MERLIN INCLUDES a Process Killer
ead...@ibm.net
To use Merlin's process killer:
Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
--Ed.
*** SIG Under Construction ***
Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
NOW AT: ead...@ibn.net
**************************
Brian Gorrell
Cool! Wish they would put that sort of thing in the README or docs. I
know of many items in the DOCS that aren't implemented in the beta and
many items in the beta that aren't discussed in the DOCS.
- Brian Gorrell
Brad Wardell
In <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ead...@ibm.net writes:
>To use Merlin's process killer:
>
>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>
However, this is only a list of EXEs and requires you to have WarpCenter
loaded. If your system hangs, this won't do much to help that but at least
they are adding something.
Brad
hun...@mhv.net
Ed,
If by Warp Center Window list, you mean the box labelled "Switch to another applicatiion"
the control key has no effect on what I get when I click on it.
The version you saw muct have been something special; I hope we all see it later.
Joe Hunter
Brad Barclay
In <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ead...@ibm.net writes:
>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
Is it possible to be more specific on how you were able to attain
this? I've tried it, but haven't noticed anything different, and certainly
wasn't presented with the option to kill, or a dialogue to that effect.
> NOW AT: ead...@ibn.net
I presume you mean '@ibm.net"? You may wish to correct this.
Brad Barclay,
Team OS/2 Canada.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From the WARP CONNECT Desktop of Brad Barclay.
E-Mail: o...@idirect.com WWW: http://warp.idirect.com
Finger o...@idirect.com for public PGP key.
PGP Encrypted & Signed E-Mail is Welcomed.
[ ] <- When X'ed, this document was written using VoiceType Dictation.
b...@kf8nh.apk.net
In <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ead...@ibm.net writes:
>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
I just tried control-clicking the WarpCenter Window List button (tried both left
and right control keys) and got the regular window list menu. ???
--
brandon s. allbery flying with merlin! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
telotech, inc. FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
Traci Collins
In message <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> -
ead...@ibm.net19 Jul 1996 09:14:21 GMT writes:
:>
:>To use Merlin's process killer:
:>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
:>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
:>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
Now, can any of the Merlin testers confirm that this
actually kills processes as opposed to the more passive
attempts to kill processes like ctrl-esc that have been
implimented in the past in Warp? I hate zombie processes and
IBM has seemed very comfortable with leaving me things that
I couldn't get rid of except by pulling my system down and
rebooting. I hope this process killer actually has that
killer capability but based on past 'solutions' such as the
single input queue fix people will have to pardon me if I am
cynical. Please, some of you report on how viscious this
killer really is.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Traci Collins, Professor of Computer Education Team OS/2
Colorado Mountain College (Fax) 970-984-2676
http://www.rof.net/wp/tcollins/traci.html
President, Roaring Fork Internet Users Group (RoFIntUG)
ead...@ibm.net
In <changi0.9m.2BZg6b$0...@esther.arkane.net>, ava...@arkane.demon.co.uk (Alistair Young) writes:
>In <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ead...@ibm.net writes:
>>To use Merlin's process killer:
>>
>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>
>
>What revision is your Merlin?
>
>Alistair "Unless I've been trolled... <sigh>" Y
>
I had gotten another message saying this didn't work for someone else, too.
Since the San Diego OS/2 User's Group meeting on Thurs. night, I hadn't
tried it out on my system (Merlin was fried). I just did a re-install and
got the same thing you did: the normal Window List.
Apparently, the build from the demo was NOT the June 17d build that we
were told it was. I know at *least* one other person reading this group was
at the SDOS2UG meeting so maybe he heard something I didn't.
Anyway, it was "Control+Click" on the WarpCenter Window List which
showed a list of the .EXE's running. Clicking on one brought up the a
dialog to confirm the kill. And if it doesn't work for us now, it will,
or does on a build the IBMer was running.
Thanks,
Ed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WAS: ead...@aol.com NOW: ead...@ibm.net
STILL: TeamOS2 & ClubOpenDOC
>> This message was delivered by Warp 9.99 June Beta <<
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Barbara Allen
In message <4sqn3n$l...@kf8nh.apk.net> - b...@kf8nh.apk.net20 Jul 1996:>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
:>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
:>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
:>I just tried control-clicking the WarpCenter Window List button (tried both left
:>and right control keys) and got the regular window list menu. ???
Me too. Could this be a feature of one of the many install options
some of us chose not to select? (You know, a development or
programmer thing?) Love to know where it came from.
Barbara
Alistair Young
>
>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
Doesn't work for me. I just get the normal window-list menu.
What revision is your Merlin?
Alistair "Unless I've been trolled... <sigh>" Y
--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
e-mail: ava...@arkane.demon.co.uk http://www.bofh.net/~sloth
sl...@bofh.net Phone/Fax: +44 (1833) 638233 (24 hr.)
sl...@jurai.net Sysimperator, dominus regis deusque machinarum.
The opinions above ARE my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]
"Beta-testing is a *privilege*, not a *right*."
ead...@ibm.net
In <4srre1$1j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, war...@ibm.net (Brad Wardell) writes:
>In <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ead...@ibm.net writes:
>>To use Merlin's process killer:
>>
>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>>
>
>loaded. If your system hangs, this won't do much to help that but at least
>they are adding something.
>
>Brad
>
>>--Ed.
>>
>> *** SIG Under Construction ***
>> Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
>> **************************
>
>
That's the exact point that came up at the User Group meeting, Brad. The IBMer claimed
(no one bought it though) that the queue lock was not a problem (since FP 17, I might add)
and you should never need anything other than the new WarpCenter process killer.
