> --Esther
>
Jan Danielsson
>instructions, let me know and I'll dig them out.
I'm not very good at finding stuff on the net; if it's not too much trouble..
/j
Janek Schwarz
> 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
That's definitely not true. Look, I've been using Win2000 on my
machine at work since RC1. And I enjoy using it. I enjoy it
because I have ODNT installed, which I immediately bought after I
discovered that I can't live without virtual desktops.
But at home, I'm still using Warp. Not because I'm an ignorant,
stupid OS/2 user. It's more because I like it, I'm used to it, i
know it's rough edges. Over the years, I've gathered knowledge
about OS/2, which I still have to gather for other operating
systems. And, I care about my data. I have data, which I created
with native OS/2 programs and I don't have windows versions of
these programs. Sure, I could spend tons of time for converting
the data, but since I have to work with computers I try to do as
little unnecessary work with computers at home as I can. And, I
have a family. Spending time with my family is more important for
me than switching operating systems.
Janek.
Jose Bernardo Silva
"David H. McCoy" <fa...@forgitaboutit.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.134dd383...@news.stardock.com...
> Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
> used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
>
> 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
So, you first accuse Esther of reading things that weren't here, and now you
claim not to have read what is posted here? See my previous response on this
topic... Oh, wait, I am not an user, I am an power user, so it doesn't
count, is that it? Or having to suffer windows in it's various incantations
for the last 9 years, having a few microsoft certifications, and doing tech
support, administration, consulting, and integration of ms products doesn't
count as a user? Maybe it doesn't, because at home I use OS/2 for it's
stability, security, and ease of use, so I can't know a thing about windows,
right?
Right, Ominor. Please read what is posted before starting bashing others,
ok?
Esther Schindler
wrote:
| With regards to the tenor, it has to be taken in the context of the
Yes, I know. I'd already begun to skip several of those discussions,
when it became evident that they were less about OS/2 than about the
wisdom of using OS/2. I lost interest long before anything devolved
into personal attacks.
--Esther
Esther Schindler
instructions, let me know and I'll dig them out.
I'm also active on the Phoenix OS/2 Society's discussion list -- but
you're supposed to be a member before you sign up there.
There are other good ones, too.
--Esther
Esther Schindler
music.
--Esther
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:40:30, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
wrote:
| In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com>,
| est...@bitranch.com says...
| > From: est...@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)
| > Subject: Re: How about it Brad? (was "OS/2 Disease")
| > Newsgroups: stardock.os2
| > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:54 -0500
| >
| > David, you're missing my point entirely.
| >
| > Perhaps there's a proper place for pissing contents. Perhaps you enjoy
| > "debating the merits" of operating systems -- by which you apparently
| > mean "find every hole in this one." If you enjoy it -- fine. That's a
| > game I don't care to play.
| >
|
| No, I think that you are missing the point. The purpose of this group
| seemed evident, to me anyway, from the beginning. This has nothing to do
| wth "pissing" anything.
|
| Can't someone who writes for a living pick better words than "pissing"?
| Regardless, OS debates cause an exchange of knowledge. Perhaps those not
| interested, those who take such debate personally, those who don't wish
| to learn about what is out there, should find someplace where
| information exchange isn't so distressing.
|
Allie Martin
> Can't someone who writes for a living pick better words than "pissing"?
> Regardless, OS debates cause an exchange of knowledge. Perhaps those not
> interested, those who take such debate personally, those who don't wish
> to learn about what is out there, should find someplace where
> information exchange isn't so distressing.
I'm sorry that things have taken this sort of course. I did not
particularly seek and find this group. I was told about it and invited to
join because the discussions are interesting and free of the silly name
calling and bantering which occurs in COOA.
Not long after subscribing, Brad himself had alluded to the fact
that Windows advocates would be useful and would offer a nice kindle to
healthy discussion because they would offer a different point of view and
in so doing, prevent the 'preacher preaching to priests' scenario which is
rather boring. I didn't get the impression at any time whatever that this
is an OS/2 support group where individuals post for technical support or
for assistance with specific problems. I got the impression that this
group is here to generate discussion about OS/2 as an OS, which of course
cannot be done in a vacuum, but has to be done with fair and due
consideration to whatever else is out there and whatever else is happening
in computing in general. Comparing OS/2 with the other OS offerings is
therefore inevitable.
I do agree however, that harping on the OS/2 users mentality, or
even proposing that there is such a mentality, which I have admittedly
indulged in to some extent, is going a bit overboard and is probably
uncalled for, especially when it's used as a means to start a discussion
thread.
--
Allie Martin
> In short: I'm not incapable of defending my choices. I simply see no
> point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
> see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
> Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
> But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
> not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
> concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
Well, there's another side to that coin. Many non-Windows OS users
are of the impression that most Windows OS users choose Windows because
they don't know better. They therefore place this ignorance as a leading
cause for the Microsoft monopoly. Get rid of the ignorance and maybe the
monopoly will go away. This forum would be a nice way to educate Windows
droids like us don't you think? :) <tongue in cheek>
--
Brad Wardell
"Jan Danielsson" <Jan.Dan...@falun.mail.telia.com> wrote in message
news:wnaqnavryffbasnyhaznvyg...@news.stardock.com...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:54 -0500, Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> >I prefer discussions about "which video card do you recommend?" and
> >"what's the best way to solve this problem?" and "oh! I just
> >discovered something cool and I want to share it with you." I find my
> >joy in more pragmatic issues...
>
> Wonderful! My kind of people! Now, where do I find a place with only
people
> like you?
>
> IRC, WWW, mailinglists, etc?
Well we have groups like that here too. Stardock.discussion.technology
CURRENTLY has video card discussions. IF it weren't for that group, I
wouldn't have known about the new GeForce drivers supporting FSAA for
instance.
Brad
>
>
> /j
>
>
>
Brad Wardell
"Janek Schwarz" <j....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:c1NQ2yxm$GA....@prospero.stardock.com...
> > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
>
> machine at work since RC1. And I enjoy using it. I enjoy it
> because I have ODNT installed, which I immediately bought after I
> discovered that I can't live without virtual desktops.
>
> But at home, I'm still using Warp. Not because I'm an ignorant,
> stupid OS/2 user. It's more because I like it, I'm used to it, i
> know it's rough edges. Over the years, I've gathered knowledge
> about OS/2, which I still have to gather for other operating
> systems. And, I care about my data. I have data, which I created
> with native OS/2 programs and I don't have windows versions of
> these programs. Sure, I could spend tons of time for converting
> the data, but since I have to work with computers I try to do as
> little unnecessary work with computers at home as I can. And, I
> have a family. Spending time with my family is more important for
> me than switching operating systems.
These are valid points. BTW, David wasn't saying or implying that OS/2 usrs
are "stupid'" or "ignorant". He has his opinion and you are providing
evidence to support your opinion that contradicts his. This is the nature
of a good discussion in my view.
Brad
>
> Janek.
>
Brad Wardell
"Esther Schindler" <est...@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com...
> music.
That's really not a good analogy. This group is interactive. Personally, I
enjoy debating people as long as all sides are civil, reasonable, and put
out well thought out arguments. That has been the case in this news group
for the most part.
