The BORLAND RIP-OFF
her...@mc6451.kodak.com
have the same feeling as myself. Namely, that Borland has decided to
nickle and dime it's customers for every penny it can.
The change in their approach seems to have started with their move
to the Windows products. It has seemed that they have an upgrade or a
new tool every three or four months. At a hundred ($99) a pop this is
getting insane. Here is my bitch list, what have I missed.
1) The Petzold book screwup, I was told by rep that you received it in upgrade.
2) For Window Doc, Please buy Microsoft's SDK books $70-90
3) Upgraded to Turbo Pascal 6.0 next month announce TP for Win, drop TP
4) Bought ObjectVision after rep told me that I could create Application with it
didn't explain the $500 run-time addition. Drop ObjectVision.
5) Now with all the new upgrades I receive for the Resource Editor(?) and
Framework, Dropped BC++.
So, now I am using MS C6.0 waiting for 7.0 and MS SDK.
So Borland, what's next? How about deciding on a upgrade policy that if someone
upgrades in a year of a new release that any other releases within that year are
free. Or that your Phone Reps are given the straight scoop.
Just a thought.....
========================================================================
Dan Herpst (716) 461-2360 I've been down so long,
Rochester NY (716) 726-6806 that it looks like up to me.
Address: herpst%image...@kodak.com
========================================================================
Stephen Hite
I, too, feel that I'm getting nickel and dime'ed by Borland. I don't
blame them for trying. Obviously, if enough people get fed up with the
practice, they will change their marketing strategy.
At one time, Zortech had this same type of "splintering effect" because
they were diversifying their development platform on DOS so quickly.
Their solution was to give reasonable upgrade prices to people who had
varying combinations of the separate entities (i.e. C++ tools, library
source code, debugger, C/C++ compiler, ect.). They came up with a sheet
that had all of the combinations on it and one of them was bound to
fit you. There was a price attached to your combination and this got you
to a "developer's edition" platform at a decent price. This was around
the time of ZTC++ 2.0 (now ZTC++ 3.0). Now, Zortech has clearly defined
levels of development platforms and there's no longer this "let's
sell everything separately so we can make more money" philosophy.
When I upgraded from ZTC++ 2.1 developer's edition to the 3.0 DE,
for $100, I got Windows support and a royalty free 286 and 386 extender
in edition to what I already had in 2.1...that was a great deal. I'm
sure Symantec will beef up the QA and it's going to be a better product
in the near future (their IDE needs work).
Unfortunately, Borland is a much larger company and are in Croesus
mode (i.e. they're way in the black) so nothing is pushing them to
consolidate their product line at the moment. I felt the Resource
Workshop was worth getting as a separate product but I'll be damned if
I'm going to buy ObjectWindows unbundled now (can you say beta test ? ;-)).
The next release of BC++ is going to most likely have a Win 3.x IDE
interface and templates implemented so who knows what they're going to
offer in future bundles.
P.S. It's too bad Microsoft didn't come out with 7.0 sooner before all
of this Borland debundling came about. It might have made
them think twice about going ahead with it.
P.S.S. 5 years ago I never would have predicted that Borland would
get so greedy once they got "fat". I was so naive.
Steve Hite
sh...@sinkhole.unf.edu
Doug Sewell
promotions is to skip a release if I don't need it. I've used
TC R2.0 for quite some time, skipping TC++1.0, TC++2.0, and finally
buying BC++ when I wanted the new features, AND had enough disk
space coming in the near future.
I didn't bother upgrading Quickbasic 4.0 to 4.5 either, and if I
buy another Basic, it'll be Visual Basic. If there's a run-time
charge for ObjectVision apps (can someone confirm this) then it's
out-of-the-running. I don't believe there was a runtime charge
for VB.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
do...@ysu.edu do...@ysub.bitnet ...uunet!ysu.edu!doug
Beat me, whip me, make me code in Ada.
David Feustel
then watching MS completely decommit on all OS/2-related projects,
it's going to be a long time before I enter into any more contracts
with Microsoft.
--
David Feustel, DAFCO, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
EMAIL: feu...@netcom.com
Scott Strool
|>
|> I, too, feel that I'm getting nickel and dime'ed by Borland. I don't
|> blame them for trying. Obviously, if enough people get fed up with the
|> practice, they will change their marketing strategy.
|>
stuff deleted...
|> Unfortunately, Borland is a much larger company and are in Croesus
|> mode (i.e. they're way in the black) so nothing is pushing them to
|> consolidate their product line at the moment. I felt the Resource
|> Workshop was worth getting as a separate product but I'll be damned if
|> I'm going to buy ObjectWindows unbundled now (can you say beta test ? ;-)).
|> The next release of BC++ is going to most likely have a Win 3.x IDE
|> interface and templates implemented so who knows what they're going to
|> offer in future bundles.
|>
more stuff deleted...
|>
|> Steve Hite
|> sh...@sinkhole.unf.edu
|>
Sorry fella's I disagree.
Borland did not unbundle anything, they release brand new products that work with existing ones. Application Frameworks is indeed now part of BC/++, but if you already have it why
should you buy a new C++ package to get AF. I think that it was great that it can be purchased separately. I just hope that when the next version of BC w/AF comes out that
they price it in accordance with the people that bought AF as a separate product. You should be able to upgrade both for one fair price.
I do agree that Borland does seem to be sending alot of upgrade notices, but I don't look at that as being nickle and dimed, you don't have to upgrade it you don't want to no one is holding a hard disk to your head. If you don't think the upgrade is worth it then wait. Case in point, I bought Quattro 1.0 and soon go the notice for 2.0 I did not upgrade because I did not need any of the new features., When 3.0 came out I did want it and purchased the upgrade. I did not pay anymore for waiting for 3.0
--
Scott Strool sc...@equity.sbi.com
Salomon Technology Services. 201 896.6172
Tom Green
It wouldn't be so bad if they gave you bug fixes without having to fight
them for it, or worse having to pay for it if you don't run into the bug
until the next revision is out. I have tried the support line on Compu$pend
but could never get replies. Someone from Borland should monitor these
conversations and take a hint.
--
Tom Green
- Life's a pain, then you die. _/_ __ ____ __
"I shall be merciful and quick" - the Gorn / /_// / //_/
to...@code3.code3.com _/
Tony Porczyk
>5) Now with all the new upgrades I receive for the Resource Editor(?) and
> Framework, Dropped BC++.
Can you elaborate? I don't understand your point.
>So, now I am using MS C6.0 waiting for 7.0 and MS SDK.
So that costs you less???
T.
Graham Wheeler
>My solution to Borland's (and other vendor's) constant upgrade
>promotions is to skip a release if I don't need it. I've used
>TC R2.0 for quite some time, skipping TC++1.0, TC++2.0, and finally
>buying BC++ when I wanted the new features, AND had enough disk
>space coming in the near future.
This is a pretty sensible policy. The two which Doug bought are probably the
only ones worth getting anyway, in terms of absence of bugs and wealth of
features. Another solution which a friend of mine uses which is not strictly
legal, is to pirate new versions. If they live up to expectations, he'll buy
them; otherwise they get trashed after a month or two and he goes back to his
old legit version. As a consequence, he too has ended up buying the two
that Doug did. Kind of like shareware.
--
Graham Wheeler | "That which is weak conquers the strong,
Data Network Architectures Lab | that which is soft conquers the hard."
University of Cape Town | Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching Ch. 78
gram%uc...@m2xenix.psg.com | There's no justus; there's just us
Ian D. Gay
>>TC R2.0 for quite some time, skipping TC++1.0, TC++2.0, and finally
>>buying BC++ when I wanted the new features, AND had enough disk
>This is a pretty sensible policy. The two which Doug bought are probably the
>only ones worth getting anyway, in terms of absence of bugs and wealth of
>features. Another solution which a friend of mine uses which is not strictly
TC 2.0 is not free of bugs. Two fairly serious ones I know of are:
1: scanf/atof do not correctly convert numbers smaller than about 1e-50
2: printf will not output the 20 significant digits necessary to
represent a long double to full machine precision.
Fred Rump
>After paying Microsoft $2500 for the OS/2 v2.0 development kit and
>then watching MS completely decommit on all OS/2-related projects,
>it's going to be a long time before I enter into any more contracts
>with Microsoft.
Sorry, I don't get it.
If MS sold rose colored glasses with little diamonds in the frame
for $10,000 and you bought a set, why do you blame MS for making
money. In any relationship the buyer is the one holding all the
cards and if he/she wants to spend his money on foolish things
there should be no law to stop this. It's pure capitalism and is
reflected well in the wealth of the chairman.
The many millions that went into OS/2 development went there for
a reason: IBM.
What those who spent those dollars didn't figure on is that IBM
no longer rules the waves. MS was always half-hearted about OS/2
but for the possibility that enough people from the land of blue
would buy it, they made it. Now there is a gnashing of teeth but
don't blame Microsoft. No one asked you to spend a penny for an
environment written for what was basically obsolete hardware.
If it didn't make sense to thousands of developers, why to a few?
They saw their dollars multiply on the blue-bricked road and
there was really nothing there, at the end.
Fred
--
Fred Rump | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep
CompuData, Inc. | or taste not the Pierian spring' Alexander Pope
10501 Drummond Rd. | SCO Advanced Product Center
Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fr...@COMPU.COM (215-824-3000)
Mike Percy
I too have face the Borland upgrade problem. I can't afford to keep
upgrading everytime they come out with a new product. I kept up with
TC1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, got TC++1.0, but had to sit out when BC++ came out.
Now that BC++ 3.0 (or will it be 2.1 to match the AT&T C++ version it
supports?) is in beta. It looks nice from what I've read, and is
supposed to be stable. The main differences are full Windows IDE, and
much better optimizations. I read somewhere that BC++ owners will be
eligible for free upgrades, so maybe they're hearing us. It pissed me
off to no end when BC++ came out a month and a half after I got TC++.
Hoepefully, there'll be good upgrade paths from TC++ as well as BC++.
Borland, if you're listening -- I've been extremely happy with
everything I've ever gotten from you (well, except Turbo Prolog). Now
if only you'd remember it's people like me who put you where you are
today. Alienate us, and no matter how good your compilers and other
things are, you won't sell as many.
"I don't know about your brain, but mine is really...bossy."
Mike Percy gri...@hubcap.clemson.edu
ISD, Clemson University msp...@clemson.BITNET
(803)656-3780 msp...@clemson.clemson.edu
Doug Dougherty
>feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:
>>After paying Microsoft $2500 for the OS/2 v2.0 development kit and
>>then watching MS completely decommit on all OS/2-related projects,
>>it's going to be a long time before I enter into any more contracts
>>with Microsoft.
> Sorry, I don't get it.
>
> If MS sold rose colored glasses with little diamonds in the frame
> for $10,000 and you bought a set, why do you blame MS for making
> money. In any relationship the buyer is the one holding all the
> cards and if he/she wants to spend his money on foolish things
> there should be no law to stop this. It's pure capitalism and is
> reflected well in the wealth of the chairman.
Well, yeah, I suppose. Capitalism, like democracy, is the worst system
imaginable (except for all the others). (Credits to Winston Churchill)
Actually, I think a good analogy here is that buying an SDK is like
buying a stock. The thing itself has no intrinsic value (You can't eat
it, you can't wear it, and you can't live in it), but it has value
precisely because other people think it has value and because other
people are buying into it as well.
So if you buy a stock, and everybody starts selling it off, although it
is rarely actionable (although sometimes it is, if you can prove fraud),
you do have every right to be pissed off at the broker who sold you the
lousy stinkin' thing and also at the company if they did something
that caused the market to desert the issue.
So I think the orig poster has every right to be pissed off. He bought
into something, the market deserted it, and he lost his shirt. Does he
have a cause of action? Probably not...
--
"IBM PS/1: The computer for people who still don't know how to use one"
- Elek Tek (while you're on hold) -
(Can you imagine a car marketed with that line?)
- Another fine mess brought to you by val...@gsbsun.uchicago.edu -
Jim DeMarco
>In <91280.23...@ysub.ysu.edu> Doug Sewell <DO...@ysub.ysu.edu> writes:
>>My solution to Borland's (and other vendor's) constant upgrade
>>promotions is to skip a release if I don't need it. I've used
>>TC R2.0 for quite some time, skipping TC++1.0, TC++2.0, and finally
>>buying BC++ when I wanted the new features, AND had enough disk
>>space coming in the near future.
>This is a pretty sensible policy. The two which Doug bought are probably the
>only ones worth getting anyway, in terms of absence of bugs and wealth of
>features. Another solution which a friend of mine uses which is not strictly
>legal, is to pirate new versions. If they live up to expectations, he'll buy
>them; otherwise they get trashed after a month or two and he goes back to his
>old legit version. As a consequence, he too has ended up buying the two
>that Doug did. Kind of like shareware.
But Borland has a 60-day money-back guarantee on their upgrades! You
can *legally* use their software (with *full documentation*) for two
months and return it for a full refund (minus reasonable S&H -- consider
it a test-drive fee, if you will) if it doesn't live up to your
expectations. There really isn't any need to resort to piracy with
such a policy (and it is, indeed, kind of like shareware). And the
docs are likely to show you neat new non-obvious features.
--Jim
Mike Percy
I said earlier:
>> Borland, if you're listening -- I've been extremely happy with
>> everything I've ever gotten from you (well, except Turbo Prolog). Now
>> if only you'd remember it's people like me who put you where you are
>> today. Alienate us, and no matter how good your compilers and other
>> things are, you won't sell as many.
>>
>Perhaps you want something for free? BC++ represents a significant enhancement
>over TC++. Borland has the right to do business and make money. They can't
>give everything away.
No, what pissed me off was that I invested in TC++; a month+1/2 later an
upgrade notice ships. If I had waited awhile, I could have gotten
the TC2.0 to BC++ for roughly the price I paid for the TC2.0 to TC++
upgrade. Borland wanted me to pay that cost _again_ to upgrade from
TC++ to BC++.
Mike Percy
A few people have asked where/what I've heard about BC++ 3.0...
FRom the OCt. 7 Infoworld p. 15 (w/o permission):
Borland Windows version of C++ 3.0 enters beta
Testers recently received stable betas of Borland C++ 3.0, which boasts
a Windows-based environtment for AT&T C++ 2.1, sources said.
Borland officials would not comment on the update, but beta testers said
it will include a graphical class browser that lets users easily peruse
heirarchies of objects to view inheritance relationships.
C++ 3.0 will feature object-oriented extensions to Turbo Assembler as
well, testers said. "You'll be able to create abstract type from Turbo
Assembler," said one source.
The update also adds many code optimizations, allowing users who have
previously relied on Microsoft's professional C compiler for optimizing
their final code to bypass that step.
Based in Scotts Valley, California, Borland will let purchasers of the
recently shipped Borland C++ and Applications Frameworks bundle get the
equivalent package with the new C++ version free of charge, sources
said.
Borland C++ 3.0 support for the AT&T 2.1 specification heralds the
advent of a completely rewritten compiler. "It's a different compiler
[than in the current Borland C++ 2.0 Version] -- a third-generation
compiler," one beta source said. The package still supports both
Windows and DOS programming.
Beta testers said the new package appears to be stable and will likely
be released within the next few months.
In a related move, Atlanta-based Caseworks confirmed it will ship later
this month a version of Case:W Windows user interface builder that
generates C++ source code using Borlands ObjectWindows Libraries (OWL).
Case:W for OWL, set to be officially announced at fall COmdex in two
weeks, will cost $495 and is designed to greatly reduce the pain of
creating object-oriented Windows code.
----------------------------------------------------
A pciture shows the familiar IDE, but Winowized, and some icons that
looked like Zoom, Compile, Library, etc., as well as a window titled
Object Browser that looked intersting.
Russ Poffenberger
>
> I too have face the Borland upgrade problem. I can't afford to keep
> upgrading everytime they come out with a new product. I kept up with
> TC1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, got TC++1.0, but had to sit out when BC++ came out.
> Now that BC++ 3.0 (or will it be 2.1 to match the AT&T C++ version it
> supports?) is in beta. It looks nice from what I've read, and is
> supposed to be stable. The main differences are full Windows IDE, and
> much better optimizations. I read somewhere that BC++ owners will be
> eligible for free upgrades, so maybe they're hearing us. It pissed me
> off to no end when BC++ came out a month and a half after I got TC++.
> Hoepefully, there'll be good upgrade paths from TC++ as well as BC++.
>
considering the extra stuff you get with BC++, the upgrade wasn't unreasonable.
If you have just TC++ (not pro) then you get the "pro" stuff with BC++, the
profiler, assembler, etc. Not to mention all the windows stuff. If you do
windows programming then it is worth it. The Whitewater Resource Toolkit, the
help compiler, the Petzold book (If you were fast enough, you got one, I did).
When the new resource editor came out, I was tempted, but the WRT worked fine,
so I didn't get it.
If you don't do windows programming, don't get BC++.
> Borland, if you're listening -- I've been extremely happy with
> everything I've ever gotten from you (well, except Turbo Prolog). Now
> if only you'd remember it's people like me who put you where you are
> today. Alienate us, and no matter how good your compilers and other
> things are, you won't sell as many.
>
Perhaps you want something for free? BC++ represents a significant enhancement
over TC++. Borland has the right to do business and make money. They can't
give everything away.
Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: pof...@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110 Voice: (408)437-5254 FAX: (408)437-5246
Russ Poffenberger
> pof...@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
>
> I said earlier:
> >> Borland, if you're listening -- I've been extremely happy with
> >> everything I've ever gotten from you (well, except Turbo Prolog). Now
> >> if only you'd remember it's people like me who put you where you are
> >> today. Alienate us, and no matter how good your compilers and other
> >> things are, you won't sell as many.
> >>
>
> >Perhaps you want something for free? BC++ represents a significant enhancement
> >over TC++. Borland has the right to do business and make money. They can't
> >give everything away.
>
> No, what pissed me off was that I invested in TC++; a month+1/2 later an
> upgrade notice ships. If I had waited awhile, I could have gotten
> the TC2.0 to BC++ for roughly the price I paid for the TC2.0 to TC++
> upgrade. Borland wanted me to pay that cost _again_ to upgrade from
> TC++ to BC++.
>
I bet if you had complained to them, you could have gotten it for free. I have
heard of similar stories. Sometimes you need to speak up.
Sidney Markowitz
>No, what pissed me off was that I invested in TC++; a month+1/2 later an
>upgrade notice ships. If I had waited awhile, I could have gotten
>the TC2.0 to BC++ for roughly the price I paid for the TC2.0 to TC++
>upgrade. Borland wanted me to pay that cost _again_ to upgrade from
>TC++ to BC++.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of frustrating news, but Borland does have
a policy that since they do not preannounce products, anyone who is
caught by surprise by buying a product just before the release of a
new version gets a free upgrade. In the case of BC++, anyone who
purchased the Professional package of TC++ within 60 days of the
announcement (I think 60 days brought it back to Dec 15 or so) got
BC++ for free. There was also more than the regular customer discount
for people who had bought TC++ during some period of time before the
60 days, but less than some other amount of time (I'm vague on that).
I'm not in customer service, so I don't know what arrangement you can
make with them now, but it might be worth contacting them.
-- sidney markowitz <sid...@borland.com>
Borland International (Languages - R&D)
[disclaimer: I don't speak for Borland. I hack code.
My job does not include tech support or customer service, so I
usually don't have time to answer a lot of e-mail questions.
Other than that, I'm friendly and sometimes try to be helpful.]
Rich Wingerter
the upgrade very reasonably (~$50 or so). If you get the 1.0 version
now, you should be able to get the upgrade for free. From the looks
of it, 2.0 is 'imminent'.
Standard Disclaimer:
I say these things because I heard them *directly* from Phillipe at
the Object Vision 2.0 "roll-out". But you got check with Borland for
real information.
Ping-Shun Huang
of late. Look at Turbo Pascal, for example. Admittedly powerful enough
for many professional projects, TP is really a hobbyist's tool -- there
certainly aren't millions of professional developers out there, which is
how many copies (right?) of Turbo Pascal Borland has sold. I ordered my
copy of TP for Windows through a direct-mail order coupon for $99,
thinking that I was saving a little bit of money over even the
discounters... only to find that shortly afterwards Borland dropped the
list price to $99, which of course means that the street price will be
lower still. Dandy -- I called up Borland and my customer service
representative said Borland's pricing for old customers stands. So much
for rewarding customer loyalty.
Yes, the price differential wouldn't have been much, but as a college
student, every dollar hurts, especially on a hobby which isn't directly
putting money in the bank. I had bought TP4W almost out of nostalgia's
sake, to have a programming tool in the Windows environment that would
be familiar... to have paid more for it than I had to stinks.
--
Above text where applicable is (c) Copyleft 1991, all rights deserved by:
UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang) [INTERNET: psh...@athena.mit.edu]
Steve Resnick
>feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:
>
>>After paying Microsoft $2500 for the OS/2 v2.0 development kit and
>>then watching MS completely decommit on all OS/2-related projects,
>>it's going to be a long time before I enter into any more contracts
>>with Microsoft.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
>
> If MS sold rose colored glasses with little diamonds in the frame
> for $10,000 and you bought a set, why do you blame MS for making
> money. In any relationship the buyer is the one holding all the
> cards and if he/she wants to spend his money on foolish things
> there should be no law to stop this. It's pure capitalism and is
> reflected well in the wealth of the chairman.
>
money, has no obligation to hold up to their promises?
Microsoft for YEARS has been telling people that OS/2 is the system
to develop for. The told us that it was the operating system of the
future. Everybody liked it (MS, IBM, and the Press) until Windows 3.0
came out. Then IBM and MS started fueding over what they wanted. The
end result - the people who make up the bread and butter of the
companies get screwed.
To put it another way, suppose MS, IBM and Digital Research decided
that they were no longer going to produce DOS. You couldn't buy DOS
if you had to. Sure you would have a copy of the current version,
but NO support. Suppose, also, that you had a large investment in
software (say $5-10K). Are you saying that this is just business?
That these companies can screw anybody they want to? While there is
no law preventing this, it doesn't make it ethical or right. A
companie which treats their customers like the customer is priveliged
to do business with them (MS is REAL good at this) doesn't do business
with me.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resn...@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0,
co moderator for comp.binaries.os2
Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc
Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null
The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2
Is there anyone that drinks Bimbleman's Light? Anyone?
What about you, Mr. Bimbleman? Anyone?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
>discounters... only to find that shortly afterwards Borland dropped the
>list price to $99, which of course means that the street price will be
>lower still. Dandy -- I called up Borland and my customer service
>representative said Borland's pricing for old customers stands. So much
>for rewarding customer loyalty.
I don't understand your complaint. Was it worth $99 when you bought it?
If the price had gone up would you feel compelled to send them the extra
money? Prices change all the time. You can't expect suppliers to adjust
prices on completed sales.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 DoD#0082 |
Warren Harrison
>
>Yes, the price differential wouldn't have been much, but as a college
>student, every dollar hurts, especially on a hobby which isn't directly
>putting money in the bank. I had bought TP4W almost out of nostalgia's
>sake, to have a programming tool in the Windows environment that would
>be familiar... to have paid more for it than I had to stinks.
>
relation to the street price. Your bookstore should stock them, or
call Borland and ask about the Educational Scholar program. I have
been having my students buy thru this program since Turbo PROLOG 1.0.
The prices are so low, it's cheaper to buy a new version than to use
the upgrade coupon.
Warren
Nico de Vries
I bought OV 1.0 when it was released and never have been very happy
with it. What can OV 2.0 do more than 1.0?
Nico de Vries MAIL: nev...@praxis.cs.ruu.nl
---
#include <dislaimer&MY opinion.h++>
"I know my English spelling is bad, but if I used my " O O
"own language you probably couldn't read it at all. " |
(BTW I prefer email replys) \_/
Ajay Shah
>In article <1991Oct9.1...@compu.com> fr...@compu.com (Fred Rump) writes:
>>feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:
>>
>>>After paying Microsoft $2500 for the OS/2 v2.0 development kit and
>>>then watching MS completely decommit on all OS/2-related projects,
>>>it's going to be a long time before I enter into any more contracts
>>>with Microsoft.
>
> to develop for. The told us that it was the operating system of the
> future. Everybody liked it (MS, IBM, and the Press) until Windows 3.0
> came out. Then IBM and MS started fueding over what they wanted. The
> end result - the people who make up the bread and butter of the
> companies get screwed.
Well, I think MS knows who matters to them: the millions of
peasants who dutifully purchased Windows 3. It really doesn't
care for anyone else.
Yep, I think there were some truly crazy turnabouts in that
story:
1. IBM hands MS the OS/2 development job, and both IBM and
MS trumpet about how it is "the future"
2. OS/2 comes out of Redmond, Washington in it's full
freakish glory and nobody wants to touch it. People at MS
still try to say "OS/2 is an elegant, powerful system".
3. The media catches on to Windows 3, and suddenly it's
selling a lot of copies. (BTW, today's NYT has a story
which contains the info that around 75% of copies of
Windows 3 purchased are lying in closets, unused. Peasants
were stupid enough to have purchased it, but smart enough
to not use it).
4. (The only thing I respect MS for:) They realise OS/2 is
a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
A crazy world.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajay...@usc.edu
The more things change, the more they stay insane.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Stan Brown
>gri...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>> No, what pissed me off was that I invested in TC++; a month+1/2 later an
>> upgrade notice ships. If I had waited awhile, I could have gotten
>> the TC2.0 to BC++ for roughly the price I paid for the TC2.0 to TC++
>> upgrade. Borland wanted me to pay that cost _again_ to upgrade from
>> TC++ to BC++.
>
>I bet if you had complained to them, you could have gotten it for free. I have
>heard of similar stories. Sometimes you need to speak up.
Well, I had the same situation, and I did complain. They ignored my
point (which is the same thing that annoyed Percy, namely that I could
have waited a month or two and got BC++ for what I paid for TC++),
and just sent me some more copies of the BC++ brochures.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems +1 216 371 0043
Cleveland, Ohio, USA email: br...@ncoast.org
F...@psuvm.psu.edu
>Well, I think MS knows who matters to them: the millions of
>peasants who dutifully purchased Windows 3. It really doesn't
>care for anyone else.
>Yep, I think there were some truly crazy turnabouts in that
>story:
> 3. The media catches on to Windows 3, and suddenly it's
> selling a lot of copies. (BTW, today's NYT has a story
> which contains the info that around 75% of copies of
> Windows 3 purchased are lying in closets, unused. Peasants
> were stupid enough to have purchased it, but smart enough
> to not use it).
> 4. (The only thing I respect MS for:) They realise OS/2 is
> a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
> it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
> everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
> terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
> OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
You seem to be against Windows and OS/2. Could you clarify why you
think Windows and OS/2 are so terrible? They are certainly better than
just DOS, especially when you use programs that were written for those
environments.
What environment are you running under and why do you feel your OS
is better?
[Tim]
Mike Percy
As a (maybe?) last remark. Sindey Markowitz has said here that since
Borland does not pre-announce products, this is something you have to
live with -- unless you can convince someone in CS to work with you (or
simply return the purchase before the 60? day return period).
Since getting burned by Borland like this twice now, I've taken to
reading the trade rags a little more carefully. The Borland/Ashton-Tate
deal should produce a Borland dBase (TurboBase?). Borland C++ for
Windows (in beta called 3.0) is being tracked by the trades through its
beta tests. With clues like this in the trades, I can make better
choices about my purchases.
Aaron Wallace
> 3. The media catches on to Windows 3, and suddenly it's
> selling a lot of copies. (BTW, today's NYT has a story
> which contains the info that around 75% of copies of
> Windows 3 purchased are lying in closets, unused. Peasants
> were stupid enough to have purchased it, but smart enough
> to not use it).
If this is the case, then who is buying up all the Windows apps? Winapps are
selling a tad more than Mac apps now, and there are about 5 million Macs
out there. I mean, AfterDark/Windows and ATM are both hot sellers, and
people who put Windows in the closet don't buy utilities for it.
And as for whose stupider, my vote is cast for those still playing with
QEMM trying to squeeze everything they own into 640K. I don't think I've
run into a memory barrier in two years...
> 4. (The only thing I respect MS for:) They realise OS/2 is
> a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
> it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
> everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
> terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
> OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
Most people agree that OS/2 is technically a solid product. And definitely
better than DOS, and arguably better than DOS+Windows. The main reason it
didn't sell it that it was useless. You buy it, play with Brick and the
editor, find out your DOS apps don't all work in the crash box, find out
that there aren't that many OS/2 apps, few printer and screen drivers, and
so forth. DOS ain't great, but there are working apps for it. People
use applications, not operating systems. The apps are now written for
Windows and DOS, and a few for OS/2. IBM's plan on making OS/2 run WinApps
and DOS apps is a good one; their execution of this, well, we'll see
in March.
I've even heard that NeXT is going to include the Windows API in NextStep;
is nothing sacred???
Aaron Wallace
Mike Fields
I also had the same experience! I complained, commented to them on
good will and repeat customers etc. I would have done better talking
to my dog - at least he is friendly!! Makes me want to rush right out
and get the next upgrade when it's available. Lets see I can get all
the upgrades at $100 each every 3 months or I can wait for a year and
save $400 and not miss that much. Guess which I am going to do
Borland???
mikey
--
Mikey (yes "he likes it!")
==> mi...@shuksan.boeing.com ====== Mike Fields
==> uunet!bcstec!shuksan!mikey (206) 657-6136 [work] 12022 NE 138th Pl.
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!mikey (206) 821-3492 [home] Kirkland, Wa. 98034
robert cook
|> In article <1991Oct15.1517...@netcom.COM> resn...@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes:
|> Well, I think MS knows who matters to them: the millions of
|> peasants who dutifully purchased Windows 3. It really doesn't
|> care for anyone else.
|>
|> Yep, I think there were some truly crazy turnabouts in that
|> story:
|>
|> 1. IBM hands MS the OS/2 development job, and both IBM and
|> MS trumpet about how it is "the future"
|>
|> 2. OS/2 comes out of Redmond, Washington in it's full
|> freakish glory and nobody wants to touch it. People at MS
|> still try to say "OS/2 is an elegant, powerful system".
|>
|> 3. The media catches on to Windows 3, and suddenly it's
|> selling a lot of copies. (BTW, today's NYT has a story
|> which contains the info that around 75% of copies of
|> Windows 3 purchased are lying in closets, unused. Peasants
|> were stupid enough to have purchased it, but smart enough
|> to not use it).
A lot of those peasants got it free with there computers and never used it.
Windows is really not very good at multitasking DOS and without Windows Apps
there is no reason to run windows.
|>
|> 4. (The only thing I respect MS for:) They realise OS/2 is
|> a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
|> it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
|> everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
|> terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
|> OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
|>
|> A crazy world.
Absoultely untrue. It was a joint venture to begin with and now IBM is
writing it themselves. Call IBM up and get a beta copy of OS/2 2.0.
There is supposed to be a new beta coming out this week with the Windows 3.0
standard mode support built in. OS/2 2.0 beta 6.149 is quite a bit more
stable than Windows 3.0. It can run any DOS program along with its drivers.
It will run multiple copies of DOS programs with graphics in windows. It will
even run Windows 3.0 in real mode in an OS/2 Window!
Yes IBM has delayed Windows until February, but this is because of problems
with the new Workplace Shell (Better than Progman/FileMgr of Win 3.1). The
Workplace shell uses 32-bit display drivers which Micrografix are writing. These
drivers are causing the holdup.
For more info see comp.os.os2.misc
2.0 rules, now only if IBM will market it correctly.
Robert Kelley Cook
U. of Notre Dame
di...@telliott.austin.ibm.com
>story:
>
> 1. IBM hands MS the OS/2 development job, and both IBM and
> MS trumpet about how it is "the future"
>
> 2. OS/2 comes out of Redmond, Washington in it's full
> freakish glory and nobody wants to touch it. People at MS
Well, almost 1 million copies have been sold and there is an estimated
4 to 6 Billion dollar investment in in house applications for OS/2. Finally,
there are well over a thousand ISV applications for OS/2 1.x...
> still try to say "OS/2 is an elegant, powerful system".
Exactly *why* isn't it an elegant, powerful system in comparison to
DOS/Windows and the Mac, its principle competition?
> 4. (The only thing I respect MS for:) They realise OS/2 is
> a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
It seems to me that Microsoft is doing everything in its power to make
sure OS/2 does not succeed because of the impact that success would have
on sales of Windows and Windows applications.
> it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
> everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
> terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
Why is OS/2 a bad idea? The premise that there are users who
need much more than the DOS/Windows kludge and don't want to deal with
a Unix environment or users who want to interconnect PCs with their
enterprise systems seems to be a valid one to me.
> OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
Finally, IBM and Microsoft codeveloped OS/2 1.0 through 1.2. OS/2 1.3, the
*smallest*, *cleanest*, and *most bug free* version of OS/2 yet was developed
entirely by IBM. OS/2 2.0 has been developed almost entirely by IBM.
--
--> Peter A. Dinda <-- | di...@telliott.austin.ibm.com |+++++++++++++
--> IBM Austin AWD B2E <-- | DINDA AT AUSVMQ |+My opinions+
--> 11400 Burnet Road <-- | 512-838-5321 |+are my own.+
--> Austin, TX 78728 <-- | "Refugee of UW-Madison!" |+++++++++++++
Duncan Murdoch
75% of all Windows packages sold are sitting on the shelf.
Almost 1 million copies of OS/2 have been sold and there is an estimated
4 to 6 Billion dollar investment in in house applications for OS/2.
These factoids are completely useless out of context. What proportion
of other packages are sitting on the shelf? How many copies of other
packages have been sold? How much money is being spent on development
for other platforms?
I'm not suggesting that I want to know the answers to these questions,
just that the supposedly informative numerical estimates we've heard are
really pretty vacuous.
Duncan Murdoch
Samir Varma
on comp.os.os2.misc. I think the information is relevant to the discussion.
From the New York Times, Tuesday, October 15, 1991.
Software's Giants to Square Off:
Early next year, I. B. M. and the Microsoft Corporation, the two giants of
personal computing, will go head to head in their first direct
confrontation. It is a contest that may well determine the shape of the
computer industry.
It is a crucial battle that will pit I. B. M.'s ability to produce a
next-generation, more powerful software system against Microsfot's pervasive
influence in the world of personal computers. While the International
Business Machines Corporation conceded last week that its operating system
would be delayed a few months while new features were hurriedly added, it
still insisted that it would be delivered in a timely fashion, probably next
March.