Looks like Process Commander will sell real well <g>...
Especially as I almost always get dead _windows_, not dead .EXE's, in Merlin. Sure, I can
recover and move on but the window just sits there a won't go away. Eventually, I still
have to restart. The windows get a "flat" border around them when they're dead.
For those of you that missed my other posting, I hadn't tried the CTRL+CLICK yet as Merlin
was dead. I reinstalled last evening and got the same results as others: the Window List,
not the new "Process List"... so it seems that he was running a later beta (we were told
is was the same June beta--17D, but apparently there was a 17E also). At last word IBM
was on build 21.
-Ed.
**** SIG Under Construction ****
Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
WAS: ead...@aol.com
NOW: ead...@ibm.net
***************************
Kris Kwilas
In <31F003...@continuuminc.com>, Brian Gorrell <bri...@continuuminc.com> writes:
>Cool! Wish they would put that sort of thing in the README or docs. I
>know of many items in the DOCS that aren't implemented in the beta and
>many items in the beta that aren't discussed in the DOCS.
A somewhat minor item, but try switching to the Desktop from
the Window List in the WarpCenter. It will minimize the open
folder and apps on your Desktop.
Kris Kwilas [www.students.uiuc.edu/~kwilas]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[I am working for IBM, but my views/statements are strictly my own.]
Jerry Rowe
In <4t00aa$o...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, kwi...@uiuc.edu (Kris Kwilas) writes:
>In <31F003...@continuuminc.com>, Brian Gorrell <bri...@continuuminc.com> writes:
>>Cool! Wish they would put that sort of thing in the README or docs. I
>>know of many items in the DOCS that aren't implemented in the beta and
>>many items in the beta that aren't discussed in the DOCS.
>
>A somewhat minor item, but try switching to the Desktop from
>the Window List in the WarpCenter. It will minimize the open
>folder and apps on your Desktop.
Now that is pretty cool for a minor item. Works well to get things out of the way.
Then you can hilite selected items in the w. list, and show them.
Adam Kurzawa
> Now, can any of the Merlin testers confirm that this
> actually kills processes as opposed to the more passive
> attempts to kill processes like ctrl-esc that have been
> implimented in the past in Warp? I hate zombie processes and
> IBM has seemed very comfortable with leaving me things that
> I couldn't get rid of except by pulling my system down and
> rebooting. I hope this process killer actually has that
> killer capability but based on past 'solutions' such as the
> single input queue fix people will have to pardon me if I am
> cynical. Please, some of you report on how viscious this
> killer really is.
[Dictated using IBM's VoiceType Speech Recognition Technology]
MEGA-GALACTIC HINT SERVICE:
1. For those of you species with nary a clue, the secret is bang
the two rocks together over the wood, folks.
2. For those of you with even less a clue, get off of those
Microsuck products and start realizing the dream of power
computing!
Adam Kurzawa <kurzawa@ecf.toronto
--
|Fidonet: "Adam Kurzawa" <kur...@ecf.toronto 1:343/108
|Internet: "Adam.Kurzawa".<kurzawa_e...@snoval.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
ead...@ibm.net
In <4spgua$h...@serv2.rof.net>, tcol...@rof.net (Traci Collins) writes:
>In message <4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> -
>
>Now, can any of the Merlin testers confirm that this
>actually kills processes as opposed to the more passive
>attempts to kill processes like ctrl-esc that have been
>implimented in the past in Warp? I hate zombie processes and
>IBM has seemed very comfortable with leaving me things that
>I couldn't get rid of except by pulling my system down and
>rebooting. I hope this process killer actually has that
>killer capability but based on past 'solutions' such as the
>single input queue fix people will have to pardon me if I am
>cynical. Please, some of you report on how viscious this
>killer really is.
>
group that the killer only effected things on the *.exe level. In other words
things like the OpenDOC multimedia stuff wouldn't be killable this way.
However, I did notice that there was a really long list of items, some
were *.exe's but I don't think others were. Of course, I cannot go back and
look but maybe someone running a build with this enabled (21?) could tell us.
I, too, suspect that there might not be another beta--just a gamma. In my
dealings with IBM they were always quite confident that this thing will be
out, on the shelf, in October (unofficial statements of course).
I've been told another beta, if there is one, will be out around Aug. 12th.
I agree with the person that said, wait till December and stuff in more
"modernizing" features. Afterall, what's the likelihood that the help search
engine will be reworks to support natural lanuage and fuzzy hits, before
October???
Oh, well, at least there's next time... which, according to the presenter,
will not be microkernel based, on the logic that as PowerPC didn't take off
there's no need to go microkernel. Then again, I take such statements with
a grain of salt.
As I said, I figure (based on past performance), IBM will have Warp 4.x or
5.0 coming in Q1 '98. What was to be Cairo, will be due around then, maybe
in Q2. Microsoft's ActiveX will have closed the gap with SOM, thanks to
OLE 3 and the Oject File System. Cairo will have dynamic tracking of objects,
just like we enjoy in WPS. Microsoft has a Speech API and has hired (bought)
a company doing a dictation package for Win32. So... what will Warp have in
'98? It will still be catching up with Win95: a natural language help system,
consistent views from the Desktop to File Open, & a REAL SIQ fix.