It is not an OS/2 advocacy group, it is a group to discuss OS/2 and things
that are related to OS/2 in tangental ways. People are doing that.
Generally, debates occur when someone makes a statement that others don't
agree with. In having read every post on here for the past 2 weeks and I
think I can honestly say I have no axe to grind, my view is that there's
been very good debates here but that in recent days, when certain specific
OS/2 users have found that they cannot logically respond to an argument made
by a Windows user they resort to personal attacks.
Then again, maybe I am just out of touch. I have been told that because of
the "tone" of my posts on OS/2's Usenet groups that I somehow deserved some
of the rather contemptible treatment I received at the hands of some of the
"OS/2 advocates". Strangely enough, in other news groups on Usenet, my
"tone" seems to be acceptable but on the OS/2 news groups, I would be
attacked for even participating because any post by me was "advertising".
This post I am writing now if posted on os2.apps would be pointed to as
"More Stardock advertising" simply because I work for Stardock and am
posting.
Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>
> --Esther
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:40:30, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> wrote:
>
> | In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com>,
> | est...@bitranch.com says...
> | > From: est...@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)
> | > Subject: Re: How about it Brad? (was "OS/2 Disease")
> | > Newsgroups: stardock.os2
> | > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:01:54 -0500
> | >
> | > David, you're missing my point entirely.
> | >
> | > Perhaps there's a proper place for pissing contents. Perhaps you enjoy
> | > "debating the merits" of operating systems -- by which you apparently
> | > mean "find every hole in this one." If you enjoy it -- fine. That's a
> | > game I don't care to play.
> | >
> |
> | No, I think that you are missing the point. The purpose of this group
> | seemed evident, to me anyway, from the beginning. This has nothing to do
> | wth "pissing" anything.
> |
> | Can't someone who writes for a living pick better words than "pissing"?
> | Regardless, OS debates cause an exchange of knowledge. Perhaps those not
> | interested, those who take such debate personally, those who don't wish
> | to learn about what is out there, should find someplace where
> | information exchange isn't so distressing.
> |
Brad Wardell
"Jan Danielsson" <Jan.Dan...@falun.mail.telia.com> wrote in message
news:wnaqnavryffbasnyhaznvyg...@news.stardock.com...
> >> >"what's the best way to solve this problem?" and "oh! I just
> >> >discovered something cool and I want to share it with you." I find my
> >> >joy in more pragmatic issues...
> >>
> >> Wonderful! My kind of people! Now, where do I find a place with only
> >people
> >> like you?
> >>
> >> IRC, WWW, mailinglists, etc?
> >
> >Well we have groups like that here too. Stardock.discussion.technology
> >CURRENTLY has video card discussions. IF it weren't for that group, I
> >wouldn't have known about the new GeForce drivers supporting FSAA for
> >instance.
>
> stardock.os2... A few weeks ago, I know what I would have expected from
> something called stardock.discussion.technology.
>
> I would expect that one could discuss QNX vs IBM microkernel design... But
> then again; it's not Windows, and it won't run the latest hardware, so
what's
> the relevance, right?
stardock.discussion.technology woudl work out there.
Let's not get into sour grapes, OS/2 doesn't get "Bashed" until someone
using OS/2 tries to tout that it is somehow better than Windows usually.
Most of Steven's posts tend to be reality checks, not so much Windows
advocacy. Don't get me wrong, I debate Steven all the time too.
Brad
>
>
> /j
>
>
>
Brad Wardell
"Jan Danielsson" <Jan.Dan...@falun.mail.telia.com> wrote in message
news:wnaqnavryffbasnyhaznvyg...@news.stardock.com...
> >subjective, it's a true or false statement.
>
> what's-the-use. Right? Now what? Brad:1 - OS/2 users:0.
>
> We'll switch when we want or need to switch, BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. Until we
> switch, we want to discuss OS/2. Not get bashed because we don't need
Windows
> yet.
I have never said OS/2 is dead because id doesnt' support X. I have never
implied that either. Similarly, I am getting a bit tired of OS/2 users
trying to claim that people are calling them "idiots" when that is not
happening.
In my view, this sub-thread can be summarized in the following conversation:
OS/2 User: OS/2 is catching up on Windows, it's still better than Windows
2000 and getting better all the time.
Windows User: How can you say that? OS/2 Doesn't do A, B, C, and D which the
majority of people consider critical every day things.
OS/2 User: Well I don't need those things and I tried Windows and it crashed
on me.
Windows User: But your views aren't representative of most users.
OS/2 User: Oh so now you're saying I'm some sort of freak! Quit trying to
make me switch! I'm sick of the OS/2 bashing going around here! I just
wanted to talk about OS/2. You're a complete jerk, I hate you. Why are you
even here you moronic loser?!
(except that the posts I've deleted are much more vicious than that).
This news group isn't the OS/2 feel good deny reality group. It's a place
to talk about OS/2 stuff. If a new driver comes out, talk about it. If
Odin is doing something cool, talk about it. But if you make the choice to
try to compare OS/2 to another OS, you have to be prepared for others to
respond.
Afterall, it wasn't Windows users who argued that OS/2 ISVs who don't
release their source code are "selfish and money grubbing". The Opensource
debate was a result of OS/2 users asking OS/2 ISVs to give up their source
code. Nothing wrong with them asking for that but they can't cry foul if
they are asked to defend their position. And it was OS/2 users that
compared OS/2 users to WIndows users in terms of developing software. It
was OS/2 users that said OS/2 is a "modern" OS. It was OS/2 users that said
that OS/2 shouldn't be classified in teh same group as Amiga users.
There is nothing wrong with any of the above positions btw. But they are
opinions, not facts and opinions can be debated. I simply don't like people
making personal attacks or trying to cry foul when their opponents seem to
be "winning" the debate.
Brad
>
>
> /j
>
>
>
Esther Schindler
LIST...@NIC.SURFNET.NL
that contains
subscribe os2-l
If that's not right, I'm sure the system will tell you the proper
syntax.
--E
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:56:44, "Jan Danielsson"
<Jan.Dan...@falun.mail.telia.com> wrote:
| >The os2-l discussion list is good. If you can't find the signup
| >instructions, let me know and I'll dig them out.
|
Richard Hevron
> Let's not get into sour grapes, OS/2 doesn't get "Bashed" until someone
> using OS/2 tries to tout that it is somehow better than Windows usually.
> Most of Steven's posts tend to be reality checks, not so much Windows
> advocacy. Don't get me wrong, I debate Steven all the time too.
>
> Brad
As I recollect the last six "in your face" posts were instigated by your buddy
SdB.
1. OS/2 Disease
2. Yet more bad news for OS/2
3. Three nice things
4. Opera 4 Announced
5. Web usage numbers by operating system
6. W2K and OS/2 (SETI @ Home0
Not, as you complimentarily state for him as reality checks, but as snide and
nasty argumentative invective.
--
Vae victis!