Both companies acknowledge that the winner fo the next round of the
operating-systems wars will have a tremendous advantage in selling software
that controls personal computers. The clash between OS/2 2.0 from I. B. M.
and Windows 3.1 from Microsoft-both now due to be introduced early in
1992-will give corporate and small-business owners thier clearest choice yet
as to where to invest their development resources.
"It's a critical time because customers are deciding who their strategic
partner is, and it's going to be only one of two people," said Morton
Rosenthal, president of Corporate Software Inc., a software distributor
based in Westwook, Mass.
I. B. M. has staked its corporate pride-and possibly its survival in the
personal computer industry-on its new OS/2 2.0. It is basing its case on
the power and sophistication of OS/2, which will be the first to deliver a
true 32-bit operating system to the I. B. M.-compatible world. A successful
OS/2 would also help I. B. M blunt Microsoft's charge, and return large
corporations and industry developers to the I. B. M. fold.
Earlier version of OS/2 and Windows have been 16-bit systems that process
data less efficiently and impose restrictions on programmer. Full 32-bit
software applications are needed to take advantage of the Intel
Corporation's 386 and 486 microprocessors, which, until now, have been
hobbled by existing software.
Claims of Being Better
"A properly written OS/2 application will blow the socks off Windows
applications," said Will Zachmann, an analyst at Canopus Research, a
computer industry consulting firm in Boston.
I. B. M., in fact, says the new OS/2 will deliver "better DOS than DOS and
better Windows than Windows." Joseph Guglielmi, I. B. M.'s vice president
and general manger for market and business development, said the program
would be able to run Windows 3.0 programs and have a Macintosh-like screen
called the Workplace Shell that can be controlled by a "mouse" pointing
device.
I. B. M.'s delay has been caused by last-minute changes to allow the
company's system to run Windows inside OS/2 Windows, rather than making the
user switch screens, as if changing channels on a television.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Microsoft, for its part, is counting on the popularity of its Windows
program, and the desire on the part of computer users and software
developers not to start again with a new system. It is now designing its
own 32 bit version of Windows-known internally as Win4-while dealing with
criticisms that the current version is prone to frequent, unexpected crashes
and that it will not be as speedy as I. B. M.'s new system.
Microsoft's programmers say that they are investing a significant amount of
work in making the 3.1 version of Windows less prone to crashing. They also
say that the new version of windows will be significantly more sprightly.
To insure that Windows does not lose the speed wars, Brad A. Sliverberg,
Microsoft's vice president in charge of developing the new version of
Windows, has instructed his programmer not to use the most powerful
I. B. M.-compatible computers so that they will have a better sense of the
typical user's experience.
"My own machine is a 386SX," he said.
Microsoft is also loading Windows 3.1 with a variety of new features,
including its Truetype font technology developed with Apple Computer Inc.
and designed to permit I. B. M.-compatible computes to display more flexible
and more precise fonts on a computer screen. The new version of Windows ill
also include better local area network support, easier setup and a somewhat
enhanced user interface to make it easier for computer users to view file
directories.
While it is too early to predict a winner, Microsfot is coming to the
showdown with a decided edge. The software powerhouse has sold a remarkable
six million copies of its Windows program in the last 16 months, making it
the second-fastest-selling program in personal computer history after
Microsoft's own MS-DOS operating package.
A Battle For Allegiance
I. B. M.'s pricipal challenge will be to stop the hemorrhage of software
developers who are now developing only for Windows. For this reason, a tie,
in which the two companies share the market, is unlikely because the winner
will largley be determined by who is most successful in winning the
allegiance of thousands of software developers.
"I can't see how Microsoft can lose at this point," said Dick Shaffer,
publisher of Technologic, a computer industry newsletter.
On Microsoft's corporate campus in Redmond, Wash., the mood is definitely
upbeate. Shuttle buses carrying potential new employees circle constantly;
construction cranes tower over sprawling building that dot the campus.
Microsoft executives, confident of their momentum, exhibit an air of
brashness. "Windows certainly has the big `mo,'" said Steven Ballmer, a
Macrosoft vice president who heads the development of the company's
operating systems.
Still, Microsoft is not a sure winner. While millions of copies of its
program have been sold, analysts estimate tht the full-time use of the
program may be as low as 25 percent because the current version of Windows
performs poorly on standard desktop machines and because of the unexpected
crashes.
"People are very frustrated with Windows," said Paul Johnston, a software
anyalyst at First Boston.
A Potential Nightmare
A Windows 3.1 full of bugs could well prove to be the company's worst
nightmare. The company's image as a progamming powerhouse would evaporate
virtually overnight. And that possiblilty leaves a significant opening for
I. B. M.
The coming confrontation has already had opening salvos from both sides. In
recent months, for example, both companies have publicly traded barbs over
just how easy it is to crash the other's software.
Microsoft's executives have also suggested that it will be impossible for
I. B. M. to deliver on its promise to run "Windows better than Windows." In
fact, Mr. Ballmer has said that he is willing to eat a floppy disk if that
turns out to be the case.
A cold war has intensified behind the scenes as well. During the last two
months, both companies have stopped exchanging "source code"-the programming
instructions for OS/2 ans Windows that are supposed to be routinely
exchanged under a longstanding cross-licencing agreement.
For now, the companies are turning their attention to getting their systems
out. I. B. M. executives said that this week the company woudl ship a new
test version of OS/2 2.0 that would include Windows support and the
Workplace Shell for the first time.
I. B. M. will also be trying to keep in the fold the 350 software developers
that Mr. Guglielmi said I. B. M. was counting on to develop 500 programs for
the new version of OS/2.
A crucial challenge for I. B. M. in the coming months will be to assure its
users of its long-term commitment to OS/2. With its recently announced
alliance with Apple Computer to develop a new style of personal computer,
I. B. M. has raised doubts about that commitment. And industry analysts
note that far fewer software companies are actually writing OS/2 programs
today, since so many have shifted their programmer to work on Windows
versions.
Autodesk, a publisher of computer aided design software in Sausalito,
Calif., is an example of the credibility problem that I. B. M. faces. When
the first 16-bit version of OS/2 was introduced, the company dedicated a
group of programmers to design a version of its Autocad program for the new
operating system. But that program languished because few copies of OS/2
were sold. Now Autodesk has shifted its programmers to work on a Windows
version, and is waiting to see if the new OS/2 succeeds. Even if OS/2 does
take off, some say, Microsoft has a victory of sorts because I. B. M. has
been forced to make Windows a part of its newest version of OS/2.
Top Spot Not Assured
But Microsoft will not necessarily remain king of the mountain forever.
Despite its apparent monopoly in operating systems software for today's
desktop computers, a number of industry executives and analystst predict
that changing technology will undercut Microsoft's position in the future.
One important change is the development of object-oriented operating systems
that will lead to software built from modular components that can be
assembled like Lego toys. Object-oriented systems are being called a
powerful alternative to conventional software designs because they simplify
the software development process, permitting designers easily to re-use
existing software to build new programs. Such systems will permit
competitors of future object-oriented systems to slip alternative programs
into place easily.
"You won't need to compete with all of Microsoft; you can just compete with
their mail system," said Esther Dyson, publisher of release 1.0 an industry
newsletter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I suggest everyone get rid of their PC Mag and Byte
subscriptions and get the New York Times. It has lots more information than
the aforementioned rags!
Samir Varma
var...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Center for Particle Physics,
The University of Texas at Austin.
Bob Montante
|
| Software's Giants to Square Off:
|
| Early next year, I. B. M. and the Microsoft Corporation, the two giants of
| personal computing, will go head to head in their first direct
| confrontation. It is a contest that may well determine the shape of the
| computer industry.
Yaasss... Cray waits trembling in the wings. Millions of programmable
VCRs wail piteously thorugh their stereo outputs, sensing their impending
obsolescence. Nintendo and Sega scramble for defensive positions. Sun
employees are seen hurling themselves through their plate glass (to little
effect, given their first-floor offices).
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| By the way, I suggest everyone get rid of their PC Mag and Byte
| subscriptions and get the New York Times. It has lots more information than
| the aforementioned rags!
Its Iraqi war coverage certainly was more extensive...
In case you weren't sure: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Todd Walk
number of companies are able to get there fingers in: Microsoft, Apple,
and a number of smaller companies that are helping IBM develop OS/2.
On the other hand, there is only one company that owns Windows, and you're
back to your point of being beholden to one company again.
>Third, NT will be more evolutionary, like an upgrade from windows. It will run
>one various hardware platforms - like UNIX. The idea will be that software
>should run anywhere and that scenario will never be painted by IBM or Apple.
From all that I've heard about NT, it may either be vaporware or just
around the corner. OS/2 was also designed to be portable to other
platforms too.
All in all, OS/2 will liver or die based on how well in runs DOS and
Windows, and how well IBM markets it.
Todd Walk
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Fred Rump from home
>2.0 rules, now only if IBM will market it correctly.
So did Britannia. :-)
Seriously, this whole thing with OS/2 being the future is a bit of an
oxymoron. There are subtle issues here that the market is acting on.
First, the operating system made the ultimate error in following DOS footsteps
into 16 bit land. The 286 was practically obsolete when the first overblown
releases came out. The idea now is for mission critical applications to run on
OS/2 in 32 bit mode - at least that finally makes some sense. Yet, this is the
market IBM owns anyway so it doesn't matter as far as marketshare goes.
Second, OS/2 and PS/2 are widely accepted as IBM products - propriatary IBM
products. There is vast resistance to buying software from your hardware
vendor as somehow he'll surely come up with the old gotcha. The small user in
business and personal affairs claims freedom of movement and does not wish to
be beholden to any one company with a sword over his head. Those days are gone
forever.
Third, NT will be more evolutionary, like an upgrade from windows. It will run
one various hardware platforms - like UNIX. The idea will be that software
should run anywhere and that scenario will never be painted by IBM or Apple.
Fred
--
W. Fred Rump office: fr...@COMPU.COM "When a man opens the door of
26 Warren St. home: fr...@icdi10.compu.com his car for his wife, you
Beverly, NJ. 08010 can be sure that either the
609-386-6846 bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr the car or the wife is new."
Thomas Schoebel
> | From the New York Times, Tuesday, October 15, 1991.
> |
> | Software's Giants to Square Off:
> |
> | Early next year, I. B. M. and the Microsoft Corporation, the two giants of
> | personal computing, will go head to head in their first direct
> | confrontation. It is a contest that may well determine the shape of the
> | computer industry.
>
> Yaasss... Cray waits trembling in the wings. Millions of programmable
> VCRs wail piteously thorugh their stereo outputs, sensing their impending
> obsolescence. Nintendo and Sega scramble for defensive positions. Sun
> employees are seen hurling themselves through their plate glass (to little
> effect, given their first-floor offices).
>
> In case you weren't sure: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
Well, I think this reaction is typical for most people when they hear
the first time of OS/2 version 2.0. They think the old reputation
of ver 1.0 says all they can expect from a new version. So the
war of operating systems is a storm in a teacup. Really?
What are the facts?
1) Commercial: IBM is the most powerful company in the world dealing
with information technologies. What if the giant makes an effort?
2) Technical: Look at the features of OS/2 2.0 without being prejudiced
by opinions from the street. Compare the technical concepts of
DOS and Win against OS/2 2.0. You will find that it *is* superior,
giving the same functionaly plus additional ones! And don't forget,
ver 2.0 is nearly fully upwards compatible to both DOS and Win 3.0!
Don't forget, *COMPATIBLE*! That means, you can run any well programmed
DOS application and any Win application on OS/2, but with better
performance!
3) Market share: Most common prejudices of OS/2 say there would be
no applications for it. False! With ver 2.0, you have access to
the biggest software pool currently available, namely DOS,
Win *and* OS/2 1.x applications, wherefrom more exist than most
people believe.
4) Technology: Additionally to the above, you get something many
magazines have whined for a long time: A true 32bit operating
system with 32bit directly addressable address space (no segments
etc!), virtual memory (demand paging), *preemptive* multitasking
(not that dilettantic coroutine "multitasking" offered by Win)
and a kernel functionality like UNIX.
All that currently is missing are 32bit apps, but you can develop
programs in an environment where porting of U*X tools is not very hard.
Boy, that's something a DOS programmer is dreaming of!
5) Price: $99 for the above alltogether.
Now, is it interesting what's going on there? Regardless whether
MS or IBM wins the GUI war (Win API versus PM API), you can program
for *both* API's under OS/2 ver 2.0.
To me, it is clear that OS/2 will be the champion of the OS war, because it
is simply a superset of the MS product. All that remains to happen
is a clever marketing by IBM, and you soon will see where the buggy
Win 3.0 will remain.
-- Thomas
arch...@mwk.uucp
customer, I AM dissatisfied (you listening Phillipe) with this nonsense Borland
has of upgrades every so often (seems like every 4 months). I agree that
Borland has to make money, but I honestly believe this policy of theirs is some
marketing gimick to make more money (obviously seems to work, they've abandoned
their roots, us small guys).
By the way I am aware that Borland will be releasing version 3.0 of the C++
product. My understanding is that this will bring Borland's product up to par
with AT&T C++ 2.1, but AT&T C++ 3.0 has already been released, does this mean
I can expect an upgrade notice 4 months after the release of Borland C++ 3.0 ??
Will this be Borland C++ 4.0 ??
I'd be interested to hear comments on MicroSoft's upcoming Profession C version
7.0 which I understand includes C++. In particluar I'd like to know if
MicroSoft will be incorporting AT&T C++ 3.0. Any info. on product pricing ?
Might it be a viable alternative to Borland's product ?
Thanks in advance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimers, . . .
Tony Porczyk
>Third, NT will be more evolutionary, like an upgrade from windows.
I do hope it will be better than that.
>It will run
>one various hardware platforms - like UNIX. The idea will be that software
That's a scary thought. You mean it will costs $2000, no programs will run
across various UNIX versions, I will have to recompile everything, and so on?
I don't know if OS/2 will take over or not. I just hope that something
more suitable for business desktop is introduced than UNIX.
T.
Joe Huffman
>What are the facts?
>2) Technical: Look at the features of OS/2 2.0 without being prejudiced
> by opinions from the street. Compare the technical concepts of
> DOS and Win against OS/2 2.0. You will find that it *is* superior,
> giving the same functionaly plus additional ones! And don't forget,
> ver 2.0 is nearly fully upwards compatible to both DOS and Win 3.0!
> Don't forget, *COMPATIBLE*! That means, you can run any well programmed
> DOS application and any Win application on OS/2, but with better
> performance!
How about 32 bit protected mode programs that run under DOS currently?
Is OS/2 2.0 a DPMI, or VCPI host? How about programs that require EMS?
If OS/2 2.0 is going to claim DOS compatibilty it will have to deliver
more than just 'vanillia' DOS features to be successful.
--
uunet!proto!joe
j...@proto.com
John Antypas
>
>>Well, I think MS knows who matters to them: the millions of
>>peasants who dutifully purchased Windows 3. It really doesn't
>>care for anyone else.
>
>> selling a lot of copies. (BTW, today's NYT has a story
>> which contains the info that around 75% of copies of
>> Windows 3 purchased are lying in closets, unused. Peasants
>> were stupid enough to have purchased it, but smart enough
>> to not use it).
>
A bit strong I'd say. I'm a Unix hack myself and if you want to complain
about the shortcomings of micro OS I can, but why? Sure Unix, et al
have a much better set of services, but if you want all of that power
you have to pay a price.
Windows 3 and OS/2 are better than DOS -- much better. Notice I didn't say
wonderful. They have a LONG way to go, but as one who does his share of
multi-OS work, I'd rather be on Windows or OS/2 for big projects for the
non-Unix/Mac world any day.
Things could be a lot better with OS/2 and Windows, but let's put some of
the blame where it really belongs. First off, you want a real OS, get the
processor in a real (no pun intended) mode. The 8080 (pun intended)
compatability mode is DEAD or should be -- but there's simply to much
market share to let it die.
Windows and OS/2 would be a lot cleaner if we didn't have to run the first
MS-Dos program ever made but that's the price for progress.
--
John Antypas/Software Engineer
MobleDigital Corp.
jo...@mobdig.com (Modern way)
...!{rtech, uupsi, soft21}!mobdig!johna {People into tried and true}
Adam Goldberg
>How about 32 bit protected mode programs that run under DOS currently?
>Is OS/2 2.0 a DPMI, or VCPI host? How about programs that require EMS?
DPMI 1.0. I don't know about EMS, only to say that the trend for DOS programs
is toward DPMI and away from VCPI, EMS, XMS, etc.
>If OS/2 2.0 is going to claim DOS compatibilty it will have to deliver
>more than just 'vanillia' DOS features to be successful.
True, and it does.
--
Adam Goldberg ! "I can see your point, but you're still full
gold...@iastate.edu ! of shit." -- Button worn by Tom Petty during
ta...@isuvax.BITNET ! a recent Rolling Stone interview.
#include <disclaimer> !
David DeSimone
>How about 32 bit protected mode programs that run under DOS currently?
>Is OS/2 2.0 a DPMI, or VCPI host? How about programs that require EMS?
The sacred cow of backward compatibility is what got us into this mess
in the first place.
There is a time to just let old programs and old standards die out.
They impeded progress after a while.
--
David DeSimone an...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Also known as Fuzzy Fox
"If you're happy and you know it, wag your tail..."