Does anyone besides Kris & myself remember old CUA? CUA
(the Common User Access specification) was a remarkable spec. when
revised in 91. The Workplace Shell is CUA based. Wouldn't it be great
if IBM could produce an IBM Works CUA show-case to demonstrate the
great object technologies in Warp? As far as I know, there's nothing in
the current editions of OS/2 that limit the promises of CUA from happening.
Certainly, Merlin's supposed to be based on the phantom? CUA 94 spec, but
why bother, if we never got as far as CUA 91 went? Check out the CUA 91
demo at hobbes.cdrom.com:/pub/os2/demos. There are two files. Watch it
(it's short) and see the "promise" of IBM's "vision"... then wonder, like I
do, why IBM doesn't get glasses as its vision is blured today.
My 2 cents,
--Ed.
eadeans...@snoval.com
Glenn R. Drayton-Bright
Why shag around with a second-rate process scheduler and killer like OS/2?
Have you checked out NT 4.0's task manager? Now that is superb, and I bet
Merlin won't have anything that good ever (probably because it is
impossible with Merlin's dumb single input queue architecture).
If IBM ever want anyone corporate or developers to use this Merlin thing
they need to throw away the old architecture and rebuild the whole shooting
match from the ground up. To my mind OS/2 looks like Win3.1 used to when
OS/2 2.1 was released! Now NT 4.0 is the far superior OS and Merlin is the
old tired dog based on ancient technology. The only difference of course
is that no one uses OS/2.
Peter Drumm
In message <01bb7db6$7f7e3cc0$539bb584@gorilla> - "Glenn R.
Drayton-Bright" <MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>30 Jul 1996 01:29:04 GMT
writes:
:->
:->
:->Why shag around with a second-rate process scheduler and killer like OS/2?
:->Have you checked out NT 4.0's task manager? Now that is superb, and I bet
:->Merlin won't have anything that good ever (probably because it is
:->impossible with Merlin's dumb single input queue architecture).
:->
:->If IBM ever want anyone corporate or developers to use this Merlin thing
:->they need to throw away the old architecture and rebuild the whole shooting
:->match from the ground up. To my mind OS/2 looks like Win3.1 used to when
:->OS/2 2.1 was released! Now NT 4.0 is the far superior OS and Merlin is the
:->old tired dog based on ancient technology. The only difference of course
:->is that no one uses OS/2.
:->
Take your WinNiceTry garbage to the windows groups, PLEASE!
pdr...@dwave.net
Wausau, WI. 44d 58m 00s N x 89d 36m 45s W
All opinions are my own, even if they are wrong!
SiNiSTA
Glenn R. Drayton-Bright wrote:
>
> Why shag around with a second-rate process scheduler and killer like OS/2?
>
+----=========================
|
| GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE WINDOZ BOY
|-------------------\
| |
| O ---Windows? whats that? please forgive me!
| /-\
| |
| / \
|
+----=========================
ReMeMBeR, i aM WaTCHiNG YuR eVeRy MoVe!!!!!
]SiNiSTA[
Pauli Ojala
In message <4tm73d$7...@blackice.winternet.com> - pdr...@dwave.net (Peter
Drumm)30 Jul 1996 23:50:05 GMT writes:
>
>In message <01bb7db6$7f7e3cc0$539bb584@gorilla> - "Glenn R.
>Drayton-Bright" <MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>30 Jul 1996 01:29:04 GMT
>writes:
>:->
>:->they need to throw away the old architecture and rebuild the whole shooting
>:->match from the ground up. To my mind OS/2 looks like Win3.1 used to when
>:->OS/2 2.1 was released! Now NT 4.0 is the far superior OS and Merlin is the
>:->old tired dog based on ancient technology. The only difference of course
>:->is that no one uses OS/2.
>
>Take your WinNiceTry garbage to the windows groups, PLEASE!
Why should he? If Merlin criticism belongs in NT groups, then does NT 4
criticism belong in comp.os.os2.beta? Hardly. Of course Glenn is wrong
about "no one using OS/2", but IMO he _is_ right about Merlin being "the
old tired dog based on ancient technology". That Win3.1->OS/2 2.1 analogy
is an exaggeration, but quite accurate nevertheless. I'm an OS/2 user,
but I've been quite disappointed by Merlin. I know that IBM wants to get
it out of the door quickly, so there's no time to make it better and more
competitive.
Now, I'm hoping that Warp v5 - the microkernel (or pseudomicrokernel)
one - that's hopefully coming in 1997, is a real major upgrade, such
as 1.3->2.0 was. So again I think Glenn is right about the need to
rebuild & redesign it from the ground up; as it appears that they are
moving the Intel version to the ækernel, they have a very good
opportunity to do this. But if they can't get it out in 1997 and
if it doesn't live up to its promise, then OS/2 is finally definitely
doomed. I don't know, maybe that would be a relief actually - after
all these years living with the FUD generated by IBM's actions.
Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
Merlin. I mean _new_ features in Merlin. I also made separate lists
of features that are available for Warp, and of bundled software.
These are quite probably not complete, since I compiled the lists
using my memory and the Merlin beta feature list @ IBM's Merlin web
site. But the point is that Merlin is not much of an upgrade to
Warp; it only has a lot of separate stuff bundled.