Richard
Steven C. Den Beste
>OK , windows 2000 is light years ahead of OS/2 in nearly all aspects. Some of us
>still prefer OS/2 though. Is that OK? Perhaps we still want to dicuss it despite no
>new shrinkwrap release since 1996. Is that OK ? Perhaps we would like to discuss it
>without being told what we are missing out on. Many of us use windows as well and
>so are probably well aware of what the world of windows has to offer.
It sounds as if you wish to closely control the content of some forum, to
make sure that you only hear from people who agree with you. Perhaps you
could set up your own newsserver? Or a private mailing list
by-invitation-only?
There are numerous alternatives.
There exists software which can be deployed on a web server which creates a
semblance of a discussion forum, but accessed by web browsers instead of by
news servers. They can be set up to only permit members to post, and
membership can be made to require human approval. I'm a member of such a
forum called "MetaFiler" (http://metafilter.com/); it's running on a PC in
an apartment in San Francisco. All the code was developed by Matt, the
owner.
Of course, Matt's code wouldn't do you any good even if you could get it,
because it's running on IIS. Perhaps the OS/2 Open Source community could
write something comparable. (Or maybe Project Odin could help.)
--------
Steven C. Den Beste sden...@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste
CDMA FAQ: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/cdmafaq.html
"I'm a 21st century kid trapped in a 19th century family"
-- Calvin
Jan Danielsson
>> >"what's the best way to solve this problem?" and "oh! I just
>> >discovered something cool and I want to share it with you." I find my
>> >joy in more pragmatic issues...
>>
>> Wonderful! My kind of people! Now, where do I find a place with only
>people
>> like you?
>>
>> IRC, WWW, mailinglists, etc?
>
>Well we have groups like that here too. Stardock.discussion.technology
>CURRENTLY has video card discussions. IF it weren't for that group, I
>wouldn't have known about the new GeForce drivers supporting FSAA for
>instance.
Yes; now that's briliant. I knew what I was expecting of something called
stardock.os2... A few weeks ago, I know what I would have expected from
something called stardock.discussion.technology.
I would expect that one could discuss QNX vs IBM microkernel design... But
then again; it's not Windows, and it won't run the latest hardware, so what's
the relevance, right?
/j
Jan Danielsson
>subjective, it's a true or false statement.
So, OS/2 doesn't support x. It's dead, buried, bye-bye, no-more,
what's-the-use. Right? Now what? Brad:1 - OS/2 users:0.
We'll switch when we want or need to switch, BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. Until we
switch, we want to discuss OS/2. Not get bashed because we don't need Windows
yet.
/j
Michael Block
> In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-p...@agave.bitranch.com>,
> est...@bitranch.com says...
> > In short: I'm not incapable of defending my choices. I simply see no
> > point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
> > see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
> > Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
> > But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
> > not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
> > concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
> >
> >
>
> Then perhaps you are in the wrong place. Perhaps cooa with the bigots
> and homophobes is the place to be as long as all of you can discuss
> limited videocard select and share a love for OS/2.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------
Brad
if this isn't a personal attack, what is?
--
regards
Michael Block
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
if you assume that there's no hope
you guarantee that there's no hope.
If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom
there are opportunities to change things
there's a chance you may contribute to making a better world.
.......the choice is yours.
Noam Chomsky
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mblock/perinatal.html The www home of
perinatal psychiatry.
Michael Block
> In article <38E425A3...@optusnet.com.au>, mbl...@optusnet.com.au
> says...
> > "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> > > presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> > > who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> > > WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2? How about some of you guys who
> > > are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
> > > used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
> >
> > perhaps Esther is saying that repeated challenges to debate OS merits have
> > limited utility.
>
> Not if the OS change. Since Win2k and Linux are improving, the
> conversation changes. I guess when this doesn't happen, the usefulness
> isn't there.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> > > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again
> >
> > I use both, I even paid for w2000 out of my own pocket. I still use OS/2 AND
> > w2000. I don't really compare them, they both have their strengths and
> > weaknesses and both CDs will be drink coasters in 5 years.
>
> We'll be dead on 100 yrs so why get out of bed?
>
> > > .
> > >
> > > But that is what separates OS/2 users of yesterday from the people of
> > > today. Back then, we weren't afraid to debate the merits of our choice.
> > > Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today.
> >
> > Perhaps that was yesterday's debate!
>
> With OS/2, I suppose you are right. New abilities should spark new
> conversation.
>
> > > Perhaps that's
> > > why instead of being about to say "This feature is better than that
> > > feature." or "That's a good feature, but OS/2 has the same thing if you
> > > do this. And OS/2 can do this to boot." Instead, all you get is "I don't
> > > need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
> >
> > eactly, I agree. That's what makes it monotonous.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> > > "inflammatory"?
> >
> > Everybody's 'truth' can be inflammatory to somebody else - just look at 2000+
> > years of religious wars.
> >
> >
>
> Religion is subject. The fact that OS/2 has barely implemented USB
> support and only supports 17 devices is fact for both you and me.
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------
OK , windows 2000 is light years ahead of OS/2 in nearly all aspects. Some of us
still prefer OS/2 though. Is that OK? Perhaps we still want to dicuss it despite no
new shrinkwrap release since 1996. Is that OK ? Perhaps we would like to discuss it
without being told what we are missing out on. Many of us use windows as well and
so are probably well aware of what the world of windows has to offer.
Michael Block
welcome to the list Jason.
Michael Block
>
> These are valid points. BTW, David wasn't saying or implying that OS/2 usrs
> are "stupid'" or "ignorant".
other than saying that once you've used w2000 you'll never go back to OS/2.
> He has his opinion and you are providing
> evidence to support your opinion that contradicts his. This is the nature
> of a good discussion in my view.
>
> Brad
>
> >
> > Janek.
> >
it seems that a good percentage of contributors to this newsgroups are active
users of many OSs. Perhaps that means that they are well placed to comment on
comparisons between them, but also don't like to be told that they should dump
one of their OSs just because windows does things Linux or OS/2 doesn't.
Michael Block
>
> > >
> > > Now, I like Unix and I like Linux, but I still believe that Win2k is
> > > ahead. Heck, Linux doesn't have USB, just got PnP, doesn't have an
> > > multimedia API to match DirectX.
> >
> > well I have lost 3 KDE desktops through corruption, so it isn't perfect yet!
> >
>
> I just can't seem to get DrakConf or Linxconf to work. Keep getting core
> dumps.
>
> OpenLinux 2.3 only made me admire OS/2 and w2000 even more. KDE should stand for
> kludgy desktop environment, it has taken the worst aspects of windows explorer and
> made them even less intuitive. the only advance on windows GUI is the standard
> virtual desktops and the greater configurability.
>
> >
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------
Michael Block
> On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 22:29:20, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> > making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> > power users.
> >
> >
>
> I keep forgeting how futile it is to talk to you.
Brad, isn't this a personal attack?
Michael Block
> In article <9oDUIVRddqTc-pn2-2F5hlKm3Lr3L@localhost>,
> swor...@ntrnet.net says...
> > On Sun, 30 Mar 3900 22:29:20, David H. McCoy <fa...@forgitaboutit.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> > > making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> > > power users.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I keep forgeting how futile it is to talk to you.