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Oct18....@mobdig.ncal.mobdig.com> jo...@mobdig.ncal.mobdig.com (John Antypas) writes:
A bit strong I'd say. I'm a Unix hack myself and if you want to complain
about the shortcomings of micro OS I can, but why? Sure Unix, et al
have a much better set of services, but if you want all of that power
you have to pay a price.
What price is that? NeXT has managed to put a nice GUI on top of
Unix. In fact, neither Windows NT nor OS/2 2.0 will offer the user
any advantages, and it's available *today*.
Windows 3 and OS/2 are better than DOS -- much better. Notice I didn't say
wonderful. They have a LONG way to go, but as one who does his share of
multi-OS work, I'd rather be on Windows or OS/2 for big projects for the
non-Unix/Mac world any day.
I'd rather not be in the non-NeXT world at all, but for the short term
I must remain in it.
Windows and OS/2 would be a lot cleaner if we didn't have to run the first
MS-Dos program ever made but that's the price for progress.
No, it's the price that some people must pay. You do have a choice.
Don't build your future around Windows or OS/2.
-Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N N X X TTTTTTT | mel...@cs.psu.edu
NN N eeee X X T | mel...@vivaldi.psu.edu (NeXT mail)
N N N e e X X T |----------------------------------------------
N N N eeeee X X T |"Medicine will cure death and government will
N NN e X X T | repeal taxes before Steve [Jobs] will fail."
N N eee X X T | Guy Kawasaki
Fred Rump
>f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>>It will run
>>one various hardware platforms - like UNIX. The idea will be that software
>That's a scary thought. You mean it will costs $2000, no programs will run
>across various UNIX versions, I will have to recompile everything, and so on?
I don't know where $2000 comes into the picture. And no program will work
across various UNIX versions? Not yet across various CPU lines at the
binary level but what does?
But I was talking of the NT/Sys V/SCO ODT(osf/1),Intel,MIPS - call it ACE
scenario.
>I don't know if OS/2 will take over or not. I just hope that something
>more suitable for business desktop is introduced than UNIX.
The US Army just bought 26,000 copies of SCO ODT and may well be looking
ahead to an ACE compatible world. Maybe they know something about ease
of operations? Maybe SUN, IBM (RS/6000), HP et al have found a few
buyers for their UNIX desktop products too. Considering that OS/2 has
been available to the crowds for quite a while, it's strange that anyone
is still even looking at UNIX.
Fred
--
Fred Rump | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep
CompuData, Inc. | or taste not the Pierian spring' Alexander Pope
10501 Drummond Rd. | SCO Advanced Product Center
Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fr...@COMPU.COM (215-824-3000)
Robert J. McNamara
> a dead duck, and discard it from all plans. Now IBM picks
> it up and trys to make a success out of it!! What is more,
> everybody seems to heap the "blame" for OS/2 being a
> terrible idea on IBM!! Hell, it was folks at MS who wrote
> OS/2, not IBM. IBM is only stupid to try to sell it!
>
>A crazy world.
>
And what would you recommend as a suitable substitute? DOS? <snicker>
yeah, right.
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Rob McNamara | This Space | Post No |
| r...@cad4.lbl.gov | Intentionally | Bills |
| Lawrence Berkeley Lab | Left Blank | |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Ping-Shun Huang
> I don't understand your complaint. Was it worth $99 when you bought it?
> If the price had gone up would you feel compelled to send them the extra
> money? Prices change all the time. You can't expect suppliers to adjust
> prices on completed sales.
My original message should have been re-written to be more clear... I
was annoyed that I was paying more money than I would have, but more
importantly, annoyed that for future hobbyist buyers, there effectually
wouldn't be special upgrade pricing worthy of mentioning. I get swamped
with brightly-colored Borland sales mail (dozens and dozens) touting
special upgrade pricing for present owners of Quattro and Paradox, but
the languages division seems to be going away from that a bit.
Perhaps my/this flamage does not belong in comp.os.msdos.programmer?
--
Above text where applicable is (c) Copyleft 1991, all rights deserved by:
UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang) [INTERNET: psh...@athena.mit.edu]
Flint Pellett
>I've been following all the "Borland Rip-off" posting, being a Borland
>customer, I AM dissatisfied (you listening Phillipe) with this nonsense Borland
>has of upgrades every so often (seems like every 4 months).
So you get one upgrade every year from MS for $250, or one every 6 months
from Borland for $100. As far as I can tell, the reason you're getting
more upgrades from Borland is because they are improving their product
faster. Nothing says you have to buy every upgrade that comes along, you
can skip every other one and know that in 6 months there will be another
one to catch up with.
--
Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165
uunet!gistdev!flint or fl...@gistdev.gist.com
J. R. Sims
-In <1991Oct19....@proto.com> j...@proto.com (Joe Huffman) writes:
-
->How about 32 bit protected mode programs that run under DOS currently?
->Is OS/2 2.0 a DPMI, or VCPI host? How about programs that require EMS?
-
-DPMI 1.0. I don't know about EMS, only to say that the trend for DOS programs
-is toward DPMI and away from VCPI, EMS, XMS, etc.
EMS is supported also. See article in comp.os.os2.misc, subject 'Wing
Commander 2 and OS/2 2.0 !!!' which describes running Wing Commander
in an OS/2 window. Yes, that's 'window,' not 'full screen session.'
WC II needs 587k free DOS memory + 1Mb EMS for full functionality.
Let's see Windows do _that!_
->If OS/2 2.0 is going to claim DOS compatibilty it will have to deliver
->more than just 'vanillia' DOS features to be successful.
-
-True, and it does.
Rob
jmrob...@spider.ualr.edu
comments myself.
I program with TP as a hobby and with BC for contract jobs (most people want C
code). I bought TP 5.5 through at educational discount within *30* days of
TP 6.0's announcement. I was told by Borland that since it was an educational
discount package that I could not upgrade. Period. So I sent it back for a
refund and ordered TP 6.0 (once again educational). Four months later my
school still hadn't received my order, and I hadn't received my refund. It
seems Borland 'lost' my schools order and had no record of receiving my TP5.5.
Luckily I kept all records and I was able to fax them copies of my receipts.
Borland sent the refund check that day. About three monthes later (over eight
months since original order date) I had TP6.0 Pro in my hands ($179 educ).
The company I was recently contracted with ordered BC2 for me to use. Their
price (distributor price) was $30. The same went for TP6 or TPW. They could
order any number of any compiler for $30. The professional version of each
was $45. I don't understand why ordering/upgrading direct from Borland is
so expensive when they sell copies to distributors so cheap.
Seriously confussed by Borland...seems the only intelligent people there are
the developers...
Warren Harrison
>
>The company I was recently contracted with ordered BC2 for me to use. Their
>price (distributor price) was $30. The same went for TP6 or TPW. They could
>order any number of any compiler for $30. The professional version of each
>was $45. I don't understand why ordering/upgrading direct from Borland is
>so expensive when they sell copies to distributors so cheap.
>
why even though the list price for many of the Borland products is
relatively high, the actual price is often quite lower through some sort
of "promotional" pricing. Also keep in mind that distributors (as opposed
to dealers) normally buy in lots of hundreds or even thousands. The orders
that come in direct to Borland are one or two at a time. It's expensive to
run these order desks and to do distribution on one or two packages at a
shot - so they have to make that money up somewhere. Maybe a better question
is why this distributor you work for charges a few hundred dollars for a
package for which they only pay $30 :-)
Sidney Markowitz
>code). I bought TP 5.5 through at educational discount within *30* days of
>TP 6.0's announcement. I was told by Borland that since it was an educational
>discount package that I could not upgrade. Period. So I sent it back for a
>refund and ordered TP 6.0 (once again educational).
I suggest that anyone who confronts a similar situation,
1) Point out to the Customer Service person that there is a
60 day returns policy, and it will save Borland time and
money to simply give you the upgrade price instead of
having you return the item that you had just bought.
2) If that doesn't work, get their name and then ask to
speak to a supervisor, who should accede to your request
and set the (hopefully new and inexperienced) service
person straight on policy.
3) Loop through 1 and 2 if it is necessary to go higher. The
higher up in management you get in Customer Service at
Borland, the more they tend to be lenient with customers.
An inside tip from Borland R&D :-)
-- sidney markowitz <sid...@borland.com>
Scott Berger
In article <12...@gistdev.gist.com>, fl...@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes:
> arch...@mwk.uucp writes:
>
>
> So you get one upgrade every year from MS for $250, or one every 6 months
> from Borland for $100. As far as I can tell, the reason you're getting
I purchased the last upgrade from MSC 5.1 to MSC 6.0. It was
not $250, it was a tad over $100 if memory serves. In addition they
came out with an interim bug fix release that was $15.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Scott Berger sbe...@cpocd3.intel.com -
- Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ sbe...@ch3.intel.com -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Rump from home
>To me, it is clear that OS/2 will be the champion of the OS war, because it
>is simply a superset of the MS product. All that remains to happen
>is a clever marketing by IBM, and you soon will see where the buggy
>Win 3.0 will remain.
Maybe in Germany.
My information has it that many German firms are fully in the old IBM camp
come hell or high water. One of these days they'll have to compete for real
and then what?
You completely forget that MS has a little project of it's own in the wongs
called 'N'ew 'T'echnology for windows. Who will offer 100% compatibility with
what? MS clearly holds the standard as OS 2.0 has to keep playing the game of
running MS code. So why not buy the real thing. Or did you really want PINK
for OS/2 3.x ? Or was that the other way around?
FRED
Thomas Schoebel
>You completely forget that MS has a little project of it's own in the wongs
>called 'N'ew 'T'echnology for windows.
*WHEN* will Win NT be shipped?
Are you sure that at the same time IBM OS/2 3.0 is'nt ready also?
There is a good chance for you to become an OS/2 2.0 beta tester *now*,
so you can see what it really has.
>Who will offer 100% compatibility with
>what? MS clearly holds the standard as OS 2.0 has to keep playing the game of
>running MS code. So why not buy the real thing.
^^^
If you mean Win 3.0 by the "real thing" :-) (or what else can I buy now),
then you can only argue by not having seen OS/2 2.0.
You also forgot something very interesting: Until a few months ago, the
Win NT project was held under another name by MS.
Guess what name it was?
OS/2 3.0. Only the name has changed. That's all.
Have you heard anything of cross-licensing agreements between MS
and IBM? So wherefrom is it clear that IBM cannot provide the
same things as MS, and that there will be no compatibility?
-- Thomas
Stephen M Smith
>
>>To me, it is clear that OS/2 will be the champion of the OS war, because it
>>is simply a superset of the MS product.
>You completely forget that MS has a little project of it's own in the wongs
>for OS/2 3.x ? Or was that the other way around?
It seems that Windows NT and OS/2 2.0 will be fighting it out. Why
should someone buy OS/2 2.0 when they can buy Windows NT? Here's a few
reasons taken from comp.os.os2.misc:
(this is a collage taken from various posts)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Windows NT is not yet ready. The SDK is not even out.
TODAY, OS/2 2.0 is on 2 machines I own. This includes a laptop.
-- Steve Balmer of MS say Windows NT will require 8MB and either a 486
or fast 386.... While OS/2 v2.0, or at least the beta, requires
about 3 megs of Ram and can be run on 386sx or better.
-- OS/2 2.0 does run DOS and Windows applications. Windows NT's first
release is not suppose to run DOS or 16 bit Windows applications.
-- The Workplace Shell will not be in Windows/NT and when complete it
will really help Joe User! Look at how popular the MAC's interface
is today.
-- OS/2 2.0 will run not only the Workplace Shell, but a Windows shell,
DOS 4.0 Shell and OS/2 1.x shell (according to the April FTN).
Windows/NT stated direction does not include this type of migration
path for people.
-- OS/2 has REXX and NT will not (I consider this very important)
-- Are 5 million Windows users willing to shell
out the cash for two upgrades in a year's time, realistically? How
many of those users will have switched to OS/2 2.0 by that
time (probably not enough, in my opinion :-), because they're sick
of Windows' limitations? In addition, it doesn't appear (from what
I read here and elsewhere) that 3.1 will make it out on its
original timetable; why, then, will NT make its timetable,
considering its added complexity?... I will buy [OS/2 2.0] and
use it productively for at least one full year before I have something
that *might* be better to choose from. I don't know about you, but I
won't believe anything from Microsoft about NT until it is on my desk
and I can see with my own two eyes that it works better than OS/2.
...Actually, NT sounds better, in concept, than OS/2. However, NT also
does not exist in any commercially usable form and won't for quite some
time. So, to compares Apples with Apples, you should look at technology
that has been delivered or will be delivered within a few months.
By the time that NT is released maybe IBM will be showing versions of
OS/2 that run on multi-processor versions of the RS/6000 that totally
blow the MIPS chip out of the water in terms of price/performance and
absolute performance. I for one will not base my buying decisions today
based on fantasy comparisons of fantasy technologies that are still in
an early stage of development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Smith \ + /
<smsmith@magnus. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
acs.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
edu> \ + /
BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
Steve Resnick
Windows/NT sounds really nifty. Microsoft will encourage you to develop
for it, when they release their SDK. Sounds reasonable, but wait, there's
more! Microsoft may, between now, and the time of release for Windows/NT
decide on yet a different venture. They may drop NT altogether, in favor
of a "newer" technology, and leave developers and users flapping in the
wind.
Remember, Microsoft told us that OS/2 was the platform to develop for.
They insisted this was the new OS of the future. Until Win3 gained popularity.
They dropped it - and the developers who shelled out thousands (yes, thousands
per SDK) of dollars. I trust Microsoft to meet their commitments and support
those who have been their bread and butter over the years, about as far as
I can comfortably spit a rat. As a developer, I have not enjoyed any dealings
I have had with Microsoft, and would much rather them be completely out
of my life. IBM, while they have been somewhat end-user-hostile in the past,
is making vast efforts to change both their company image, and their
representation in the real world.
- Steve
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resn...@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0,
co moderator for comp.binaries.os2
Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc
Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null
The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2
Is there anyone that drinks Bimbleman's Light? Anyone?
What about you, Mr. Bimbleman? Anyone?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Ko
>I do not think that NT will be much later than OS/2 2.0 in its release to
>developers and being that much is the same the switch from windows 3.1 to NT
OS/2 2.0 SDK had been available since early this year.
Microsoft was actually the company that sold the kit to one of my friend
in Australia. You should ask him how he feel about being dumped by
Microsoft.
So your statement looks a bit odd unless you consider one year
late is not much later. For your information, I was not a fan of OS/2
when it first came out. But after see what my friend's OS/2 SDK can do
and actually seeing the OS/2 2.0 beta 6.167 running, I will be
upgrade to it when it is release next march. IBM has more than 5
thousands internal beta testers and more than 10 thousands external beta
testers on the current beta test program. 6.167 will be the last beta
release for the external beta testers and is shipping now!!! This makes
the "few beta tester" for NT, if they exist, a big joke. OS/2 2.0 is a real
product. The current beta test version is extremely stable compare to
Window 3.0. Window NT is still a vapourware.
Please get your facts right before you make your comment and
save yourself a lot of flame.
>should be a minor effort. That IBM may have a multi-processor OS/2 running on
>a 6000 by the time NT is released and that such a configuration will run
>circles around an R4000 implementation is simply blowing smoke and idle guess
>work. It truly is phantasy to wait for such a comparison to happen.
You yourself are making such a smoke, so why flame other.
>Mr Resnick also writes that NT sounds nifty. He thinks MS will switch gears
>'again' to something newer. MS and IBM gave it the good shot with OS/2. The
>crowds at COMDEX and other dealer and developer conferences loudly exclaimed:
>"OS/2 - just say NO". I doubt that anybody at MS really believed in the
>product from day one. Vaciliation and doubt was evident everywhere, but IBM
>kept pushing. The more gullible and those who normally follow the IBM way fell
>for the trap and went along - at the cost of billions. The rest of us said,
>NO.
I have to ask you, have you actually look at OS/2 2.0, or even
try to ask someone that actually use it? If you just say NO, it sounds
like one blind follow another blind to me.
>guys that make the market, really want, instead of blindly deciding for us,
>none of this would have ever happened.
>Windows gained almost instant popularity in its 3rd release. It's still buggy
>but it is generally popular and the market has spoken. If folks had purchased
Window 3.0 also has the honour of being the biggest selling
shelfware on the market. Selling a lot of copy does not means good
software. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Good software does
not always sell!. So are you just want to look at figures or open your
eye and look at the actual software. You are in US, joining the IBM
beta program is extremely easy but you may have miss the boat. What you
classed as vapourware is about to be on limited release in DEC 91 and
general release in MA 92.
>I like that: somewhat end-user-hostile. How about, 'we know best what you
>should buy because we know what you need'? I don't think that image has
>changed one iota in perception or reality. IBM still knows what is best for
>the world and that is IBM. They are still a marketing company first.
Do let your feeling against IBM interfere when you are judging
whether a product is good or bad. It is irrelevant.
As far as I am concern, I will still use DOS 5.0 and Window 3.0
now, upgrade to OS/2 2.0 next March because it is better. When NT
comes along in the future and is better, then I will change again.
PK
P.S. I own more Microsoft products (DOS 3.3, DOS 5.0, Window 3.0, Word
5.0, Excel 3.0, Work 2.0, MS Mouse) than IBM product (an old PCDOS 2.0
only). So I can say I am not biased against Microsoft.