New features in Merlin:
-URL objects
-FTP folders
-sound schemes
-horizontal notebook tabs
-"Become" tab
-new multimedia applets
-new folder arrangement options
-WarpGuides
-"Software Updates" mechanism
-Plug'n'Play, without dynamic configuration and installation
(Hardware Manager & Display Data Channel support are part
of this PnP support)
-GRADD
-ThinkPad-specific features: warm plug/docking, infrared
Add-ons and features that are also available for Warp:
-Java runtimes/JDK
-OpenGL
-OpenDoc
-Open32 (DAX)
-Full window drag
-Async focus change
-Win32s 1.25
-TrueType support
-Realtime MIDI
-DART
-SES security interface
-DHCP/DDNS support
Bundled IBM products:
-VoiceType
-PCOM Lite
-that remote access product
-Mobile File Synch
-WarpCenter/SmartCenter
-Notes Mail
-TME NetFinity
Bundled ISV products:
-Netscape (it seems)
-FaxWorks, new version
-Device Driver CD
,-------------------------------------. o
| complicated at | o
| sea Internet | o ,------------------.
| can The dawn | | Pauli: :ojalA |
| you've unless | | |
| seen be |-----| paojala@ |
| the | | mail.hrsk.edu.fi |
`-------------------------------------' `------------------'
Benjamin Y. Lee
In article <01bb7db6$7f7e3cc0$539bb584@gorilla>, "Glenn R. Drayton-Bright" <MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>Why shag around with a second-rate process scheduler and killer like OS/2?
In the past os/2 hasn't been as good a killer as NT4, but I seriously question
whether you really know about its scheduler. In my experience its dynamic
priority changing has been far better than NT's.
[munch remaining babbling advocacy]
-Ben
Jim Jaworski
Glenn R. Drayton-Bright (MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
: Why shag around with a second-rate process scheduler and killer like OS/2?
: Have you checked out NT 4.0's task manager? Now that is superb, and I bet
: Merlin won't have anything that good ever (probably because it is
: impossible with Merlin's dumb single input queue architecture).
: If IBM ever want anyone corporate or developers to use this Merlin thing
: they need to throw away the old architecture and rebuild the whole shooting
: match from the ground up. To my mind OS/2 looks like Win3.1 used to when
: OS/2 2.1 was released! Now NT 4.0 is the far superior OS and Merlin is the
: old tired dog based on ancient technology. The only difference of course
: is that no one uses OS/2.
Yeah, that's right. No one uses OS/2, except around 12 M people.
--
Winnipeg MB Canada j...@draco.bison.mb.ca
TEAM OS/2
My latest projet -- Learning POV-Ray v2.2 3D using OS/2 tools.
To find out more about POV-Ray, go to: http://www.povray.org/
Thor Johnson
On 2 Aug 1996 man...@erols.com wrote:
> In <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net>, laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix) writes:
> >In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
> >pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
> >>
> >>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
> >>Merlin. I mean _new_ features in Merlin. I also made separate lists
> >>of features that are available for Warp, and of bundled software.
> >>These are quite probably not complete, since I compiled the lists
> >>using my memory and the Merlin beta feature list @ IBM's Merlin web
> >>site. But the point is that Merlin is not much of an upgrade to
> >>Warp; it only has a lot of separate stuff bundled.
> >>
> >>New features in Merlin:
> >>...
> >>Add-ons and features that are also available for Warp:
> >>...
> >>Bundled IBM products:
> >>...
> >>Bundled ISV products:
> >>...
> >
> >You've only listed "visible" changes.
> >
> >Merlin contains some very significant "behind the scene" changes (I18N
> >and such come to mind).
> >
> >The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
> >they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
> >years ago.
Ahh. But you can *see* the difference between todays cars and those of
100yrs ago. <UserModeOn> If I can't see it (or at least how it impacts me
or the way I do things), I don't notice it. </UserModeOn>
Kinda like the difference from a indicator text field, and a disabled
(but not greyed out) button (without the "raised look").
Thor Johnson
john...@falcon.mercer.peachnet.edu
http://falcon.mercer.peachnet.edu/~johnsont
Have you seen the WarpMap lately?
http://falcon.mercer.peachnet.edu/~johnsont/warpmap
Martin Lafaix
In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>
>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
>Merlin. I mean _new_ features in Merlin. I also made separate lists
>of features that are available for Warp, and of bundled software.
>These are quite probably not complete, since I compiled the lists
>using my memory and the Merlin beta feature list @ IBM's Merlin web
>site. But the point is that Merlin is not much of an upgrade to
>Warp; it only has a lot of separate stuff bundled.
>
>New features in Merlin:
>...
>Add-ons and features that are also available for Warp:
>...
>Bundled IBM products:
>...
>Bundled ISV products:
>...
You've only listed "visible" changes.
Merlin contains some very significant "behind the scene" changes (I18N
and such come to mind).
The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
years ago.
Martin
--
laf...@ibm.net
Team OS/2
<a href="http://wwwi3s.unice.fr/~lafaix/os2.html">OS/2 en français!</a>
man...@erols.com
'bout OS/2".
Todd "da Manimal" Gentle
man...@erols.com
John Gerard
ead...@ibm.net wrote:
>To use Merlin's process killer:
>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>--Ed.
> *** SIG Under Construction ***
> Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
> NOW AT: ead...@ibn.net
> **************************
Hello,
I never got to beta to test. Can someone tell me how the
process killer compares to Watchcat that I am currently using under
Warp 3.0. I hope it is at least that good.
John
Jack Childs
In message <4tuer6$k...@its.hooked.net> - jo...@hooked.net (John Gerard)
writes:
:>
:>ead...@ibm.net wrote:
:>
:>>To use Merlin's process killer:
:>
:>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
:>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
:>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
:>
:>>--Ed.