> >
> >
>
> Constantly losing debates must seem very futile.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------
Brad is this comment helpful? It seems a personal attack to me.
Brad Wardell
"Michal Necasek" <mi...@nospam.mendelu.cz> wrote in message
news:38E49A29...@nospam.mendelu.cz...
> Jason Koeninger wrote:
>
> > "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Sorry to break in where I haven't been active before, but I was wasting
> >some time reading over several newsgroups and couldn't ignore this
thread.
> >
> [big snip]
>
> Excellent post, Jason. I certainly couldn't sum it up better. And I'm
> sure I'm not the only one who agrees wholeheartedly with you.
>
> While it is interesting to hear about things I might be missing,
> I certainly don't hold with those who think that anything that isn't
> the latest and greatest actually isn't worth looking at, let alone
> using. I for instance don't care about the lack of USB support in OS/2.
> I don't have any USB device and I don't need one. Should I throw out my
> perfectly good serial modem or SCSI scanner just because USB versions
> now exist?
>
> This NG could really use a more appropriate name (someone suggested
> stardock.bash.os2.users <g>?), like stardock.discussion.os or something.
> The current name is just way off topic ;-)
Seriously though, as you showed with your stats on Unreal, an OS/2 user is
perfectly capable of running with pretty good hardware and have a pretty
good selection of software.
Most of it comes down to what you are using your PC for in the first place.
I'd rather use OS/2 than Linux, for instance or BeOS.
Brad
>
>
> - Mike
>
Michael Block
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 14:08:32 +1000, Michael Block wrote this for posterity:
>
> >OK , windows 2000 is light years ahead of OS/2 in nearly all aspects. Some of us
> >still prefer OS/2 though. Is that OK? Perhaps we still want to dicuss it despite no
> >new shrinkwrap release since 1996. Is that OK ? Perhaps we would like to discuss it
> >without being told what we are missing out on. Many of us use windows as well and
> >so are probably well aware of what the world of windows has to offer.
>
> It sounds as if you wish to closely control the content of some forum, to
> make sure that you only hear from people who agree with you. Perhaps you
> could set up your own newsserver? Or a private mailing list
> by-invitation-only?
>
> There are numerous alternatives.
>
>
>
> Of course, Matt's code wouldn't do you any good even if you could get it,
> because it's running on IIS. Perhaps the OS/2 Open Source community could
> write something comparable. (Or maybe Project Odin could help.)
regards
Jan Danielsson
> subscribe os2-l
>
>If that's not right, I'm sure the system will tell you the proper
>syntax.
Thanks! See you there.
/j
David H. McCoy
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >
>
> Sorry to break in where I haven't been active before, but I was wasting some time reading over
> several newsgroups and couldn't ignore this thread.
>
> >
> > longer a viable operating system said that anyone who uses it is an
> > idiot.
>
> If you tell me that the OS I'm using is no longer viable, it's pretty safe to assume that I will
> think you're calling me an idiot (or whatever adjective you prefer). Did you say it in the thread?
> No. Was it implied? That's debatable. I'm only pointing out the reason some might take offense to
> your statements even though you believe you've not said anything explicitly insulting.
No, that is not safe to assume. I don't like peanut butter, gum, or diet
soda, but I don't think that people who do are idiots.
I don't believe any reasonable person would believe that. The problem is
that people take OS/2 to personally. It is a piece of software, not a
religion.
Make no mistake, if a think you are an idiot, I'll tell you. You won't
have to guess.
> >
> > Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> > presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> > who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> > WPS so compelling the he STILL uses OS/2?
>
> For the record...I use OS/2 (all versions), Windows 95, Windows NT, and Linux. All of my systems
> are stable. In fact, with no updates, I can get Windows 95 to run to the 43 day bug that was fixed
> a while back. Are those jaws I hear hitting the floor now? Windows users or OS/2 users? Both?
>
> Admittedly, I use a small subset of the features of the WPS but like the fact that it gives me
> options on how to do my work. I like the OS/2 command line and the stability of DOS/Win3.1 support
> for continuing maintenance/development of software for those platforms. Rexx is of little interest
> to me, and I believe I could get it on Windows anyway. Does that pretty much cover it?
>
> This may seem trivial, but my biggest sticking point is the OS/2 Window List. For the way I work,
> not having it is a major problem. That's why I'm considering Linux with KDE as my only good
> alternative right now. KDE does have a window list, though it doesn't support several features I
> use frequently. It's better than Ctrl-Escape bringing up the Start menu, though.
>
> Now, have I proven I don't have a "disease" and that OS/2 is still compelling enough for me to
> continue using it? If not, let me know how I have failed.
So, if you didn't use DOS/Win3.1, would you still use OS/2?
> > I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
>
> And now the reason I bothered to respond. How in the world could you possibly justify making such a
> blanket statement? Admittedly, I haven't used Windows 2000, but here's a quick question. What
> happens when you hit Ctrl-Escape? Better yet, is there an OS/2-style Windows List? Additionally,
> is there a Start menu (as in I don't want one)? These are my "fair shakes" for any platform.
> Performance and stability follow closely and yes, I do consider the amount of memory required to run
> the OS as part of a performance measurement. Argue cheap memory all you want. That's not the issue
> with me.
I don't need to justify having an opinion. But if asked, I will explain
why I have it. Simply put, I feel that Win2k is so clearly superior to
OS/2 in terms of application support, hardware support, stability, and
features, that no one using OS/2 would continue to do so.
Having said that, you've given me one item that should be included into
that statement, namely that the person cannot have a job that depends on
OS/2. For example, if a person uses some app specifically designed for
OS/2, then nothing else will do.
However, I didn't originally mention this because it seemed obvious.
Now, as for your "fair shakes", I don't think they are. If you are asking
"Do Win2k does something exactly like OS/2?" then of course the answer
would be no. A fair shake is someone who objectively decides if one
system is better than than other using apples to apples comparisions.
When I was using OS/2 and tried Windows, this is what I did. This is what
users like Allie and Gerben did.
> Before you start discussing how ridiculous it is that a feature like the Window List would keep me
> from changing to W2k, keep in mind that you have a problem with Linux asking for monitor refresh
> rates. How often do you change a monitor refresh rate? Now, how often do you change between
> multiple applications? Hopefully, you understand my point. I'm sure I'll now get a list of 3rd
> party applications that can add this capability. If so, I might give them a shot. You might also
> try to argue that using the mouse to click buttons is more efficient. Sorry, the mouse kills my
> carpal tunnel problems.
The problem I have is that most Linux installs I tried ask for the
monitor refresh rates and if you select the wrong one, you've killed your
monitor. I brought this up because some claimed that MS cannot do what
hobbyist can. Well, no MS operating system current risks your monitor
during installs. Please get the context correct.
Second, I run multiple applications all the time and I feel alt-tab or
the taskbar is better for that. The taskbar is no different than the
taskbar application I used under OS/2.
> Along the fair shake lines....shall we discuss viruses?