Fred Rump from home
>In article <1991Oct28....@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
sms...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>>f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>> ...Actually, NT sounds better, in concept, than OS/2. However, NT also
>> does not exist in any commercially usable form and won't for quite some
>> time. So, to compares Apples with Apples, you should look at technology
>> that has been delivered or will be delivered within a few months.
>> By the time that NT is released maybe IBM will be showing versions of
>> OS/2 that run on multi-processor versions of the RS/6000 that totally
>> blow the MIPS chip out of the water in terms of price/performance and
>> absolute performance. I for one will not base my buying decisions today
>> based on fantasy comparisons of fantasy technologies that are still in
>> an early stage of development.
Let it be said that I said none of the above. So I don't know why my login is
up there front and center.
But let me comment: Apparently Mr Smith agrees that NT does sound like a
better product. The complaint is that it is not yet available like OS/2 2.0.
Previous versions of OS/2 have been available for a number of years without
any impact upon the market. A smart company sooner or later listens to the
market. A company that is too proud to admit that it made a mistake will
continue down the path of the blue brick road until something else comes along
by default.
NT is in the hands of a select group of ISVs for preliminary comment and
review. A developers kit is rumored to become available around the end of the
year or early in the new. A BETA system was shown at COMDEX.
Work on NT has been going on for several years under another name. The idea is
to take all that preliminary development and wrap windows around the front end
so that users will not notice much difference. An evolutionary change.
I do not think that NT will be much later than OS/2 2.0 in its release to
developers and being that much is the same the switch from windows 3.1 to NT
should be a minor effort. That IBM may have a multi-processor OS/2 running on
a 6000 by the time NT is released and that such a configuration will run
circles around an R4000 implementation is simply blowing smoke and idle guess
work. It truly is phantasy to wait for such a comparison to happen.
>Windows/NT sounds really nifty. Microsoft will encourage you to develop
>for it, when they release their SDK. Sounds reasonable, but wait, there's
>more! Microsoft may, between now, and the time of release for Windows/NT
>decide on yet a different venture. They may drop NT altogether, in favor
>of a "newer" technology, and leave developers and users flapping in the
>wind.
Mr Resnick also writes that NT sounds nifty. He thinks MS will switch gears
'again' to something newer. MS and IBM gave it the good shot with OS/2. The
crowds at COMDEX and other dealer and developer conferences loudly exclaimed:
"OS/2 - just say NO". I doubt that anybody at MS really believed in the
product from day one. Vaciliation and doubt was evident everywhere, but IBM
kept pushing. The more gullible and those who normally follow the IBM way fell
for the trap and went along - at the cost of billions. The rest of us said,
NO.
>Remember, Microsoft told us that OS/2 was the platform to develop for.
>They insisted this was the new OS of the future.
And nobody believed them as it was self-evident that only one party really
called the shots. Instead of criticising MS for dropping a product nobody asked
for, it should be given credit for listening to the market. It is one thing
IBM has yet to learn. IBM has always made the market - until a few years ago.
If developers large and small would listen a little more to what we, the little
guys that make the market, really want, instead of blindly deciding for us,
none of this would have ever happened.
>Until Win3 gained popularity.
>They dropped it - and the developers who shelled out thousands (yes, thousands
>per SDK) of dollars. I trust Microsoft to meet their commitments and support
>those who have been their bread and butter over the years, about as far as
>I can comfortably spit a rat. As a developer, I have not enjoyed any dealings
>I have had with Microsoft, and would much rather them be completely out
>of my life.
Windows gained almost instant popularity in its 3rd release. It's still buggy
but it is generally popular and the market has spoken. If folks had purchased
OS/2, it would have won the battle and here we are blaming MS for listening to
the users. Should they follow IBM and insist that 'they' are right? Gates
knows a little about how to make money. He like to sell lots of little things
to lots of little people. Let IBM sell their 10,000 copies at a crack to EXXON
or DuPONT and let them feel safe that they chose IBM. Surely they did the
right thing because IBM said so.
>IBM, while they have been somewhat end-user-hostile in the past,
>is making vast efforts to change both their company image, and their
>representation in the real world.
> co moderator for comp.binaries.os2
I like that: somewhat end-user-hostile. How about, 'we know best what you
should buy because we know what you need'? I don't think that image has
changed one iota in perception or reality. IBM still knows what is best for
the world and that is IBM. They are still a marketing company first.
The trouble is, times have changed. All of a sudden they have to compete in an
open market. Life's a bitch!
Fred
--
W. Fred Rump office: fr...@COMPU.COM Define FAX: Fast A** Xeroxing
26 Warren St. home: fr...@icdi10.compu.com
Beverly, NJ. 08010
609-386-6846 bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
michael helmke
>OS/2 2.0 vs. DOS 5.0 & Win 3.0 --
> IBM wins...
>
>*but*
>
>how long is OS/2 2.0 going to be available before its:
>
>OS/2 2.0 vs DOS&Win 3.1 and/or
>OS/2 2.0 vs Win NT ???
>
*but*
when will OS/2 2.0 ever be released?
'93? '94?
('course we could wonder the same about (whatever-its-called) NT)
:-)
Stephen M Smith
>resn...@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct28....@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>sms...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>>>f...@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>>> ...Actually, NT sounds better, in concept, than OS/2. However, NT also
>Let it be said that I said none of the above. So I don't know why my login is
>up there front and center.
I have no idea how your name got in there either. If you look at
my original post your name is nowhere associated with the anonymous
quote I posted.
>But let me comment: Apparently Mr Smith agrees that NT does sound like a
>better product.
Those are not my words either. In my post I was clearly quoting
people anonymously from comp.os.os2.x.
Chris Tham
>What are the facts?
>
>1) Commercial: IBM is the most powerful company in the world dealing
> with information technologies. What if the giant makes an effort?
I thought they already did. That is why we have OS/2 1.X today.
Not to mention AIX.
>2) Technical: Look at the features of OS/2 2.0 without being prejudiced
> by opinions from the street.
When I see it working, I'll believe it. So far, all I've heard are
rumours that it is extremely buggy. Also, didn't IBM postpone the
delivery date because of problems encountered?
>3) Market share: Most common prejudices of OS/2 say there would be
> no applications for it. False! With ver 2.0, you have access to
> the biggest software pool currently available, namely DOS,
> Win *and* OS/2 1.x applications, wherefrom more exist than most
> people believe.
What's to stop me from running them in Windows enhanced mode today?
I don't think OS/2 apps are that crash hot, yet. Or even better still,
run them as DOS boxes under Unix. I believe the next generation of
Unix DOS emulators will support DPMI, VCPI, EMS, XMS and all the goodies.
>4) Technology: Additionally to the above, you get something many
> magazines have whined for a long time: A true 32bit operating
> system with 32bit directly addressable address space
I can get that today under Unix, with the added bonus of preexisting
32 bit applications that work, and an operating system that looks like
it wasn't glued together using sticky tape.
>5) Price: $99 for the above alltogether.
Check out BSD/386. US$995 with source code, and no doubt cheaper without.
And if Sun gets their marketing right, they should be selling Solaris 2.0
real cheap (i.e. few hundred dollars)
christie
Jordan Henderson
>
>Work on NT has been going on for several years under another name.
From what I've been told the name it WAS being developed under was OS/2.
I know a developer who was being leaked rumors last year about "Portable
OS/2." He has been told that the development that was "Portable OS/2" is
now Windows/NT. Now that I think of it, I've heard this from a friend
working in the ACE project also.
"Portable OS/2" was SUPPOSED to be out sometime THIS year (rumors from
last year). I suppose making all those cosmetic changes to distance
the product from bad old IBM OS/2 takes extra time...
I'll say this for Microsoft. They don't lack for balls. First, form a
coalition with IBM to come out with the operating system of the future
(OS/2, remember when OS/2 came out Mr. Gates was saying "Unix has no place
on the desktop.", the implication was that OS/2 does.), then it doesn't
sell, break the coalition, take your development on OS/2 and rename it
and come out with a new operating system of the future.
In Microsoft's defense, in retrospect, it does seem that IBM has never
done anything positive for their joint development efforts. IBM was
insisting that OS/2 always run on 286s... IBM came out with the buggy,
bloated DOS 4.0 and MS had to clean up after that mess...
Good thing for Microsoft that they are hedging their bets and making sure
that NT runs in Unix environments. They might need to be able to market
it as an option for open systems if they don't win the world with it.
-Jordan Henderson
-jor...@neosoft.com
Ajay Shah
>I'll say this for Microsoft. They don't lack for balls. First, form a
>coalition with IBM to come out with the operating system of the future
>(OS/2, remember when OS/2 came out Mr. Gates was saying "Unix has no place
>on the desktop.", the implication was that OS/2 does.), then it doesn't
>sell, break the coalition, take your development on OS/2 and rename it
>and come out with a new operating system of the future.
don't have the sense to dump the design but try peddling it with
another name". I don't call that smart. I generally call this
stupid, but in a situation where you have hordes of peasants
eager to buy "anything", I call it dangerous.
>Good thing for Microsoft that they are hedging their bets and making sure
>that NT runs in Unix environments. They might need to be able to market
>it as an option for open systems if they don't win the world with it.
Just in case it was not clear: NT is not Unix. NT will not run
under Unix. NT is not even like Unix, as one look at what they
call the Windows "API" will convince you. NT is not even designed
to be beautiful, in the sense that Unix is beautiful. It is
designed to help microsoft dominate the software industry.
NT is the last serious shot of proprietary systems in the
computer industry. I hope it goes the way of VMS, TSO, etc. I
certaintly don't want to be in a situation where I have to program
for any variant of Windows (like I was effectively forced to
muck with MS-DOS).
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajay...@usc.edu
The more things change, the more they stay insane.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jim Mann
>> I can get that today under Unix, with the added bonus of preexisting
> 32 bit applications that work, and an operating system that looks like
> it wasn't glued together using sticky tape.
Unix wasn't glued together using sticky tape? Bubble gum, perhaps?
--
Jim Mann
jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Stratus Computer
Jim Mann
> Just in case it was not clear: NT is not Unix. NT will not run
> under Unix. NT is not even like Unix, as one look at what they
> call the Windows "API" will convince you.
Ah, NT is sounding better and better all the time.
NT is not even designed
> to be beautiful, in the sense that Unix is beautiful.
Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I certainly wouldn't
apply the word beautiful to Unix. "It's ugly but it works," perhaps.
Thomas Schoebel
> >1) Commercial: IBM is the most powerful company in the world dealing
> > with information technologies. What if the giant makes an effort?
>
> I thought they already did. That is why we have OS/2 1.X today.
> Not to mention AIX.
Neither OS/2 1.x nor AIX were originally *developped* by IBM. OS/2 1.x
is a co-development with Microsroft, where MS had the major part.
AIX is nothing but IBM-UNIX.
> >2) Technical: Look at the features of OS/2 2.0 without being prejudiced
> > by opinions from the street.
>
> When I see it working, I'll believe it. So far, all I've heard are
> rumours that it is extremely buggy. Also, didn't IBM postpone the
> delivery date because of problems encountered?
Follow the discussions in comp.os.os2.misc. There are the answers for
your questions. All I have to say here is that this rumors must be
wrong when compared to the reported facts in comp.os.os2.x.
> >3) Market share: Most common prejudices of OS/2 say there would be
> > no applications for it. False! With ver 2.0, you have access to
> > the biggest software pool currently available, namely DOS,
> > Win *and* OS/2 1.x applications, wherefrom more exist than most
> > people believe.
>
> What's to stop me from running them in Windows enhanced mode today?
There is a *big big* difference: Win 3.0 has only *one* descriptor
table for all processes, and it has only cooperative multitasking.
In OS/2, you have *full* memory protection (crashing one process
does not bring down the system as any Win user can see every day),
and you have *preemptive* multitasking (you can, for example, format
floppies while downloading something from a BBS while running other
tasks. Try this in Win 3.0!).
> I don't think OS/2 apps are that crash hot, yet. Or even better still,
> run them as DOS boxes under Unix. I believe the next generation of
> Unix DOS emulators will support DPMI, VCPI, EMS, XMS and all the goodies.
Don't compare apples with bananas. UNIX is a totally different world.
On different machines. Or can you integrate Win 3.0 also into Unix?
And if so, what performance do you get (on comparable fast machines,
or should I say on camparable *prized* machines)?
> >4) Technology: Additionally to the above, you get something many
> > magazines have whined for a long time: A true 32bit operating
> > system with 32bit directly addressable address space
>
> I can get that today under Unix, with the added bonus of preexisting
> 32 bit applications that work, and an operating system that looks like
> it wasn't glued together using sticky tape.
Oh, UNIX does not look like glued together? The proof of the opposite
can be found in the headline article in
Communications of the ACM, Volume 33, Number 12, December 1990.
Take those results as an indicator for the deeply well-formed and
well-understood structure of UNIX!
Disclaimer: I am using UNIX all day.
Nevertheless, Unix ports to OS/2 2.0 32bit are relatively easy.
> >5) Price: $99 for the above alltogether.
Should be corrected in the meantime: $198 list price.
-- Thomas
Doug Stevens
> NT is not even designed to be beautiful, in the sense that Unix is beautiful.
jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) replies:
> Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I certainly wouldn't
> apply the word beautiful to Unix. "It's ugly but it works," perhaps.
I smell the approach of a religious war. In both MS-DOS and Unix, there
are details that are ugly and irritating, and concepts that are elegant
and useful. If you use both (I do), you have no doubt noticed that some
cross-pollination has occurred, mostly in the elegant-and-useful category.
What most people complain about in Unix is the user interface, not the
capabilities of the operating system itself; this is being fixed,
although at the cost of creating a plethora of GUI's, so that the
"standard" interface is not longer standard. But then, even PC's are
suffering in that way: witness OS/2, Windows, New Wave, etc.
Jordan Henderson
>>I'll say this for Microsoft. They don't lack for balls. First, form a
I didn't call it smart, I called it ballsy. BIG difference. Things
would be so simple if the bold move was also the smart move.
>
>>Good thing for Microsoft that they are hedging their bets and making sure
>>that NT runs in Unix environments. They might need to be able to market
>>it as an option for open systems if they don't win the world with it.
>Just in case it was not clear: NT is not Unix. NT will not run
>under Unix.
I don't have a reference in front of me, but I believe you are mistaken here.
Microsoft is promising to port NT to run on top of standard Unix environments.
This may, of course, be a ploy. They could come out with the MIPS and 386
versions and then say the Unix port is unnecessary due to lack of market
demand (read marketing department demands NT erase Unix from the desktop).
I do have the reference in front of me where Microsoft promises to deliver a
POSIX API to run under NT, so it's clear they are hedging their bets in
one direction.
>
>NT is the last serious shot of proprietary systems in the
>computer industry. I hope it goes the way of VMS, TSO, etc. I
>certaintly don't want to be in a situation where I have to program
>for any variant of Windows (like I was effectively forced to
>muck with MS-DOS).
>
Well, amen to that. Oh, by the way, haven't you heard? VMS is open
now! That's right, DEC is going to market the source to their "portable
VMS" and provide Posix and and and... I understand that DEC is also
going into the buggy whip business, to provide a backward compatible
option to a large segment of the transportation industry.
-Jordan
-jor...@neosoft.com
Roman Zielinski TT/TSM
s
>In article <37...@usc.edu> ajay...@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>> Just in case it was not clear: NT is not Unix. NT will not run
>> under Unix. NT is not even like Unix, as one look at what they
>> call the Windows "API" will convince you.
>Ah, NT is sounding better and better all the time.
>NT is not even designed
>> to be beautiful, in the sense that Unix is beautiful.
>Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I certainly wouldn't
>apply the word beautiful to Unix. "It's ugly but it works," perhaps.
Okey, boys. MS promised it to be POSIX-compatible!!!
(It means that in some years they will *invent* unix!!!!!!
And we will pay for all upgrading until that moment !!!!!!!!!
(i.e. again the MS-DOS story: worse system later)
Regards,
Roman
Chris Tham
I do apologise for the rest of you who probably couldn't care less.
Hit your 'k' button now!!!
In article <SCHOEBEL.9...@bs5.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> scho...@bs5.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Thomas Schoebel) writes:
>Follow the discussions in comp.os.os2.misc. There are the answers for
>your questions. All I have to say here is that this rumors must be
>wrong when compared to the reported facts in comp.os.os2.x.
OK, OK, I take your point. However, I will remain somewhat skeptical
until I get a shrink wrapped version on my desktop and try it out myself.
>There is a *big big* difference: Win 3.0 has only *one* descriptor
>table for all processes, and it has only cooperative multitasking.
>In OS/2, you have *full* memory protection (crashing one process
>does not bring down the system as any Win user can see every day),
>and you have *preemptive* multitasking (you can, for example, format
>floppies while downloading something from a BBS while running other
>tasks. Try this in Win 3.0!).
I _do_ realize that Windows 3.0 has one address space for all Windows
processes even in enhanced mode. However, my point remains, you
_can_ actually run Windows applications quite well in 3.0. I've seen
a couple of UAEs, but I've never seen an application crashing Windows.
Maybe I'm just lucky.
>> I don't think OS/2 apps are that crash hot, yet. Or even better still,
>> run them as DOS boxes under Unix. I believe the next generation of
>> Unix DOS emulators will support DPMI, VCPI, EMS, XMS and all the goodies.