:>
:>> *** SIG Under Construction ***
:>> Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
:>> NOW AT: ead...@ibn.net
:>> **************************
about killing anything.
Jack Childs
mj...@pclink.com
In <4tuer6$k...@its.hooked.net>, jo...@hooked.net (John Gerard) writes:
>ead...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>To use Merlin's process killer:
>
>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>
>>--Ed.
>
>> *** SIG Under Construction ***
>> Ed Deans. -- TeamOS2
>> NOW AT: ead...@ibn.net
>> **************************
> I never got to beta to test. Can someone tell me how the
>process killer compares to Watchcat that I am currently using under
>Warp 3.0. I hope it is at least that good.
>
> John
>
>
would help with some of the hangs I have seen.
Steven Rainwater
In <4u06o8$3...@iz.comcat.com>, jrch...@comcat.com (Jack Childs) writes:
>In message <4tuer6$k...@its.hooked.net> - jo...@hooked.net (John Gerard)
>writes:
>:>
>:>ead...@ibm.net wrote:
>:>
>:>>To use Merlin's process killer:
>:>
>:>>Hold down the Control key and click on the Window List in WarpCenter. Instead
>:>>of the usual menu, you should see a menu of currently running programs. Click
>:>>on one. You will get a dialog asking you to confirm the "Kill".
>Something funny here, I get nothing but changing to that program, no dialog
>about killing anything.
Doesn't work in my copy of Merlin either. I tried holding the control
key while clicking the window-list icon on the Warp Center bar itself
and holding it while clicking an item on the window list menu. I got
nothing like what he described either time. Either he's got a different
beta or he didn't describe the correct sequence of keys and clicks to
get to the kill feature...
-Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Network Cybernetics Corporation | http://www.ncc.com/ |
| Publisher of CD-ROM titles on AI, | ftp://ftp.ncc.com/ |
| VR, Astronomy, and other cool stuff | mailto:in...@ncc.com |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dw...@unb.ca
CTRL key while clicking a program icon on the Warp center will give the
program properties window.
--
Dennis
*****************************************************************
* Dennis Woo, Ph.D. Department of Mechanical Engineering *
* E-mail: dw...@unb.ca University of New Brunswick *
* dw...@enterprise.me.unb.ca *
* Office Tel: (506) 447-3076 -------- __o *
* Voice mail: (506) 453-0614 ------- _`\<,_ *
* FAX : (506) 453-5025 ------- (*)/ (*) *
*****************************************************************
cr...@ibm.net
In <Pine.ULT.3.91.960801...@falcon.mercer.peachnet.edu>, Thor Johnson <john...@falcon.mercer.peachnet.edu> writes:
>On 2 Aug 1996 man...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> >In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
>> >pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
[snip]
>> >The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
[snip]
> Ahh. But you can *see* the difference between todays cars and those of
>100yrs ago. <UserModeOn> If I can't see it (or at least how it impacts me
>or the way I do things), I don't notice it. </UserModeOn>
Dear God, it's worse than we thought! I have it on reliable information that
not only Merlin, but almost 100% of IBM's technology still relies on....
electricity! Do you have any idea how old that technology is?!?!?!?!
It's like we're living in the dark ages. Well, technically, it would have to
be right after the dark ages, since we have lights.
> Thor Johnson
Chris Rehm | "Spam clogs the arteries, grasshopper."
cr...@ibm.net | "But _my_ spam is important, master!"
Team OS/2 | "It was, until it became spam."
Running the Merlin Beta! | - Chronicles of a Net Lord
Pauli Ojala
In message <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net> - laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix)Fri, 02
Aug 1996 00:17:43 +0200 writes:
>
>In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
>
>
>Merlin contains some very significant "behind the scene" changes (I18N
>and such come to mind).
So what's I18N? True, I have a directory called IBMI18N (yet another
directory OS/2 throws right under root - arggggh!!), and it seems to
be some internationalization stuff. It's probably nice to have, but
it looks like something Windows 3.1 could do. Why is it "very
significant"? It looks "pretty minor".
>The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>years ago.
Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
elegant and offers more features?
Glenn R. Drayton-Bright
My original (partially supported) observation was that OS/2 has an outdated
input queue architecture and in the grant scheme of things this makes it
outdated. Now think, after seeing how riled some of you OS/2-weenies have
got about this, that I should back this up with the actual observation that
prompted this comment.
Over the last week or so I have been reviewing Lotus Smartsuite 97 beta for
Windows95/NT for one of the better known computer magazines (who shall
remain nameless). I used Windows NT 4.0 beta 2 as the test platform
because the beta was sufficiently buggy to cause problems with 95 and
because I have grown to like using NT 4.0. At the same time I have been
test driving an early build (17D) of the Merlin beta, and have in the past
used Warp Connect (in fact I still use this from time to time to run EPM
and PMDraw! which I find to be a very good set of tools for TeXing).
Now, I had two experiences on these differenct OSs that prompted my
negative comment about OS/2's architecture.
Experience 1
------------
OS = OS/2 Warp Connect 3.0 with FixPak 17 (official from DevCon). I was
running Word 6.0a for Windows in a seamless session and a beta version of
GhostView for OS/2 at the same time and switching between the two. With
some data unsaved in Word, I switched in a moment to GhostView, but it hung
i.e. the ENTIRE SYSTEM stopped responding to mouse clicks or keyboard
input. I duely pressed the CTRL-ESC key combination and after about 10
seconds was presented with the "tomb-stone". But OS/2 was unable to
determine which application had frozen, exactly, and asked me if I wanted
to close a folder that was open on the desktop, I did, afterall, what other
option would I have? OS/2 could not shut that folder down, probably
because its asynchronous queue cludge had failed to work out which process
was not responding. After trying CTRL-ESC again and getting the same,
incorrect, message, I gave OS/2 the 3-finger salute CTRL-ALT-DEL and
accepted the loss of some data in Word.