What would you like to discuss? I haven't had any virii in the 2+ years
that I've been using Windows. I rather have a better selection of apps
and hardware, with a more stable system than worry about whether or not
some program will function under Odin.
> > Perhaps the problem is that it just cannot be done today.
>
> Perhaps that's not the problem at all. Perhaps most OS/2 users stay out of these discussions as
> they serve no real purpose. This is the first one I've ever gotten into outside of our own company
> and its employees.
Or perhaps the problem is that it cannot be done. Certainly, the people
who do step up cannot support the OS/2 is superior POV.
> > "I don't
> > need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I don't need the fastest and coolest."
>
> How can you disqualify these as valid points? We run a lot of word processing at our office? How
> is the fastest and coolest necessary? I can't hardly find 4 Mb video cards anymore so data entry
> machines have Matrox cards with 16 Mb of RAM and 3D acceleration. What's the point of that? It's a
> waste. Why put 128 Mb of RAM into such a machine to support the newest, feature-laden products when
> the same can be accomplished in 32 Mb of RAM with another OS?
It has nothing to do with "fastest and coolest". It is not a waste to
make 16 meg cards if the 16megs cost less than 4 megs. I don't care if
the 32 megs on my card is being "wasted" if I am currently only writing
email as long as it didn't cost me more than the 4 meg card. Hardware
eventually becomes cheaper and sooner or later it cost more to keep
making 4 meg cards than to make 16 meg cards.
The problem with the "fastest and coolest" arguement that you don't see
is that companies don't make old hardware. If the fastest is the only one
available, then the OS should be able to use it.
> I prefer not to upgrade systems because it takes time and could potentially destabilize systems. If
> one particular OS is on a frequent upgrade path, that's a valid point in weighing the options.
Fine. but the problem with the "upgrade-itis" argument that you don't see
is that it is almost always used by the have nots. OS/2 people who use
this argument seem to feel that most people aren't intelligent enough to
know when they need to upgrade. If you don't want to or don't need to,
fine, but don't make such assumptions for other people.
When the point comes when a person feels a need to upgrade, the OS should
support those choices.
> If you're only interested in a feature comparison table with a bunch of check marks, you're probably
> right. OS/2 loses. If you're interested in weighing the merits of the overall solution, you have a
> more useful discussion where these points that you've dismissed become major considerations. It
> looks like you want to control the rules of the debate to make sure the result is in your favor. I
> don't like a comparison of products to be limited to a blind feature comparison as there are lots of
> other valid factors to consider.
In terms of checklist or overall solutions, I feel that OS/2 loses. What
you don't see is that claims of "I don't need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I
don't need the fastest and coolest." do what you accuse me of, namely, a
dimissing of Win2k's superior features in order to try to give OS/2 a
fighting chance.
> >
> > As a closing thought, when did pointing out the truth become
> > "inflammatory"?
>
> It's not inflammatory. Are you implying that everything you're saying is the truth, or did you just
> want an answer?
I've never said that everything I've written is the truth, but I've
certainly attempt to back up my statements which is more than most people
arguing against me have done.
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>
David H. McCoy
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> > est...@bitranch.com says...
> > > In short: I'm not incapable of defending my choices. I simply see no
> > > point in doing so. I'm using the operating system I enjoy, and I don't
> > > see why it's necessary for me to convince you to see things my way.
> > > Why should I? Use the OS you enjoy, whatever it is; why should I care?
> > > But please, if you want to cheer about an alternate preference... why
> > > not do it with people who share your enthusiasm? As far as I'm
> > > concerned, it's off-topic in an OS/2 discussion group.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Then perhaps you are in the wrong place. Perhaps cooa with the bigots
> > and homophobes is the place to be as long as all of you can discuss
> > limited videocard select and share a love for OS/2.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > David H. McCoy
> > dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> Brad
>
>
> --
> regards
>
> Michael Block
>
How is this a personal attack? If you read cooa, you will find many
bigoted and homophobic remarks.
Keep trying.
David H. McCoy
says...
And all accurate. And that's the problem. You cannot win on facts so
anger takes over.
>
David H. McCoy
> > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
>
> machine at work since RC1. And I enjoy using it. I enjoy it
> because I have ODNT installed, which I immediately bought after I
> discovered that I can't live without virtual desktops.
>
> But at home, I'm still using Warp. Not because I'm an ignorant,
> stupid OS/2 user. It's more because I like it, I'm used to it, i
> know it's rough edges. Over the years, I've gathered knowledge
> about OS/2, which I still have to gather for other operating
> systems. And, I care about my data. I have data, which I created
> with native OS/2 programs and I don't have windows versions of
> these programs. Sure, I could spend tons of time for converting
> the data, but since I have to work with computers I try to do as
> little unnecessary work with computers at home as I can. And, I
> have a family. Spending time with my family is more important for
> me than switching operating systems.
>
>
>
Virtual programs aren't an OS/2 features and their are many besides ODNT
that provide this function for Windows.
As for your data being tied to OS/2, you cannot give Windows 2000 a fair
shake because of this.
I stand by my statement.
David H. McCoy
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I trying to understand your point because you are so terrible at
> > > > making it. You say MS doesn't deliver. But then you say Linux is for
> > > > power users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I keep forgeting how futile it is to talk to you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Constantly losing debates must seem very futile.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > David H. McCoy
> > dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> > ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> regards
>
> Michael Block
>
Really? And how is this one personal?
David H. McCoy
> If somebody tells someone else that he/she needs to learn how to write, is
> that considered a personal attack or debating?
>
Where exactly did somebody tell someone else that they need to learn to
write?
David H. McCoy
says...
>
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@forgitaboutit.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.134dd383...@news.stardock.com...
> > Steven posts was about OS/2 users. You don't like it. How about
> > presenting evidence to the contrary. How about showing us an OS/2 user
> > who has had success with Windows(9x,NT,2000) but found things like the
> > are so quick to attack apply some of that energy to proving him wrong. I
> > used to debate against Steven, it wasn't all that hard. :-)
> >
> > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
>
> claim not to have read what is posted here? See my previous response on this
> topic... Oh, wait, I am not an user, I am an power user, so it doesn't
> count, is that it? Or having to suffer windows in it's various incantations
> for the last 9 years, having a few microsoft certifications, and doing tech
> support, administration, consulting, and integration of ms products doesn't
> count as a user? Maybe it doesn't, because at home I use OS/2 for it's
> stability, security, and ease of use, so I can't know a thing about windows,
> right?
And where did I accuse Esther of reading things there weren't here?
> Right, Ominor. Please read what is posted before starting bashing others,
> ok?
Bashing, eh? Where? What part of my above statement, that you quoted, is
accusing Esther, bashing others, or even refering to you?
Allie Martin
> No, that is not safe to assume. I don't like peanut butter, gum, or diet
> soda, but I don't think that people who do are idiots.
Interesting analogy. :) If I think that OS/2 is a dying OS or that it has
poor hardware support when compared to Windows or that it's less stable
that Win2k etc., I don't see how that translates to an OS/2 user being an
idiot. I think that OS/2 is the superior OS to Win98 in some respects and
that it's inferior to Win2k in many respects. Does this translate to win98
users being idiots? Of course not.