>
>Don't compare apples with bananas. UNIX is a totally different world.
>On different machines. Or can you integrate Win 3.0 also into Unix?
>And if so, what performance do you get (on comparable fast machines,
>or should I say on camparable *prized* machines)?
Put it this way. Today I can run Windows 3.0 (real mode only, alas),
multiple DOS sessions, multiple X-Windows sessions, and multiple Unix
virtual terminals all simultaneously on
the PS/2-70 and switch between screens in a flicker. In the future, I should
be able to run multiple copies of Windows 3.0 enhanced simultaneously
(along with X and DOS and UNIX shells...) when DPMI technology comes to
VPIX and DOS Merge. Performance? OK, I'll admit, I notice some degradation
in video updates, but not terribly so. CPU speed? If I'm not doing
something else simultaneously, I notice virtually no slowdown. Of course,
if I'm running some compiles in the background...
>Oh, UNIX does not look like glued together? The proof of the opposite
>can be found in the headline article in
>Communications of the ACM, Volume 33, Number 12, December 1990.
>Take those results as an indicator for the deeply well-formed and
>well-understood structure of UNIX!
>Disclaimer: I am using UNIX all day.
>Nevertheless, Unix ports to OS/2 2.0 32bit are relatively easy.
Especially since OS/2, AS/400, VMS, NT and just about every other major
proprietary system out there will be POSIX compatible in the near future.
If Unix is so messy how come everyone out there is trying to copy it?
I didn't say Unix was an elegantly _implemented_ operating system,
particularly after every vendor under the sun have made their own
custom mods to it. I do think that the Unix API was an extremely elegant
design for its time (that's why Ken and Dennis won the Turing award,
remember? For the _design_ of the Unix operating system?) The Mach,
Amoeba, Plan 9, Chorus, V Kernel people have all showed that you can
implement a state-of-the-art distributed system with a Unix like API.
Remember, the much of the Unix kernel must be over 20 years old now,
by contrast DOS is less than ten years old, yet I consider the
implementation of any Unix kernel to be far cleaner than the mess in
the DOS market today. If you are comparing implementations, at least
compare apples with apples, as you yourself pointed out earlier.
By the way, here are the obligatory :-) :-) :-) :-)
I'm not trying to criticize OS/2 as such, just presenting a different
viewpoint!
cheers, christie
Thomas Schoebel
> Put it this way. Today I can run Windows 3.0 (real mode only, alas),
> multiple DOS sessions, multiple X-Windows sessions, and multiple Unix
> virtual terminals all simultaneously on
> the PS/2-70 and switch between screens in a flicker.
That's the point. You mean Unix running on a Intel x86 architecture.
What about the other Unix world?
I guess most Intel machines in the world don't run Unix, and there are
good reasons for that: Joe User wants an OS that runs, and what he
dislikes is *system maintenance* and a deeper understanding what
he has to do to keep his mill running. With Unix, you have to pay
for the better functionality by even this maintenance effort.
Or do you think running Unix can be done by laymen?
> Especially since OS/2, AS/400, VMS, NT and just about every other major
> proprietary system out there will be POSIX compatible in the near future.
> If Unix is so messy how come everyone out there is trying to copy it?
> I didn't say Unix was an elegantly _implemented_ operating system,
> particularly after every vendor under the sun have made their own
> custom mods to it. I do think that the Unix API was an extremely elegant
> design for its time (that's why Ken and Dennis won the Turing award,
> remember? For the _design_ of the Unix operating system?)
Agreed.
> The Mach,
> Amoeba, Plan 9, Chorus, V Kernel people have all showed that you can
> implement a state-of-the-art distributed system with a Unix like API.
I'll agree if you add OS/2 2.0 also to this list (remove "distributed"
and interpret "like" as "similar functionality").
> By the way, here are the obligatory :-) :-) :-) :-)
I also present another viewpoint: (-: (-: (-: (-:
-- Thomas
FLATSCHER Rony
Thomas Schoebel asked me to post an answer to questions of Terran
regarding the present OS/2 version 2.0 beta (driver 6.167). I enclose
the original questions and my attempts to answer them.
Also I will be posting the "OS/2 frequent asked question list of
Thomas Sipples - Chicago" in a different post.
================ the questions:
Path:
awiwuw11!psuvm!cunyvm!caen!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.e
du!en.ecn.purdue.edu!terran
From: ter...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (The Lord of Fire and Death)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: More questions...
Keywords: queries
Message-ID: <1991Oct30....@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 19:30:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1991Oct30.193047.1289
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 45
Hi, I've been reading this group for about 2 months now and am sold on OS2 2.0.
I too have some questions that haven't quite been resolved yet by reading the
group so if anybody can answer I would be grateful.
1) Just how good is the DOS compatibility box? That is if I run some of my
very nasty assembly programs that make use of all the undocumented
"features" of DOS interrupts what happens? I expect that they won't run
right (or at all) but will they crash the DOS box? What about OS2? And
what about really un-nice stuff that would crash any DOS machine around
(like throwing away the interrupt table or sequentially overwriting all
adressable memory). Does OS2 survive this? Yes I know this is all
very unkind but I have some assembly "hacker" friends who bring up these
points every time I mention OS2.
2) I have 5 megs of RAM. People keep saying that you need 3 to load OS2 but
6+ is best. How much of a speed difference is there between a 6M machine
and a 5M machine running OS2. Also -- how many DOS tasks can I run
simultaneously w/ this much mem (will they be swapped to disk when mem
starts getting low?). Does each DOS task require the full 640k of mem
or only the amount used by that application?
3) Is it possible in OS2 to dynamically load/unload device drivers without
rebooting? What about modifying environment variables nicely (say in the
same way that 4DOS does).
4) Is/can file completion be availabele on the command line? This is a feature
of csh and 4DOS that I have grown to love (not being a touch-typist) and
I imagine that with the extended file names available in HPFS that this
feature will be even more critical. What about command history (yes I
like and use the command line a lot & I don't expect this to change even
with the Workplace Shell).
Well, that's about all I can think of for now. Thanks.
Terran Lane (ter...@ecn.purdue.edu)
P.S. Re. all the talk about lack of publicity for OS2: I attend Purdue
University -- we have about 35k students probably half of which are
engineers or scientists -- one would think this would be a great place to
be promoting OS2. But at the "campus computer fair" earlier this month
the IBM display had about 8 PS2s running windows and a VCR stuck back
in a corner and turned down low playing a tape of an OS2 seminar. The reps
said I was the only person of about 5k to visit the display to ask about
OS2. Little wonder with a display like that. Oh, well. Sigh....
==================== Some answers...
Path: awiwuw11!rony
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 1 Nov 1991 17:16:52 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RO...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <91305.17...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More questions...
References: <1991Oct30....@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Terran:
1) how good is DOS in OS/2V2: Very good. The worst thing that should
happen with berserker-assembler-killers is that the DOS-session
hangs which you can kill as easy as two mouse-clicks.
I have an emulation of some machine dating back to 1984 written for
DOS. I could not run it in the DOS-box of V1.3, but can now with
no problems (even multiple copies of it).
Also it *is* possible to boot PC-DOS 3.3 and DR-DOS 6.0 from floppies
*and* using DOS-device-drivers (e.g. virtual disks, network drivers
for my ethernet-boards *and* running PC/TCP in the *DOS*-session of
OS/2; for the latter it was stunning that FTPing 1 MB from a Unix-
workstation to my machine occurred on 300KB/sec in the DOS-box
compared to 90KB/sec on the same machine under exclusive DOS!).
2) You can set the base-memory amount individually for each DOS-session
(up to the default of 640KB), you can include adapter-memory in the
upper area (!) e.g. a network-card which you do not want to use in
the DOS-session, you can set the amount of expanded memory up to 32MB,
you can set extended memory up to 16MB and DPMI-memory up to 512MB,
defaults for the latter three being 2MB, 2MB, 1MB *per* DOS-session in
the current Beta-release 6.167).
3) device driver unloadable - sorry don't know, but would like to know
it myself. Environment: Basically changes to it are *global* on the
command-line and in batch-scripts, local in process-environments. You
can localize changes to the environment by using the SETLOCAL-command
and ENDLOCAL-command *one* level deep only, ***except*** if you use
REXX for scripts which allows you to use the SETLOCAL() and ENDLOCAL()
functions for localizing environments to any level if needed.
4) There exists a history-retrieve under OS/2. Unfortunately (and I really
do not understand this) file or command-completion is ***not***
implemented (yet ???).
---rony
(!!!)
========================================================00
For a continuous discussion about OS/2 version 2.0 see
"comp.os.os2.misc".
rony
--
Rony G. Flatscher flat...@wu-wien.ac.at, ro...@awiwuw11.bitnet
University of Economics and Business Administration
Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria (Heart of Europe)
Tel: +43 (222) 313 36 x4671 (9-18 CET) Fax 34 75 55
FLATSCHER Rony
regarding a request of Thomas Schoebel I am posting two infos in this
group. This time an excellent compendium about OS/2 frequent asked
questions and their answers compiled by Timothy F. Sipples, Chicago.
For further discussions or information please look into "comp.os.os2.misc".
---rony
================== OS/2 FAQ V1.7 :
Xref: caen comp.os.os2.misc:5263 comp.os.os2.apps:718
Path: awiwuw11!frmop11!psuvm!cunyvm!caen!spool.mu.edu!uunet!midway!quads!sip1
From: si...@quads.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: OS/2 FAQ List Release 1.7
Message-ID: <1991Nov2.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 2 Nov 91 04:52:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1991Nov2.045237.3540
Sender: ne...@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 613
OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
Release 1.7; November 1, 1991
Compiled by Timothy F. Sipples
For changes/suggestions/additions please mail si...@quads.uchicago.edu.
Include subject line "OS/2 FAQ." This List may be freely distributed. The
mention of a product does not constitute an endorsement. Answers to
questions closer to the bottom of the List may rely on information given in
prior answers. Customers outside North America should not rely on 800
telephone numbers or certain part numbers contained in this List.
Release Notes: More and better SCSI compatibility information is here
thanks to help from several net people. The information is still sketchy,
however. I still need help, especially with bracketed and blocked out
items. Non-800 telephone numbers are preferred due to the international
audience. Questions 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, and 21 have been revised.
Questions Addressed in this Release:
(1) What is OS/2?
(2) What are the differences between versions?
(3) What is the difference between Standard and Extended Edition?
(4) What about DOS and Windows compatibility?
(5) Where can I buy OS/2?
(6) How much does OS/2 cost?
(7) Can I upgrade to IBM OS/2 1.3 SE from DOS?
(8) Can I upgrade to IBM OS/2 1.3 SE from an older version?
(9) If I buy IBM OS/2 1.3 now, how much will it cost to get 2.0?
(10) Does IBM offer educational discounts on purchases of OS/2? Site
licenses?
(11) What hardware do I need to run IBM OS/2 1.3 SE?
(12) What applications are available for OS/2 1.x?
(13) Where can I obtain OS/2 freeware and shareware?
(14) My Logitech mouse doesn't seem to be working with OS/2. What's wrong?
(15) Is there a driver available for my SCSI adapter?
(16) How about a high resolution driver for my video adapter?
(17) How about a driver for my printer?
(18) How do I access HPFS partitions on my hard drive without booting from
the hard drive? I've done something (like changing CONFIG.SYS) that
doesn't let me boot OS/2.
(19) I can't install OS/2 from Drive B. What's wrong?
(20) Is there a Norton Utilities for OS/2?
(21) Sometimes Presentation Manager will freeze when I run an application,
and I have to reboot. What's wrong?
(22) My dealer doesn't know OS/2 from Unix. How can I get answers to my
OS/2 questions?
(23) How can I get ahold of the beta release of OS/2 2.0?
(24) Why should I use HPFS? What does it offer me? Does it work with DOS?
(25) I'm a Unix wizard. How do I make OS/2 resemble Unix?
(26) I would like to set up an OS/2 BBS. What is available?
(27) The printed and online manuals do not document REXX in any detail.
Where can I obtain more information?
(28) Doesn't OS/2 have applets like Windows? I miss Solitaire.
(29) How do I redirect printer output to a file?
(30) Can I use COM3 and COM4 in OS/2?
(31) On my 1024x768 high resolution display I get obnoxiously large icons
(64x64). How do I make them smaller?
(32) How do I start a background process from the OS/2 command line?
(33) How do I start a DOS application from a PM icon?
(34) What are CSDs, how do I tell which I have, and where do I get them?
_______________
(1) What is OS/2?
OS/2 is an advanced operating system for PCs and PS/2s with an 80286
processor or better. It was codeveloped by Microsoft and IBM and
envisioned as the successor to DOS.
It was designed from the ground up with multitasking and multithreading in
mind. It also protects applications from one another (a single misbehaved
program will not typically bring down the entire system), supports up to 16
MB of physical RAM, and supplies virtual memory to applications as
requested.
As shipped, it does not support multiuser operation, although several third
parties have grafted multiuser (character mode) capabilities onto the base
operating system. Citrix, OS2YOU, Remote-OS, and Polymod are four such
products. Remote-OS is published by The Software Lifeline, tel. 407-994-
4466, and OS2YOU is available from the OS/2 shareware/freeware sources (see
Question 13). [Other products' contacts?]
(2) What are the differences between versions?
IBM OS/2 Version 2.0 was formally announced at Fall Comdex and will be
available with promised features in December, 1991, on a limited basis, and
in full retail release with "seamless Windows" support and other extra
features in March, 1992. Version 2.0 with run only on machines with an
80386SX processor or better. IBM is (now) developing 2.0 independently but
is involving third party PC manufacturers in its testing. Improvements
will include the ability to preemptively multitask DOS, Windows 2.x, and
Windows 3.x (standard mode) applications (without purchasing any of these
environments) in separate, robust, protected sessions; an object-oriented
WorkPlace shell (including a "shredder" icon); a multiple operating system
boot mechanism; 32-bit programming interfaces; support for more than 16 MB
of RAM; and more third party device drivers. It will also provide EMS
3.2/4.0 and XMS/DPMI 1.0 (expanded and extended memory) services to DOS and
Windows applications. Version 2.0 will demand a minimum of 3 MB of RAM.
See Question 4 for more information on OS/2 2.0.
IBM OS/2 Version 1.3 (CSD Level 05016; see Question 34) is currently the
latest commercially available release. This version distinguishes itself
with built-in Adobe Type Manager and reduced memory requirements.
Procedures Language/2 (a.k.a. REXX), a powerful batch-oriented programming
language, became a part of Standard Edition with this release. (A few OEMs
are shipping Microsoft OS/2 Version 1.3, but Microsoft has all but
abandoned OS/2 development.)
OS/2 Version 1.2 was the first to incorporate the High Performance File
System (HPFS, which supports long file names). With this release IBM OS/2
added a dual boot mechanism and IBM Extended Edition introduced REXX.
OS/2 Version 1.1 was the first to include the Presentation Manager (PM)
GUI/API, now an integral part of the operating system. Microsoft OEM
versions added a dual boot mechanism with this release.
OS/2 Version 1.0, introduced in 1987, was the first release of OS/2. Task
switching was accomplished through a character-based shell and limited DOS
compatibility was provided.
(3) What is the difference between Standard and Extended Edition?
IBM makes this marketing distinction between two different flavors of OS/2
1.x. OS/2 1.x is available either in its Standard Edition (SE, i.e. the
base operating system) or in Extended Edition (EE, with several extra
bundled software products including the Communications Manager and the
Database Manager). EE includes enhanced mainframe, network, and
communications support.
The distinction will change slightly when OS/2 2.0 is released. IBM will
upgrade EE features and drop LAN Requester from the package, to be renamed
Extended Services (ES). LAN Requester will be included in IBM's OS/2 LAN
Server product. The new ES 2.0 will still work with OS/2 1.3 and will be
tested on a wide variety of PC compatibles. ES 2.1 will likely contain 32-
bit code.
(4) What about DOS and Windows compatibility?
All 1.x versions of OS/2 include the DOS compatibility mode (sometimes
called the penalty box) which allows a single, well-behaved DOS application
to run alongside multiple OS/2 applications. The DOS application stops
running when the user switches to an OS/2 program. However, OS/2 programs
will run in the background while a DOS program is running.
IBM OS/2 Version 1.3 SE yields approximately 520K free memory in the DOS
box. Windows 3.0 will run in real mode in the DOS box. Also, DOS may be
started by itself (in native mode) in two ways: by using the dual boot
mechanism in OS/2 (described in detail in the printed manual) or by booting
from a floppy disk. In both cases DOS has access to all FAT (non-HPFS)
partitions on the hard disk (that are not themselves preceded by a HPFS or
other "foreign" partition).
Version 2.0 will preemptively multitask DOS and Windows (real and standard
mode) applications in separate, protected sessions. (Windows enhanced mode
features, i.e. DOS multitasking and demand paging of memory, will be
provided by OS/2 2.0 directly.) Windows applications will be well
integrated into the overall OS/2 PM environment with DDE and Clipboard
hooks, and OLE 1.0 will be supported between Windows applications. The
"seamless Windows" support planned for March, 1992, means that Windows
applications will run alongside other applications on the Presentation
Manager desktop. Each DOS application will have roughly 640K conventional
memory available. OS/2 2.0 will also provide up to 32 MB of EMS 3.2 or
4.0, 32 MB of XMS, and/or 512 MB of DPMI 1.0 for each DOS or Windows
application out of its pool of physical and/or virtual memory. DOS
applications can run either full screen or in PM windows. Windowed DOS
applications will be able to use text mode or any graphics mode up to the
resolution of the desktop. DOS and Windows device drivers will work with
DOS and Windows applications running under OS/2 2.0, but if an OS/2 2.0
driver is available a DOS or Windows device driver is unnecessary.