Experience 2
------------
OS=Windows NT 4.0 beta 2 Build 1314. This time I was testing the Word Pro
from the Smartsuite 97 beta I am writing about. With Word 7.0 open with
several documents, I was typing up some notes on the review. As a test of
Word Pro's OLE support I inserted a Word Pro document inside Word in one of
the documents. The operation appeared to complete okay except that as soon
as I clicked on a menu (now Word Pro's but inside Word) the application
froze up. At this time I was able to use any other part of the desktop
because NT maintains separate input queues for every process, even though
Word was not responding. So, remembering that I had lost data with OS/2
last time something like this froze up, I opened a command prompts and
quickly backed up some files. I then pulled up NT's Task Manager which
gave me a list of all applications on one page, and a list of all processes
on another, with details of how much CPU time they were absorbig etc. It
showed that there was a process called wordpro.exe running and using some
CPU time. This was the exact process that had frozen, so I terminated it.
Now, Word actually responded enough for me to switch to the other documents
inside it and save them! ie no data loss this time and no reboot required
as I was able to shut Word down normall after I had killed the stray
process.
So, I take from these experiences the following:
o I was able to do other stuff with NT when an application had frozen,
but not with OS/2, because NT has multiple input queues and OS/2 has a
single (but now asynchronous) input queue for the whole system
o I lost data in OS/2 because the asynchronous add-on in OS/2 is not
always able to identify which process is causing a problem. When this
happens it may be impossible to recover.
o Because NT can kill individual processes easily, I was able to kill the
part of the application that had frozen but continue working with the rest
of it to save data
Hence my comment, that OS/2 represents out-of-date technology in much the
same way that Win 3.1 did when OS/2 2.1 was released.
Sincerely,
Glenn Drayton-Bright
PS: As an aside, it is my understanding that the decision to go with a
single input queue was made back when MS and IBM were building OS/2
together. Apparently, MS convinced IBM to go single queue to improve the
portability of 16-bit Windows programs to OS/2. That decision, would now
seem to one of the most significant in the development of OS/2 and is one
reason that I won't consider running OS/2 as a mainstream OS until it is
re-engineered with multiple input queues.
Cornel Huth
>Hence my comment, that OS/2 represents out-of-date technology in much the
>same way that Win 3.1 did when OS/2 2.1 was released.
Ha-ha! I think most OS/2 users learned of Watchcat early on (exactly
how experienced do you claim to be?). This lets you see CPU-hogging
apps, kill them, and continue on. SIQ is not a factor for most 'cat
activation methods, and you can do this without a second thought. But
it's still an over-rated illness, the SIQ. I don't even use Watchcat
anymore since it's more of a hassle to re-install it than any crashes
caused by the SIQ have done in two years of development work here. Like
you said, you were surprised at how some were 'riled' by your troll.
It wouldn't even make my top 10 list. And do you really expect OS/2
users to switch to NT? For this? Absurd!
--
. .
: Quality Toolkits and Applications for : in...@40th.com
: DOS - Win16 - Win32 - OS/2 : http://www.40th.com/
: : BBS:1-210-684-8065
Glenn R. Drayton-Bright
Cornel Huth <cor...@crl.com> wrote in article <4u4boe$p...@crl13.crl.com>...
> >Hence my comment, that OS/2 represents out-of-date technology in much
the
> >same way that Win 3.1 did when OS/2 2.1 was released.
>
> Ha-ha! I think most OS/2 users learned of Watchcat early on (exactly
> how experienced do you claim to be?). This lets you see CPU-hogging
Yes, of course I've heard of it. I developed on OS/2 for two years and
still belong to DevCon. Watchcat doesn't change the fundamentals though,
and as you said it is a hassle to have to install a third party app, I
prefer the out-of-the-box solution.
> users to switch to NT? For this? Absurd!
I don't remember asking anyone to switch. I was forced to use NT by virtue
of the dominance of MS solutions in corporations in New Zealand. I had to
convert everything I had written on OS/2 to NT. At the time I was annoyed
because, if you listened to these OS/2 groups (as I did) you would get the
impression that OS/2 was the most advanced, crash protected etc etc OS out
there. I have since found that developing on NT is better than OS/2, the
main reason being superior crash protection and MIQ vs SIQ.
So there.
Daniel McNulty
Ya know, there is one little thing that is beginning to bug me
about OS/2's 'single' input queue and NT's 'multiple' input
queue. While trivial to some, correct terminology is important
to most technically-oriented computer types.
Anyway, both operating systems have multiple input queues. Even
Windoze 3.1 has a multiple input queue (one for the mouse and one
for the keyboard, I believe).
What OS/2 has that is causing problems is a SYNCHRONOUS input
queue, while NT and Win95 have an ASYNCHRONOUS input queue.
I think the cause of the confusion with single and multiple
queues is the result of the abbreviation of 'synchronous input
queue' to SIQ...this was subsequently incorrectly interpreted as
'single input queue'.
So what the hell is the difference?
A synchronous input system gives an application input, and then
must wait for the application to reply 'OK, I got the input'. If
the application does not reply, the input queue waits and waits
for the return message; this appears to be a hang, though every
OS/2 user can see his system is still alive.