> I don't believe any reasonable person would believe that. The problem is
> that people take OS/2 to personally. It is a piece of software, not a
> religion.
Yes, this is contributory to some extent. Others seem to make their hatred
for MS impinge on their objectivity. It's one thing to not wish to support
MS on the basis of the companies practice. It's another thing to justify
not supporting based on technical faultiness of their OS's, especially
technical problems that have vastly been improved upon or that have been
eliminated.
> Make no mistake, if a think you are an idiot, I'll tell you. You won't
> have to guess.
:)
> I don't need to justify having an opinion. But if asked, I will explain
> why I have it. Simply put, I feel that Win2k is so clearly superior to
> OS/2 in terms of application support, hardware support, stability, and
> features, that no one using OS/2 would continue to do so.
You're wrongfully assuming that those factors are the only ones that
determine continued use of a particular OS. The hassle of having to get
comfortable with a new system is a significant deterrent, and this is
where the I don't need these new features argument becomes very practical.
The argument that I will continue to use OS/2 as long as it does what I
need it to do is reasonable. However, when hardware or new software
purchasing comes into play then this argument becomes disputable.
> Having said that, you've given me one item that should be included into
> that statement, namely that the person cannot have a job that depends on
> OS/2. For example, if a person uses some app specifically designed for
> OS/2, then nothing else will do.
>
> However, I didn't originally mention this because it seemed obvious.
>
> Now, as for your "fair shakes", I don't think they are. If you are asking
> "Do Win2k does something exactly like OS/2?" then of course the answer
> would be no. A fair shake is someone who objectively decides if one
> system is better than than other using apples to apples comparisions.
Correct.
> When I was using OS/2 and tried Windows, this is what I did. This is what
> users like Allie and Gerben did.
Exactly. I could do everything with NT that I was doing in OS/2. I had
a great deal more flexibility with hardware choice and a better sofware to
use. I found NT to be more stable as a desktop system. I had a copy of NT,
so I changed.
> Second, I run multiple applications all the time and I feel alt-tab or
> the taskbar is better for that. The taskbar is no different than the
> taskbar application I used under OS/2.
Logitech has mouseware drivers on their website that will work with
most mouses. It includes a middle-mouse button that will provide a
tasklist. I don't mind the taskbar at all and alt-tab is fine as well. A
combination of all three works out to be a superior solution to the OS/2
task list, IMHO.
> Or perhaps the problem is that it cannot be done. Certainly, the people
> who do step up cannot support the OS/2 is superior POV.
This is the crux of the matter. In general terms, I don't see how OS/2
can be justified as the OS of choice for the desktop over Win2k, for a new
user, meaning one who is now choosing OS/2 as opposed to Win2k. OS/2 can
only be justified for established users, established users unwilling to
change, or established users comfortable with OS/2 with it's attendant
limitations as a desktop OS.
> Fine. but the problem with the "upgrade-itis" argument that you don't see
> is that it is almost always used by the have nots. OS/2 people who use
> this argument seem to feel that most people aren't intelligent enough to
> know when they need to upgrade. If you don't want to or don't need to,
> fine, but don't make such assumptions for other people.
>
> When the point comes when a person feels a need to upgrade, the OS should
> support those choices.
>
> > If you're only interested in a feature comparison table with a bunch of check marks, you're probably
> > right. OS/2 loses. If you're interested in weighing the merits of the overall solution, you have a
> > more useful discussion where these points that you've dismissed become major considerations. It
> > looks like you want to control the rules of the debate to make sure the result is in your favor. I
> > don't like a comparison of products to be limited to a blind feature comparison as there are lots of
> > other valid factors to consider.
>
> In terms of checklist or overall solutions, I feel that OS/2 loses. What
> you don't see is that claims of "I don't need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I
> don't need the fastest and coolest." do what you accuse me of, namely, a
> dimissing of Win2k's superior features in order to try to give OS/2 a
> fighting chance.
Not really to give a fighting chance, but to justify why they use it
which is reasonable. The problem is that these "I don't need.." arguments
are used as a refute to general technical arguments made in favour of
Win2k over OS/2. For example, the argument that Win2k is better since it
supports USB being refuted by "I don't need USB support" just doesn't cut
it, IMHO.
--
© 2000 Allie Martin
mailto:all...@kasnet.com
---
Jason Koeninger
"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <38E45112...@fullnet.net>, jko...@fullnet.net says...
> > "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > >
> > If you tell me that the OS I'm using is no longer viable, it's pretty safe to assume that I will
> > think you're calling me an idiot (or whatever adjective you prefer). Did you say it in the thread?
> > No. Was it implied? That's debatable. I'm only pointing out the reason some might take offense to
> > your statements even though you believe you've not said anything explicitly insulting.
>
> No, that is not safe to assume. I don't like peanut butter, gum, or diet
> soda, but I don't think that people who do are idiots.
I'm shocked. We agree on three things (peanut butter, gum, and diet soda).
Read my writing again. I said it was safe for *YOU* to assume that *I* would
think you're calling me an idiot. Others may take that the same way. Some others
may not. Clearly you don't think calling someone's choice of technology
no longer viable could be interpreted as being an attack on their
sense/logic/intelligence/whatever. I was letting you know that I'm one person
that does look at it that way.
>
> I don't believe any reasonable person would believe that. The problem is
> that people take OS/2 to personally. It is a piece of software, not a
> religion.
When I use an axe to take down a large tree and someone tells me that I
should be using a chain saw instead and that an axe is no longer "viable".
Trust me, I get the point that they're calling me an idiot. They could
have just as easily said, "what kind of idiot wastes an entire day chopping down
a tree with an axe when a chain saw could do it in a matter of minutes?"
It's got nothing to do with a religion about the axe. I was using it for
completely different purposes that the chain saw wielding person couldn't
see or didn't understand or didn't want to understand.
For the record, I don't believe I take OS/2 too personally or treat it
as a religion. This is simply a discussion of interpreting someone's
meaning. If you say you didn't intend to call anyone an idiot, that's
fine by me. I simply asserted that a reasonable person could come
to the conclusion that you did have a hidden meaning. Let's stop
this discussion before we get into what the definition of "is" is.
>
> Make no mistake, if a think you are an idiot, I'll tell you. You won't
> have to guess.
Thanks for being direct. I like that. I'll await your proclamation if
one is coming. Of course, I'm assuming Brad would filter that out as a
personal attack, so feel free to copy me directly. ;->
> So, if you didn't use DOS/Win3.1, would you still use OS/2?
Yes. My ability to work efficiently through a combination of folders,
applications, and the window list is still unmatched on other platforms.
I can't stand anything that slows down my computer use as I sit here all
day sometimes seven days a week writing more code than I have time to
write. Anything that intereferes with my productivity won't last. I've
worked a lot in NT, Linux, and OS/2 recently to do porting and contract
work. OS/2 still wins given my criteria.
>
> > > I know why. You won't find any. I submit that anyone who gives Windows
> > > 2000 a fair shake will never use OS/2 again.