(5) Where can I buy OS/2?
Microsoft versions of OS/2 are available only through OEMs (e.g. Compaq,
Dell).
IBM OS/2 Version 1.3 is available from any authorized IBM dealer (although
persistence helps) or directly from IBM (tel. 800-3 IBM OS2). IBM OS/2 1.3
SE on 5.25 inch disks is IBM part no. 84F7587. For 3.5 inch disks ask for
part no. 84F7588. Media are high density. Corresponding EE part nos. are
15F7196 and 15F7195.
IBM OS/2 Version 1.3 is also available from several mail order sources,
including Egghead Discount Software (tel. 800-344-4323) and Elek-Tek (tel.
708-677-7660).
IBM plans to make OS/2 2.0 available everywhere DOS is purchased, to bundle
2.0 with new systems, and to offer free or discounted upgrades depending on
the product replaced (DOS, Windows, or OS/2 1.x).
(6) How much does OS/2 cost?
IBM OS/2 Version 1.3 SE retails for USD 150. IBM will offer OS/2 2.0 for
USD 195 retail.
(7) Can I upgrade to IBM OS/2 1.3 SE from DOS?
Yes, as long as you are upgrading from IBM PC-DOS. The upgrade retails for
USD 99.
(8) Can I upgrade to IBM OS/2 1.3 SE from an older version?
Yes, as long as the previous version is an IBM version. There is a charge
for this upgrade.
(9) If I buy IBM OS/2 1.3 now, how much will it cost to get 2.0?
Nothing. Upgrades to 2.0 will be sent free of charge to customers who
purchase or upgrade to OS/2 1.3 on or after April 17, 1991. Other Version
1.3 licensees will be assessed a nominal media charge (once per site).
Version 1.3 EE licensees will receive the full 2.0 ES upgrade. IBM
reserves the right to revise or add to these terms after December 31, 1991.
(10) Does IBM offer educational discounts on purchases of OS/2? Site
licenses?
IBM has both. The educational price is approximately USD 99 for OS/2 1.3
SE. SE also comes in non-media (manual and license only) packages at a
reduced price, part no. 84F8528. An SE additional license (entitles holder
to make one copy of media and manual) is part no. 15F1655; EE, 15F7201.
(11) What hardware do I need to run IBM OS/2 1.3 SE?
You need a PC, PC compatible, or PS/2 with at least an 80286 CPU, 2 MB or
more of RAM (configured as 640K base plus the remainder as extended
memory), a 20 MB or larger hard disk, a supported video adapter (CGA, EGA,
VGA, MCGA, 8514/A, XGA, or third party driver) with appropriate display,
and a high density 3.5 or 5.25 inch floppy drive for installation. A mouse
is recommended.
PM will not operate with the Monochrome Display Adapter or the Hercules
Monochrome Graphics Adapter. Usually PM will fail to work with monochrome
EGA. However, some EGA adapters (e.g. Paradise Monochrome EGA Card, ATI
EGA Wonder) will emulate all color EGA modes on TTL monochrome monitors
and, thus, will work with PM. "Autoswitching" on non-IBM EGA adapters and
"shadow RAM" should be disabled (usually with a DIP switch or jumper
setting).
On ISA bus machines, OS/2 supports 16-bit hard drive adapters which conform
to the Western Digital chipset interface standard (i.e. nearly all MFM,
RLL, IDE, and ESDI adapters). An adapter capable of sector remapping
should be used (and enabled) with hard drives larger than 1024 cylinders.
(The 1024 cylinder limit is a BIOS constraint.)
IBM OS/2 1.3 is directly compatible with IBM's Microchannel SCSI adapters
and attached devices. Question 15 discusses third party SCSI
compatibility, including CD-ROM issues. Irwin (tel. 800-348-6242)
manufactures OS/2 compatible tape backup systems. [More tape backup
systems and Bernoulli information?]
Supported printers include the Hewlett-Packard LaserJet family; IBM
ExecJets, Proprinters, Quickwriters, Quietwriters, Pageprinters, and
Laserprinters; Epson dot matrix printers; Postscript devices; and other
printers compatible with these families. A variety of IBM and HP plotters
is also supported. If difficulties are encountered in printing make sure
the printer port generates interrupts and does not conflict with other
installed devices. Also make sure that a high quality, fully wired cable
is used. IBM PS/2 Models 90 and 95 must have their parallel printer ports
set to compatibility mode using the setup disk.
IBM OS/2 1.3 runs on a wide array of clones with a wide variety of
hardware. However, compatibility cannot be assured with every non-IBM
device. Often problems can be fixed with a BIOS upgrade or an OS/2 CSD
(see Question 34; for example, CSD 05016 for IBM OS/2 1.3 fixes a problem
involving the loss of CMOS setup information on certain PC compatibles).
Version 2.0 will, however, be officially tested and supported on a wide
variety of non-IBM equipment, including machines manufactured by Compaq,
Tandy/Grid, Olivetti, Siemens, AST, CompuAdd, NCR, Acer, ALR, Apricot,
AT&T, Club American, CSS Labs, DEC, Dell, Epson, Everex, NEC, Netframe,
Northgate, Parallan, Reply, Tandon, Tricord, and Wyse. The number of
supported peripherals and displays will also increase substantially.
(12) What applications are available for OS/2 1.x?
They number in the low thousands at present and include applications from
almost every category imaginable. Some are character based applications;
some are PM based.
DOS applications with OS/2 counterparts include Lotus 1-2-3 (both character
and PM), Freelance, Microsoft Word, Multiplan, Aldus Pagemaker, Ventura
Publisher, Corel Draw, WordPerfect, DisplayWrite, PC SAS, SPSS,
HyperAccess/5, DynaComm, Pro-YAM, Borland Sidekick, Wingz, Brief, QEdit,
and many others. In some cases DOS and OS/2 versions ship together (e.g.
Microsoft Word 5.5, Lotus 1-2-3 3.0, Wingz). Utilities include
PKZIP/UNZIP, SEA's ARC, LHA, Zoo 2.1, GNU tools, tens of different file
finders, desktop clocks, calculators, and many more. Programming languages
include Assembler, C++, COBOL, Pascal, C, Fortran, BASIC, REXX, Smalltalk,
Modula-2, and still more.
The IBM NSC BBS (tel. 404-835-6600) provides an online product database of
hardware and software compatible with OS/2.
(13) Where can I obtain OS/2 freeware and shareware?
Many BBSes hold large OS/2 libraries. Fernwood (tel. 203-483-0348) has
over 50 MB worth. The OS/2 Shareware BBS (tel. 703-385-0931) and the
Windows & OS/2 Magazine BBS (tel. 805-684-0589, fee req.) carry still more.
The IBM NSC BBS has some shareware/freeware as well, along with CSDs (see
Question 34) and the PS/2 Assistant (an invaluable resource for locating
almost any sort of information on OS/2). The Usenet conference
comp.binaries.os2 carries OS/2 software. And several sites are available
via anonymous ftp. (No ftp? Send a single line message with the word HELP
to bit...@pucc.bitnet to learn about Princeton's ftp mail server.) They
include (with Internet node numbers and subdirectories):
mims-iris.waterloo.edu 129.97.129.116 os2
mtsg.ubc.ca 137.82.27.1 os2:
luga.latrobe.edu.au 131.172.2.2 pub/os2
funic.funet.fi 128.214.6.100 pub/os2
novell.com 130.57.4.1 os2
The last site should not be accessed weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m. Pacific Time.
Other sources include CompuServe ("GO IBMOS2") and the Bitnet/EARN site
BLEKUL11 (send a single line message with the word HELP to
LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET for more information).
(14) My Logitech mouse doesn't seem to be working with OS/2. What's wrong?
The Logitech Series 7 and 9 serial mice work with the Mouse Systems PC
Mouse driver; all other Logitech serial mice, the Microsoft Serial Mouse
driver; bus mice, the Microsoft Bus Mouse (199) driver; PS/2 mice, the IBM
PS/2 Mouse driver.
The full text of the Logitech technical bulletin from which this
information was obtained, including information on potential conflicts with
DOS and Windows, is available from the Logitech Support BBS, tel. 415-795-
0408.
(15) Is there a driver available for my SCSI adapter?
SCSI support has improved dramatically in the past few months. Users
should make sure, however, that driver support extends to multiple SCSI
devices, including CD-ROM, tape backup, and both primary (bootable) and
secondary (nonbootable) hard disk drives in both FAT and HPFS
configurations. Such extensive support is still rare.
Columbia Data Products (tel. ???-???-????) supplies or plans to supply OS/2
1.3 device drivers for numerous third party SCSI adapters, including some
of the products mentioned below. Support may be limited to a choice of one
primary SCSI hard disk drive, or one or more secondary SCSI hard disk
drives.
Adaptec (tel. 408-946-8600) provides OS/2 1.x support for FAT hard disk
drives attached to its line of ISA SCSI adapters. Always Technologies
makes an OS/2 1.x driver available on its BBS (tel. 818-597-0275) for its
IN-2000 ISA SCSI adapter. At present the driver supports secondary hard
disk drives only. Bustek (tel. ???-???-????) has OS/2 1.x and 2.0 (beta)
drivers for both FAT and HPFS hard disk drives attached to its BT-742A EISA
SCSI adapter. CE Infosys (tel. 703-435-3800) has OS/2 1.x support largely
in place for its Microchannel and ISA SCSI adapters and is committed to
future enhancements. DTC/Qume (tel. 408-262-7700, BBS tel. 408-942-4197)
supports OS/2 1.x on its 3280 ISA SCSI adapter. Both FAT and HPFS hard
disk drives are supported, but secondary drives cannot coexist with a
primary drive. Future Domain (tel. ???-???-????) provides an OS/2 1.x
driver with its MCS-700 Microchannel SCSI adapter that supports up to six
FAT or HPFS hard disk drives. Hard disk drive support is also available
for its 1660 and 1670 ISA SCSI adapters. Western Digital (tel. ???-???-
????) offers OS/2 1.3 driver support with its 7000 FAAST ISA SCSI adapter
for both FAT and HPFS hard disk drives. Seagate (BBS tel. 408-438-8771)
has chosen not to supply an OS/2 driver for its ST-01/02 ISA SCSI adapters.
Corel Systems (publisher of Corel Draw, tel. 613-728-8200) supplies OS/2
compatible CD-ROM (and rewritable) systems.
IBM OS/2 2.0 should include direct support for many third party SCSI
adapters and devices.
(16) How about a high resolution driver for my video adapter?
In many cases an up-to-date OS/2 driver is available. If not, a driver for
an older version of OS/2 may work. If all else fails, standard VGA must
suffice.
Drivers are available directly from the manufacturer of the video adapter
or, in many cases, through the shareware/freeware sources listed above.
Orchid (based on Tseng Labs chips) and Trident (among others) have released
high resolution drivers for OS/2 1.3; ATI has not. Most OS/2 2.0 features
will be available using an OS/2 1.3 display driver. DOS and Windows
programs running under OS/2 2.0 will work with their own device drivers as
well as with any OS/2-supported device.
(17) How about a driver for my printer?
If your printer is not compatible with one of the drivers supplied with
OS/2, check with the printer manufacturer first then with the IBM NSC BBS.
For example, a Hewlett-Packard LaserJet III driver for IBM OS/2 1.3 is now
available on the NSC BBS. If you own an IBM printer, check with the
Lexmark BBS (tel. 606-232-5653).
Non-PM applications may supply their own printer drivers, and text only
output is always an option.
(18) How do I access HPFS partitions on my hard drive without booting from
the hard drive? I've done something (like changing CONFIG.SYS) that
doesn't let me boot OS/2.
With IBM's OS/2, insert the Installation Diskette in Drive A and reboot.
When the logo appears on screen, press ESC. You will be given an OS/2
command line prompt.
Make sure you backup CONFIG.SYS before making any changes so that you can
easily revert to the old version should things go wrong.
Incidently, you may use this method to run CHKDSK on your OS/2 boot
partition. After obtaining the OS/2 command line prompt, remove the
Installation Diskette and insert Diskette 1. Type CHKDSK C: /F to repair
damage to the boot partition.
(19) I can't install OS/2 from Drive B. What's wrong?
IBM OS/2 can only be installed from Drive A. If you have the wrong disk
size the easiest workaround is to go inside your machine and swap floppy
drive cables, use your system's setup utility to set the new CMOS
parameters, and then install OS/2 from the new Drive A.
IBM is working to make the install process friendlier in future releases of
OS/2.
(20) Is there a Norton Utilities for OS/2?
Not yet. But the GammaTech Utilities should fill the role with UnDelete
and other programs. Contact their publisher at tel. 405-359-1219.
(21) Sometimes Presentation Manager will freeze when I run an application,
and I have to reboot. What's wrong?
Often the problem can be traced to the DOS box. If at all possible,
upgrade to true OS/2 applications. OS/2 1.x provides far more protection
in native mode.
PM has some protection of its own. It can trap applications that do not
respond to input, but you have to give it a chance. Press CTRL-ESC (to
attempt to bring up the Task Manager), then wait up to a full minute before
rebooting (without moving the mouse or pressing any other keys); a dialog
box may appear with further instructions.
(22) My dealer doesn't know OS/2 from Unix. How can I get answers to my
OS/2 questions?
If your question is not answered in this FAQ List, post a note to the
appropriate Usenet conference: comp.os.os2.apps carries discussions related
to finding or using any OS/2 application, comp.os.os2.programmer addresses
anything related to OS/2 programming, and comp.os.os2.misc is for any other
OS/2-related discussion. These groups are watched closely by IBM's OS/2
development team. BLEKUL11 (on Bitnet/EARN) distributes its own OS/2
conference by mail; send a single line message with the word HELP to
LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET for full instructions.
Your local FidoNet BBS may carry the OS/2 echo conference. If not, ask
your system operator to get ahold of it. CompuServe ("GO IBMOS2") is also
an excellent source of information.
The IBM NSC BBS was established as a support forum. That BBS's message
areas, product database, and PS/2 Assistant file(s) are invaluable
resources. And the company has launched an OS/2 hotline (tel. 800-342-
6672) for user inquiries and orders. (Ask about the OS/2 T-shirts and
videocassettes.)
OS/2 is getting its own magazine as well. Windows & OS/2 Magazine is
splitting into separate publications. [Details on subscriptions?]
(23) How can I get ahold of the beta release of OS/2 2.0?
Members of the Early Experience Program and certified developers can
receive OS/2 2.0 beta. Details on program enrollment are available through
both the IBM NSC BBS and the Hotline. Residents outside North America
should contact local IBM branches for specific information on availability
of OS/2 2.0 beta. As of this writing IBM has stopped accepting orders
through the IBM NSC BBS for OS/2 2.0 beta. However, this program,
previously available to any U.S. resident, may resume in the future.
(24) Why should I use HPFS? What does it offer me? Does it work with DOS?
HPFS offers long file names (greatly exceeding the "8 dot 3" limit in
FAT/DOS file systems) and speedier disk operation, particularly on large
hard disks. HPFS is not case sensitive, although it does preserve case in
file names.
However, HPFS is not currently supported on removable media, although some
programs (e.g. BACKUP) preserve long file names on such FAT disks. Also,
native mode DOS cannot access a HPFS partition. However, the DOS
compatibility box "sees" all files that conform to the "8 dot 3" naming
conventions, even if they are stored on HPFS volumes.
(25) I'm a Unix wizard. How do I make OS/2 resemble Unix?
A great number of GNU and other standard Unix utilities have been ported to
OS/2 native mode and are available from the shareware/freeware sources
listed above. A uucp package, UUPC/Extended, is available via anonymous
ftp from sun.soe.clarkson.edu, directory pub/uupc; netmail he...@kew.com
with questions.
In addition, the Hamilton C Shell is available from Hamilton Labs, tel.
508-358-5715 or netmail 389...@mcimail.com. The Thompson Toolkit, a
Bourne-like shell, is published by Thompson Automation, tel. 206-224-1639.
Thompson offers a version of awk as well. MKS (tel. 519-884-2251 or
netmail p...@mks.com) publishes a number of standard Unix utilities for
OS/2. TCP/IP support is available from IBM (and no longer requires EE) or
FTP Software (send netmail to in...@ftp.com). [BSD shell?]
(26) I would like to set up an OS/2 BBS. What is available?
Many packages are available from the shareware/freeware sources listed
above. OS/2 is an excellent environment for BBS operation, including large
multiline facilities. Related software will enable FidoNet capabilities,
gateways to Usenet/UUCP, nodelist processing, additional file transfer
protocols, and more.
Two popular OS/2 BBSes are Maximus (available from the Fernwood BBS) and
Omega Point/2 (BBS tel. 404-564-1961).
(27) The printed and online manuals do not document REXX in any detail.
Where can I obtain more information?
IBM publishes two separate manuals:
"IBM Operating System/2 Procedures Language 2/REXX User's Guide," Part No.
01F0272, Document No. S01F-0272; and
"IBM Operating System/2 Procedures Language 2/REXX Reference," Part No.