The FP17 fix in OS/2 makes the queue wait for a period of time (2
seconds by default), and if no return message is recieved, the
queue will timeout and move on to dispatch any input still in the
queue to the appropriate applciation.
In NT and Win95, the asynchronous queue dispatches the input to
the app, and immediately moves on to the next app, never waiting
for a confirmation that the app got the input. This also happens
from time to time in both NT and Win95, but it is less
aggravating to repeat a mouse click than reboot the system, so it
is percieved to be a superior design. It is certainly more
convenient.
What bugs me about the SIQ 'fix' is that if the timeout period
could be reduced to zero, you essentially have an asynchronous
queue. Not only that, but the fix doesn't really fix anything.
I think something else is broken in there, because (in theory)
the timeout should solve this problem completely. Obviously, it
does not.
[==========================================]
[ Daniel McNulty - dmcn...@mindspring.com ]
[==========================================]
Martin Lafaix
In article <4u36ap$i...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>In message <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net> - laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix)Fri, 02
>Aug 1996 00:17:43 +0200 writes:
>>
>>In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
>>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
>>>Merlin. I mean _new_ features in Merlin. I also made separate lists
>>
>>You've only listed "visible" changes.
>>
>>Merlin contains some very significant "behind the scene" changes (I18N
>>and such come to mind).
>
>So what's I18N? True, I have a directory called IBMI18N (yet another
>directory OS/2 throws right under root - arggggh!!), and it seems to
>be some internationalization stuff. It's probably nice to have, but
>it looks like something Windows 3.1 could do. Why is it "very
>significant"? It looks "pretty minor".
I18N is indeed internationalization (I<18 letters>N). And I think
it's a very significant enhancement.
>>The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
>>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>>years ago.
>
>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>elegant and offers more features?
Don't misunderstand me. In another thread in this newsgroup, I
complained about the lack of uniformity in Merlin (more precisely, the
lack of CUA compliance).
I'm not claiming that Merlin is perfect. I was simply answering your
post, in which you only listed "visible" changes. I am just saying
that Merlin contains some very important changes, even if these are
not immediately visible.
That's what I was trying to explain with my poor metaphor.
Duane A. Chamblee
pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
>>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>>years ago.
>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>elegant and offers more features?
You should compare NT's networking feature to Warp Connects before you make this
statement. Does NT have TelnetDaemon, FTPDaemon, tFTPDaemon, RshDaemon,
LPDeamon, Sendmail server, talkDaemon, and Netware 4.0 NDS (including Login
script support)? just to mention a few.
rbag...@hiwaay.net
In <01bb8313$7e1b0d60$029b10ac@gorilla>, "Glenn R. Drayton-Bright" <MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
[lots snipped]
>impression that OS/2 was the most advanced, crash protected etc etc OS out
>there. I have since found that developing on NT is better than OS/2, the
>main reason being superior crash protection and MIQ vs SIQ.
How can you be an advanced developer if you also are confused by the OS/2 SIQ
problem? One more time, both OS/2 and NT have a single input queue. Both can have
multiple message queues for each app. OS/2 has a SYNCHRONOUS input queue while
NT has an ASYNCHRONOUS input queue. This small change in words may not change the
underlying problem but it keeps you and every other person who repeats the "single
input queue" mantra from looking like an idiot since, as I already stated, NT also has a
single input queue. Please get it right next time.
>So there.
>
>
So there.
///////////////////////////////////////
//
// Randy Bagwell
// rbag...@hiwaay.net
//
//
Geir Frode Srrensen
Daniel McNulty (dmcn...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: What bugs me about the SIQ 'fix' is that if the timeout period
: could be reduced to zero, you essentially have an asynchronous
: queue. Not only that, but the fix doesn't really fix anything.
: I think something else is broken in there, because (in theory)
: the timeout should solve this problem completely. Obviously, it
: does not.
Hush...
I'd just convinsed myself that it is not so and then you come along.
: [==========================================]
: [ Daniel McNulty - dmcn...@mindspring.com ]
: [==========================================]
******************************************************
Never ever underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-Robert Anson Heinlein
******************************************************
Benjamin Y. Lee
In article <T6mByUhB...@ibm.net>, laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix)
<4spgua$h...@serv2.rof.net><4snjld$1c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
<4spgua$h...@serv2.rof.net> <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net>
<4u36ap$i...@idefix.eunet.fi> wrote:
>
>I18N is indeed internationalization (I<18 letters>N). And I think
>it's a very significant enhancement.
Hmmm, can it be used to display multiple languages in webex? What exactly can
it do for us?
-Ben
Pauli Ojala
In message <4u6h9i$29...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - dua...@ibm.net (Duane A.
Chamblee)Tue, 06 Aug 1996 04:21:44 GMT writes:
>
>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>
>>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>>elegant and offers more features?
>
>You should compare NT's networking feature to Warp Connects before you make this
>statement. Does NT have TelnetDaemon, FTPDaemon, tFTPDaemon, RshDaemon,
>LPDeamon, Sendmail server, talkDaemon, and Netware 4.0 NDS (including Login
>script support)? just to mention a few.
I'm pretty sure NT 4's Netware client has NDS, and the client is
overall much better and more elegant than the outdated Warp/Merlin
client. And I don't care about blahblahDaemon; those I can get for
free if I need them. What I care about is integration and ease-of-use.