> >
> > And now the reason I bothered to respond. How in the world could you possibly justify making such a
> > blanket statement? Admittedly, I haven't used Windows 2000, but here's a quick question. What
> > happens when you hit Ctrl-Escape? Better yet, is there an OS/2-style Windows List? Additionally,
> > is there a Start menu (as in I don't want one)? These are my "fair shakes" for any platform.
> > Performance and stability follow closely and yes, I do consider the amount of memory required to run
> > the OS as part of a performance measurement. Argue cheap memory all you want. That's not the issue
> > with me.
>
> I don't need to justify having an opinion.
I didn't read this as being opinion. I believe you stated it as fact. Now that you've
clarified, I better understand the statement. I respectfully disagree with
your "opinion".
> But if asked, I will explain
> why I have it. Simply put, I feel that Win2k is so clearly superior to
> OS/2 in terms of application support, hardware support, stability, and
> features, that no one using OS/2 would continue to do so.
I like the choice of the word "feel" over "submit" for expressing your
opinion again in this case. Again, I disagree. Whenever I get a chance
to use W2k (due to no machines being available and reports of poor
interaction with other OS's on the same machine, I have nowhere to
put it), I'll let you know my thoughts.
>
> Having said that, you've given me one item that should be included into
> that statement, namely that the person cannot have a job that depends on
> OS/2. For example, if a person uses some app specifically designed for
> OS/2, then nothing else will do.
>
> However, I didn't originally mention this because it seemed obvious.
I'm not sure where I've said my job depends on OS/2. I do develop software
for OS/2, but it also runs on other platforms (namely NT4). I could work
from Linux or Windows and boot OS/2 only for compiling and testing, but
I don't. Neither platform provides everything I need. Now, if VMWare
gets OS/2 working in a production release, you might see me head for
Linux for the sake of efficiency (OS/2 and NT in VMWare sessions, Linux
available natively).
>
> Now, as for your "fair shakes", I don't think they are. If you are asking
> "Do Win2k does something exactly like OS/2?" then of course the answer
> would be no. A fair shake is someone who objectively decides if one
> system is better than than other using apples to apples comparisions.
I don't think you get my point. This is an apples to apples comparison. Can
I get my work done in NT as efficiently as I can in OS/2? It's got nothing
to do with hardware, applications, etc. It's all about the interface. I have
all the software I need on OS/2, and it's also all available on Windows. It
comes down to efficiency.
>
> Second, I run multiple applications all the time and I feel alt-tab or
> the taskbar is better for that. The taskbar is no different than the
> taskbar application I used under OS/2.
Put three or four folders in OS/2 that group your major applications. Make
sure the first letter of those folders has relatively few collisions with
your applications. Now, fire everything up, hit Ctrl-Esc, first letter of
what you need, and Enter. Explain to me how watching the Alt-Tab screen
to make sure you get to the right application works as well. I often have
20-30 applications running and can get to any of them with minimal effort
and no mouse. This isn't anti-Windows. I like Windows 3.1 in this respect
other than the re-ordering of the list based on z-order of the applications.
Additionally, the taskbar requires me to use the mouse and remove my
hands from the keyboard. That won't work for me. Also, remember my
carpal tunnel problem with the mouse. On a personal note, why did
Microsoft have to change the natural keyboard? Talk about messing up
one of my favorite Microsoft technologies. Oh well, I guess that's
not material to this discussion. Anyway, thanks Microsoft for saving
my wrists and then ruining the good tool you created.
>
> > Along the fair shake lines....shall we discuss viruses?
>
> What would you like to discuss? I haven't had any virii in the 2+ years
> that I've been using Windows. I rather have a better selection of apps
> and hardware, with a more stable system than worry about whether or not
> some program will function under Odin.
Just because you've had no viruses doesn't mean they're not a problem. Our
parent company exchanges documents with large companies and government
institutions daily. Viruses are a major problem now that they have migrated
from OS/2 to Windows. That is indeed a fair consideration in choosing
between Windows and something else.
> Or perhaps the problem is that it cannot be done. Certainly, the people
> who do step up cannot support the OS/2 is superior POV.
That would be your opinion of the arguments you've watched or participated
in. I've interpreted the outcomes differently in many cases.
> It has nothing to do with "fastest and coolest". It is not a waste to
> make 16 meg cards if the 16megs cost less than 4 megs. I don't care if
> the 32 megs on my card is being "wasted" if I am currently only writing
> email as long as it didn't cost me more than the 4 meg card. Hardware
> eventually becomes cheaper and sooner or later it cost more to keep
> making 4 meg cards than to make 16 meg cards.
Ahhh...but it doesn't cost anything to *keep* a 4 Mb card. As Windows has
continued to require more and more, OS/2 still works fine for all of my
old hardware. Reference my way more than fast enough 486 LAN server sitting
next to me. I can't upgrade that system to Windows anything and get it
to work.
>
> The problem with the "fastest and coolest" arguement that you don't see
> is that companies don't make old hardware. If the fastest is the only one
> available, then the OS should be able to use it.
Please keep in mind that I haven't had trouble buying new, fast hardware. Are
3D graphics cards used to their fullest? No, but OS/2 isn't for gaming in my
opinion. Others can disagree if they like. Admittedly, hardware support
could be better, but then again, that has *always* been an issue with OS/2.
I've never (been on OS/2 since 2.1 in 1993) just bought a machine and
assumed all the components would work.
> Fine. but the problem with the "upgrade-itis" argument that you don't see
> is that it is almost always used by the have nots. OS/2 people who use
> this argument seem to feel that most people aren't intelligent enough to
> know when they need to upgrade. If you don't want to or don't need to,
> fine, but don't make such assumptions for other people.
You pointed out that it wasn't a valid argument. I pointed out that in
some cases it was. Looks like we're in agreement. For the record, I've
made no assumptions for other people. I've simply stated that frequent
upgrades are a valid issue for me in selecting an OS. You can't make a
broad generalization like this when evidence to the contrary (namely me
in this case) exists.
> When the point comes when a person feels a need to upgrade, the OS should
> support those choices.
Sounds good to me.
>
> > If you're only interested in a feature comparison table with a bunch of check marks, you're probably
> > right. OS/2 loses. If you're interested in weighing the merits of the overall solution, you have a
> > more useful discussion where these points that you've dismissed become major considerations. It
> > looks like you want to control the rules of the debate to make sure the result is in your favor. I
> > don't like a comparison of products to be limited to a blind feature comparison as there are lots of
> > other valid factors to consider.
>
> In terms of checklist or overall solutions, I feel that OS/2 loses. What
> you don't see is that claims of "I don't need this.", "Upgrade-itis", "I
> don't need the fastest and coolest." do what you accuse me of, namely, a
> dimissing of Win2k's superior features in order to try to give OS/2 a
> fighting chance.
What you continue to miss is that I'm trying to give you an overall picture
that I believe chosing a piece of technology isn't a feature by feature
comparison. Apparently, you do believe it's a check list of features. I believe there
are more important issues than, for example, USB support to consider in selecting
a solution. That's been my whole argument. Windows has more applications
and more access to hardware. Point taken. I've known that all along. That
doesn't mean that the fair comparison is over and Windows wins. There's more
to consider as I've stated.