01F0271, Document No. S01F-0271.
An alternative is "The REXX Language: A Practical Guide to Programming (2nd
Ed.)" by Mike Cowlishaw, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-780651-5.
In addition, there are at least two different versions of REXX online
references available from one or more of the shareware/freeware sources
listed above.
(28) Doesn't OS/2 have applets like Windows? I miss Solitaire.
All the Windows applets have been ported to OS/2. The package is called
Windows Libraries for OS/2 (WLO) Version 1.0. They should be available
from CompuServe and from some of the shareware/freeware sites listed above.
IBM OS/2 2.0 will ship with several applets.
(29) How do I redirect printer output to a file?
The Postscript printer driver has a built-in option for printing to a file.
Navigate through the PM Print Manager configuration options to access this
feature.
For all other drivers, first hold (pause) the Print Manager queue then
print from the application. The output file will be located below the
SPOOL subdirectory. COPY the file elsewhere then cancel the job from the
Print Manager.
(These methods assume the IBM Print Manager (spooler) is installed and
active.)
(30) Can I use COM3 and COM4 in OS/2?
IBM OS/2 1.x ships with a driver that supports COM3 on Microchannel PS/2s
only. However, the Fernwood BBS (and perhaps other sites) carries a
replacement driver which supports COM3 and/or COM4 on ISA bus machines.
This driver also supports speeds greater than 19,200 bits per second.
Ports must not share interrupts on ISA bus machines, however. Fernwood
also carries files that describe patches to the stock communications driver
to enable certain features.
"Smart" (coprocessor controlled) multiport communication adapters should be
used when installing more than four ports. Such an adapter will work with
OS/2 if the manufacturer has written an appropriate driver. Examples
include IBM's own ARTIC products.
(31) On my 1024x768 high resolution display I get obnoxiously large icons
(64x64). How do I make them smaller?
Patch the display driver file, DISPLAY.DLL, using a program like DOS's
DEBUG. Search for the byte sequence 40 00 40 00 20 00 20 00 (hexadecimal)
(sometimes the sequence is 28 00 28 00 20 00 20 00) and change it to 20 00
20 00 20 00 20 00.
(32) How do I start a background process from the OS/2 command line?
Look up the START and DETACH commands in the online reference.
(33) How do I start a DOS application from a PM icon?
In IBM OS/2 1.3 DOS applications can be started from a PM program group
icon just like native OS/2 and PM programs (assuming the OS/2 CONFIG.SYS
file contains the lines DEVICE=...\DOS.SYS and PROTECTONLY=NO).
From the PM desktop go to a program group and select New. Enter the DOS
program's title (e.g. "Lotus 1-2-3"), the path to the program (to an EXE,
COM, or BAT file, e.g. "C:\Lotus\Lotus.Exe"), and any optional parameters
like command line options and/or the DOS application's working directory
(e.g. "C:\Lotus"). Select the Add button, and PM will create a DOS icon
with that application's name in the program group. These parameters may be
altered by highlighting the icon and selecting Properties. Double clicking
on that application's icon will cause OS/2 to switch to the DOS
compatibility box and start the application.
(34) What are CSDs, how do I tell which I have, and where do I get them?
CSDs are Corrective Service Diskettes, or bug fixes, periodically issued by
IBM. The OS/2 CSD level number may be obtained using the command SYSLEVEL
from the OS/2 command line prompt. CSDs are cumulative, i.e. only the most
recent CSD is required to bring a system up from any previous CSD level.
However, CSDs only apply within a major version number. For example, a
full upgrade, not a CSD, would bring OS/2 Version 1.2 up to Version 1.3.
Note also that SE CSDs are not the same as EE CSDs.
CSDs may be ordered by anyone with an IBM customer number (usually large
sites) directly from IBM (tel. 800-237-5511). OS/2 users without customer
numbers should ask an authorized IBM dealer to order the CSD. Many dealers
do not know about this program, so be persistent. CSDs may also be
downloaded from the IBM NSC BBS or CompuServe ("GO IBMOS2").
--
Timothy F. Sipples si...@quads.uchicago.edu
(Keeper of the OS/2 FAQ List, avail. via anonymous Department of Economics
ftp from mims-iris.waterloo.edu, directory "os2/faq") Univ. of Chicago 60637
FLATSCHER Rony
this is really the very last posting about OS/2 from my side in this
discussion group. It reflects an angry letter from someone who wants
VCPI-support under version 2.0 which is simply not possible, I attempted
to sketch the reasons for this. One last thing to be said about DOS-compa-
tibility. OS/2 virtualizes all common DOS-ressources and therefore can
keep them under its control. If DOS-programs pass BIOS and the like and
attempt to directly get access to hardware these will not run under OS/2V2.0
(therefore **some** utilities of the Norton Utilities do not work, most of
them do).
Please keep in mind that in a real operating system, the ultimate control
must be left to the operating system itself (for security reasons)!
---rony
============== flames about VCPI-DOS-programs not running under OS/2V2.0
Received: from AWIWUW11 by AWIWUW11.WU-Wien.AC.AT (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
1492; Sun, 03 Nov 91 23:58:44 WUT
Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu by AWIWUW11.WU-Wien.AC.AT (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with TCP; Sun, 03 Nov 91 23:58:22 WUT
Received: from mcdonald (femto.scs.uiuc.edu) by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id
AA14742
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <RO...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 16:56:15
-0600
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 16:56:15 -0600
Message-Id: <1991110322...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
From: mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (doug mcdonald)
To: RO...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony)
Subject: Re: More questions...
In article <91305.17...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> RO...@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at
(FLATSCHER Rony) writes:
>Terran:
>
>1) how good is DOS in OS/2V2: Very good.
REALLY!!! Several people have written to tell me that NONE of the most
important DOS programs I use will run!! NONE!! Because, for some brain-dead
reason OS/2 will not suppoirt VCPI.
Either: tell me that OS/2 2.0 WILL run these programs, or
STOP SAYING OS/2 WILL RUN DOS PROGRAMS "VERY WELL"
Doug McDonald
========================= Attempted answer
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 12:25:50 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@AWIWUW11>
Subject: Re: More questions...
To: doug mcdonald <mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 3 Nov 1991 16:56:15 -0600
Doug:
It is amazing how many misunderstandings there are concerning the ability
to run DOS-programs under OS/2 version 2.0.
First, let us talk about VCPI (virtual control program interface): This
interface surfaced at the end of the 80ies and allowed DOS-programs to
take over the full control of 386-based processors, therefore allowing
to use ***all*** features of the 386 and boosting the performance of
DOS-programs. There is a catch thou. VCPI takes over the total control
of 386's ! This means that no other program has the chance to control
the processor exclusively therefore an operating system being on ring 0
(master-ring) would loose control over the processor and hence over the
entire (!) system.
Therefore in a **true** operating system VCPI-programs are not allowed
because only the operating system itself is allowed to control the system
exclusively for security reasons! (By the way, in the DOS-Windows-combi-
nation you could not run Windows in standard or enhanced mode if a VCPI-
program was present!).
In order for the ISV to have the benefits of VCPI Microsoft devised together
with others a new type of interface called DPMI (Dos protected mode interface)
in February 1990. DPMI would allow those who needed VCPI basically the same
features to boost their DOS-performance. So far version 0.9 is standard.
Starting with OS/2V2 version 1.0 of DPMI will be standard. This means
that all VCPI-programs would have to be rewritten (with the appropriate
tools merely recompiled) to interface with DPMI. IBM did it with its
OS/2-version of Windows 3.0 and does it with all the DOS-boxes.
Now, I am talking about DOS-programs running on 8086-architectures maybe
utilizing expanded memory or extended memory from some server-software on
the machine. And in my experience the following can be said:
- OS/2V2 allows for running the most problematic DOS-programs in its
DOS-boxes.
- DOS-boxes can be defined to serve to its DOS-session up to 640KB of
base-memory, up to 32 Megabyte of expanded memory, up to 16 Megabyte
of extended memory and up to 512 Megabyte of DPMI-served memory.
- Each DOS-box has a graphic resolution of VGA (!).
- Each DOS-box is completely isolated from other DOS-boxes, OS/2-programs,
...
- You can even use adapter memory location in UMB, still you can use
resources of these adapters, if OS/2 itself uses them (e.g. OS/2-NFS
via an ethernet-adapter mounting these drives with OS/2 drive-letters
allows DOS-boxes with no ethernet adapter memory to use the NFS-drives
via OS/2 transparently to the DOS-box !!!!).
- At the moment (driver 6.167) you can launch OS/2-Windows (it will be
launched in a DOS-session utilizing DPMI-services to run in standard
mode) in ***standard*** mode. In that Win-session you can start as many
Windows-programs as under the "pure" Windows sitting atop of DOS. ***And**
if you wish you can invoke additional (!) OS/2-Window-sessions. Now the
spectacular point about this is that the Windows-sessions are preempti-
vily **multitasked**. E.G. Start to format an exhaustive document in one
Windows-session, switch to OS/2, to DOS or to another Windows-session
and proceed to work. The background-Windows-session will still format
the document (although with a lower priority than the active session)!!!
***Plus*** if a Window-program goes berserk with one of those infamous
UAE you just smoothly kill the effected session and proceed with the
other sessions. Actually what I am doing is isolating UAE-prone Win-apps
in separate sessions, so it does not bother me anymore if one of these
have to be killed.
By the way you can do clipboarding and DDEing within one Win-session,
with different Win-sessions or with OS/2 !
Remember thou, VCPI-programs do not work under OS/2 nor do they work under
DOS-Windows in standard or enhanced mode.
---rony
Stephen D Spencer
>So you get one upgrade every year from MS for $250, or one every 6 months
>from Borland for $100. As far as I can tell, the reason you're getting
>faster. Nothing says you have to buy every upgrade that comes along, you
>can skip every other one and know that in 6 months there will be another
>one to catch up with.
Haha! Buy version 1.0 of MASM... then buy MASM 6.0... listen to them tell
you that 6.0 is completely compatible with your ancient out-of-date assembler
and then read the insert that says "Weeellll... its -mostly- compatible...
but as soon as you figure out where and why none of your source will compile...
But the again, why complain, these people aren't going to make money if they
don't release new versions (and you won't have any reason to spend *your*
money either!). I figure it this way: we sit around creating sequals for
programs like Space Quest so people will run out and buy the next one... they
sit around adding goodies to their compilers/assemblers/(whatever) so we will
see them and go "hey neato! I have a hundred bucks! I'm gonna buy the new
one! (so the housing payment is due next week... big deal...hehe)
If you don't want to buy the new Borland/Ztech/SCO/MS products... well, don't.
Do what I do out of choice: debug and MASM (well, CodeView now... I'm
getting used to it...)
-Stephen
-------------------
gre...@cis.ksu.edu
nmspi...@spider.ualr.edu
Let me change the timbre of this thread a bit (sorry, I've been programming
the Adlib/Soundblaster interface for a project for the past 3 weeks and my
diction is a bit tainted). I'm going to defer my comments about Borland's
upgrade policy/pricing/announcement-or-lack-thereof system until later. I'd
just like to throw my two bits in and see if anyone has encountered a problem
similar to THIS:
SYDNEY (aka syd...@borland.com), I know you watch this (hi, guy). Stick this
in your hat and remember it!
I've been a _very_ loyal follower of Borland products for the past 5-6 years,
beginning with TurboPascal 3.0. I've moved through TurboC to TC++, including
all the revisions and mods (granted, it was a chunk of change, but at the time
I was working for a company that footed the bill ... so personally I didn't
complain {those of you with snide comments about that keep your traps shut}).
Anyway, I've been running my own firm for two years now, primarily dealing
with Turbo C++ (MC people: this is just my opinion ... once you become
familiar with an interface and what you need to do to get things done, you
stick with it). When BC was announced, I looked forward to the expansion.
Particularly, I was interested in expanding the firm's capabilities into
Window's product development (a necessity if you deal with retail software,
as we do here). At the time, one of the teasers that Borland was offering
for the purchase of BC++ was a free copy of Petzold's "Programming Windows
3.0", which (when you become a tightwad) seemed like good incentive.
I got lucky and won my copy via a GEnie contest sponsored by the Borland
RoundTable. When it arrived ... no book. Frankly, I didn't remember the
freebie (it took Borland their usual time to process), and there was no
notification in the box that the book was on BACKORDER. At least, not right
away ...
... some time later, I got another package from Borland: a copy of a video
tape entitled "The World of Objects", which is basically a 20 minute commercial
with Phillipe and various other C++ wizards (a brief appearance by Bjorn,
among others) proclaiming the wonders of C++. This was interesting (I mean,
it was a good production from a video prod. standpoint). The accompanying
letter, however, was not as good.
The letter stated that, because of a massive demand on Borland for BC++, they
ran out of books. To all those who ordered BC++ but didn't get a book, they
sent a copy of this tape. Brilliant, gentlement, just f*****g brilliant!
For those in the world of marketing, let me put this in simple terms: I
bought BC++ because I wanted to USE BC++ in WINDOWS (among other things), NOT
because I wanted to learn C++. I already KNOW C++, and can't see why someone
starting out would want to shell out almost $500 for a compiler just to learn
it (that's what TC++ is for). The tape, to me, was an insult. Sure, the
book originally was free, and the tape was free, but I ask you: If I can
walk down to my local bookstore (which I did) and pick up a copy of the thing
that Borland ran out of (which I did), they why the hell can't they order
more to fulfill the promise that they made in their marketing (which they
didn't).
Or does Borland feel that, since they are one of the few games in town, they
can say whatever they want and not have to answer to anybody (Sydney, I hop
you read this far).
Upgrades are needed ... that seems to be a fact of life. But the organization
of the marketing and customer support section of BI is attrocious. Example:
1) They brought out TurboVision for Pascal, and talked about
"thinking" about doing it for C.
2) They finally announce TurboVision and ObjectWindows for BC++,
but not as seperate packages: as a new "bundle" with BC++.
At the time of the announcement, there was no mention as to
what those of us who were some of the first BC++ customers
could do.
3) Two months (at least) later, I get a flyer in the mail saying
that I could get the "Application Frameworks" for $100 (sound
familiar?).
4) Stepping back in time a bit, when we upgraded to TC++, we were
looking forward to understanding more of TASM's IDEAL mode.
However, the upgrade kit's TASM manual kept referring to the
new version of the TASM reference manual which was not in the
upgrade. Another client of mine upgraded the same way two months
later and received the same kit: lacking the manual.
Being in business, I understand some of these things. I'm expected to provide
prompt responsed on our products, and to provide our customers with the CORRECT
materials when they ask for them.
Apparently, once you get big enough, that doesn't matter anymore.
Any additional thoughts, folks?
Scotty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott J. 'Scotty' Walter | "Ah'm sorrah, sir, but Ah kinna fit
Developer/Consultant/Publisher | anna more on th' floppy. Ye jus'
| kinna mess w' the laws of data
MinnTelligence | compression!"
2400 Riverfront Drive, Suite #2223 |
Little Rock, AR 72202-2205 | Bitnet: NMSpillers@UALR
PHONE: (501) 664-4742 | Internet: NMSpi...@UALR.Edu
FAX: (501) 664-2237 | GEnie: H.McCrery2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not a bug ... It's not a feature ... It's an ENHANCEMENT!"
Paul King
A long time ago I purchased Turbo-C 1.0 (which had quite a few bugs).
I filled out my registration form, sent it in and asked about upgrading -- I
think version 1.5 had come out (in the states) by this time.
I never got a single reply back from Borland. (Maybe it got lost in the mail
but I doubt it.) Now I have just purchased BC++ 2.0 and I don't even know
if it is worth registering it.
Paul.
P.S. I am happy enough with Borland's products but I am still waiting
to be pleasantly suprised by their service...
--
Paul King _-_|\
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Queensland / X
Queensland, Australia, 4072 \.--._/
ki...@cs.uq.oz.au (ACSNET) v
Sidney Markowitz
[... lots of stuff deleted for brevity ...]
1) It's "sidney", like the city in Nebraska, not "sydney", like in Australia.
2) The brouhaha on the net about the Petzold book / video tape fiasco led
Borland marketing to make an announcement on the net that they were getting
more books and anyone who was dissatisfied should contact them. (See #4)
3) The earlier brouhaha about the lack of manuals with the TASM update was
also resolved by a) pointing out that the entire set changes to the
TASM manual was in the online readme file and b) since people had been
misled into thinking that they would get a new manual, anyone who
still wanted one after finding out about (a) could ask for it and get
one.
4) I've recently made it easier for people on the net to get these
things resolved by setting up an e-mail address of
customer...@borland.com which forwards directly to the Customer
Service people. That is not for technical support (someday I'll have
that set up, but not yet and I don't know exactly when), but they can
handle all types of customer service requests except actually selling
things over the net. (Since this is new, let me know if there are
any technical problems with reaching customer...@borland.com.)
Despite your fears of how big and impersonal Borland has gotten, I
don't think we've gotten quite as big as Microsoft yet :-)
-- sidney markowitz <sid...@borland.com>
Borland International (Languages - R&D)
Jeff Urlwin (sysop)
(And of *course* the new upgrade costs :*...) Luckily, for those of
us who purchased the upgrade to Application Frameworks, it's free.
All else, break out the credit card...
Jeff
--
UUCP uupsi!doughbie!jlu
-- or --
j...@doughbie.uu.psi.com