> I've never said that everything I've written is the truth, but I've
> certainly attempt to back up my statements which is more than most people
> arguing against me have done.
Good. I'll try to do the same.
BTW - If this turns into additional shifting of the focus of the arguments
presented, I won't respond. It will quickly become circular and pointless
and a waste of our time.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Koeninger
Allie Martin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:05 -0500, David H. McCoy posted :
>
> > No, that is not safe to assume. I don't like peanut butter, gum, or diet
> > soda, but I don't think that people who do are idiots.
>
> Interesting analogy. :) If I think that OS/2 is a dying OS or that it has
> poor hardware support when compared to Windows or that it's less stable
> that Win2k etc., I don't see how that translates to an OS/2 user being an
> idiot. I think that OS/2 is the superior OS to Win98 in some respects and
> that it's inferior to Win2k in many respects. Does this translate to win98
> users being idiots? Of course not.
I agree with what you've written here, but remember the context. David
has said that OS/2 is no longer "viable". Maybe my understanding of
that word is different than yours, but you seem to be talking about
comparative strengths and weaknesses, not the overall viability of
the solution. I'll agree that OS/2 is slowly dying and its hardware
support is not as good as Windows and that the message queue structure
of Windows helps prevent some problems users have on OS/2. Your stating
those points doesn't make me conclude that you think I'm an idiot. It's
when the overall viability argument is given that my reading of the underlying
meaning changes.
> The argument that I will continue to use OS/2 as long as it does what I
> need it to do is reasonable. However, when hardware or new software
> purchasing comes into play then this argument becomes disputable.
I would have to disagree. I make no more effort to find new hardware now
than I did in the past. In fact, it's quite a bit easier now (at least
for me, maybe not others).
> Logitech has mouseware drivers on their website that will work with
> most mouses. It includes a middle-mouse button that will provide a
> tasklist. I don't mind the taskbar at all and alt-tab is fine as well. A
> combination of all three works out to be a superior solution to the OS/2
> task list, IMHO.
Your opinion, yes. Remember, some people don't like the mouse. I have
Alt-Tab in OS/2 and never use it. There's also Warpcenter (truthfully, I'm
not even sure I know what features it has) to mimic the taskbar. OS/2
has all of what Windows has and adds the task list. The task list happens
to be the one that's most efficient for the way I work. Consequently, I
can't work as efficiently in Windows.
> This is the crux of the matter. In general terms, I don't see how OS/2
> can be justified as the OS of choice for the desktop over Win2k, for a new
> user, meaning one who is now choosing OS/2 as opposed to Win2k. OS/2 can
> only be justified for established users, established users unwilling to
> change, or established users comfortable with OS/2 with it's attendant
> limitations as a desktop OS.
I don't know why we jump straight to Win2k over NT, but there are aspects
of this that I agree with. In a controlled environment, though, I've
observed OS/2 to work just as well as Windows for new or experienced users.
In fact, I have to do more support work now with an office full of NT
machines than I did when they were all OS/2.
> Not really to give a fighting chance, but to justify why they use it
> which is reasonable. The problem is that these "I don't need.." arguments
> are used as a refute to general technical arguments made in favour of
> Win2k over OS/2. For example, the argument that Win2k is better since it
> supports USB being refuted by "I don't need USB support" just doesn't cut
> it, IMHO.
We'll agree to disagree here. If there were a USB device on the market that
was a "must have" for my work, you can bet I'd look into the alternatives. So
far, I've seen nothing along those lines. Consequently, I don't buy the
argument that Win2k is superior to OS/2 because it has USB support. I will
agree that it gives you more options and that USB is likely a superior
technology to the interfaces it intends to replace.
Regards,
Jason
Allie Martin
> I agree with what you've written here, but remember the context. David
> has said that OS/2 is no longer "viable".
I guess it depends on how you look at the word "viable". It may mean a
number of things, all of which could apply to OS/2:
a) capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
OS/2 definitely is in this regard. Although it's slipping in terms of
hardware support and functioning in the presence of mainstream hardware
types, USB being the first that comes to mind since it's so topical. :)
b) capable of existence and development as an independent unit
Again, OS/2 is viable in this regard.
*But* last but not least
c) having a reasonable chance of succeeding
This is the angle where I'm quite sure David and Steven, including myself
argue from. I don't think OS/2 is a viable OS for desktop users in this
regard.
> I would have to disagree. I make no more effort to find new hardware now
> than I did in the past. In fact, it's quite a bit easier now (at least
> for me, maybe not others).
Exactly. Some seem to think that no reasonable person should have
problems finding hardware for OS/2. This is what I take exception to.
> Your opinion, yes. Remember, some people don't like the mouse. I have
> Alt-Tab in OS/2 and never use it. There's also Warpcenter (truthfully, I'm
> not even sure I know what features it has) to mimic the taskbar. OS/2
> has all of what Windows has and adds the task list. The task list happens
> to be the one that's most efficient for the way I work. Consequently, I
> can't work as efficiently in Windows.
Good. It's all a matter of style, taste and very importantly,
habituation and learnt behaviour. I found the tasklist annoying at first
when I started using OS/2. Why? It was different. It interrupted and
disrupted the way I did things. I soon got used to using it. I haven't
really missed it since I was familiar with Windows previously and didn't
share this interesting hatred for Windows explorer that so many OS/2 users
have.
> I don't know why we jump straight to Win2k over NT, but there are aspects
> of this that I agree with.
Well, I'm using Win2k at present and though I preferred NT over OS/2,
I only preferred it as an OS, only in terms of it's superior stability and
reliability when I used it. Win2k, to me, putting hardware and software
support aside is better than OS/2, in many respects, to me. It's the
overwhelming winner to Warp 4 ..... if you've got the hardware to run it.
:))
> In a controlled environment, though, I've
> observed OS/2 to work just as well as Windows for new or experienced users.
> In fact, I have to do more support work now with an office full of NT
> machines than I did when they were all OS/2.
Once the environment is controlled then I can't disagree there. :)
> > Not really to give a fighting chance, but to justify why they use it
> > which is reasonable. The problem is that these "I don't need.." arguments
> > are used as a refute to general technical arguments made in favour of
> > Win2k over OS/2. For example, the argument that Win2k is better since it
> > supports USB being refuted by "I don't need USB support" just doesn't cut
> > it, IMHO.
>
> We'll agree to disagree here. If there were a USB device on the market that
> was a "must have" for my work, you can bet I'd look into the alternatives. So
> far, I've seen nothing along those lines. Consequently, I don't buy the
> argument that Win2k is superior to OS/2 because it has USB support. I will
> agree that it gives you more options and that USB is likely a superior
> technology to the interfaces it intends to replace.
I don't think you got me there. Earlier Brad and David each listed 10
valid things (I don't recall any of these overlapping!) that Win2k did or
supported that OS/2 didn't and stated these as a basis for supporting
there view that Win2k was technically the superior OS. One OS user
proceeded to refute these by stating that he either didn't need them or
found them unnecessary. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't cut it.