Merlin's networking is a bundle of old separate stuff like MPTS and
TCP/IP. It's a mess, and there's no integration. Even file and print
sharing is a separate product! NT's Network Control Panel provides easy
installation of everything: adapters, protocols, clients, services.
And Merlin's Internet dial-up connectivity feels like an amateurish
Windows 3.0 shareware solution. It's hard to install and use (compare
"Dial Other Internet Providers" to NT 4's dial-up networking), and it
doesn't even do basic things like IPX or NetBEUI over PPP.
Of course, for those big corporate networks, Merlin is still probably
better than NT 4. But they said they are also after the "connected
customer" power user, and there NT really beats Merlin.
Quentin Stephens
On 05-08-1996, "Glenn R. Drayton-Bright" said
"D> From: "Glenn R. Drayton-Bright" <MGM...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
"D> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.beta
"D> Subject: Re: MERLIN INCLUDES a Process Killer
"D>
"D> Experience 1
"D> ------------
"D> OS = OS/2 Warp Connect 3.0 with FixPak 17 (official from DevCon).
<snip>
Probably a VERY silly question, but did you enable the fix? It's
disabled by default.
QTS
Co-moderator Fidonet OS-Debate
Home: q...@donor2.demon.co.uk, q...@nildram.co.uk
Work: q...@buckscc.gov.uk Disclaimer: I do not speak for BCC
ead...@ibm.net
In <4u6h9i$29...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, dua...@ibm.net (Duane A. Chamblee) writes:
>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>
>>>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>>>years ago.
>
>>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>>elegant and offers more features?
>
Sure, Merlin is "ancient" technology in important ways. What's changed
since 2.0? Networking, of course, is integrated but I won't address that
as I'm no longer involved in networking OS/2 systems.
Sure, we can all point to improvements in OS/2 but nothing in Merlin
over Connect that warrants a full numeral upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0. Compare
to NT 4.0 vs. 3.5--there are major differences like Explorer shell and the
movement of the GDI stuff into the kernel. Compare Win95 to Win 3.1--major
changes including full 32-bit app support and Explorer. So where's Merlin's
great new stuff?
VTD is not a new product, its just revised bundled in the box. Why are they
pushing VTC, VTD when the GUI is so unrefined. Sure there's improvements
like Short Menus, Move vs. Create Shadow, and Warp Center but these aren't
major changes. Major changes would be a real Help Search facility, instead
of key-phrase only. It would be a File open/save that supported shadows,
it would be a fixed and fast Find object and it would be containers whose
details columns worked like those in Explorer & MacOS and many apps.
There is a lot of partial technology put into Merlin, like the Become concept.
And all the old stuff from 2.0--it's just not 4.0 material. IBM should get it
right--go back to the CUA Vision and finish what they started. Why isn't
the Bonus Pak, at the least IBM Works, CUA compliant and carrying the Lotus
look & feel?
So, I agree that Merlin is ancient technology with lots of gimmicks, like VTD,
to help us forget the unfinished pieces from 2.0. Warp 4.0 should have been
a leap nearer to the leap from 1.3 to 2.0 but it isn't and IBM's going to be
hurting badly in the already anti-OS/2 market because of it. Instead we
have to turn to Stardock and others for things IBM should be doing.
IMO,
--Ed. Deans.
TeamOS2
Christopher Robato
I am not sure if you or many others would like a really big leap. The
next big leap would have been the microkernel OS/2, like the PPC OS/2.
What would you gain and what would you lose?
What would you lose?
You will lose compatibility with all device drivers except possibly
printer drivers.
You will lose compatibility with all 16 bit OS/2 software and every
16/32 bit hybrid OS/2 software that still uses 16 bit .dlls.
Now, does the OS/2 market ready to lose all that? A lot of people are not
going to be ready for this. Hell, a lot of people are going to cry shit
over it. Worst yet, we might have a major worldwide financial crisis as
all those ATMs, kiosks, POSes and bank terminals will not work as due to
compatibility problems with the new OS.
We're still short of device drivers here---are we willing to dump all of
them and start from scratch? That's why Merlin has new technology stuff
like GRADD, to help ease the transition to a new kernel OS/2 with a new
object oriented device driver model. We hope there will be a substantial
base of GRADD drivers before the microkernel OS/2 comes. Thus you can see
why PPC OS/2 was never ready in the first place---the market isn't ready
for it.
What's old with Merlin is the heart---the kernel, the PDDs. But yet
there's is plenty of new technology. OpenDOC is new technology, the
versions of SOM/DSOM is improved, GRADD is new tech,... What we have are
wrappers of new technology around an old but proven one. Being proven
means a lot because you can build on an established foundation and
concentrate on optimization and feature adding. I don't exactly disagree
with that.
Rgds,
Chris
--
*** Sailor Moon Joins Team OS/2 ***
Evil falls on the city. "Hurry before Windows 95 takes over
the world." Serena and friends shout, "OS/2 Warp Power, Transform!"
The Sailor Scouts crash the Red Moon Palace.
Sailor Moon confronts the evil Queen Beryl Gates and
her Windowsverse forces, and says,
"In the Name of I-B-Moon, I shall right FUD and that means you!"
*** cro...@kuentos.guam.net ***
Christopher Robato
>
> ******************************************************
>
> Never ever underestimate the power of human stupidity.
> -Robert Anson Heinlein
>
We just did after looking at Windows advocacy.
> Gei...@invalid.ed.unit.no
>
> ******************************************************
Duane A. Chamblee
I agree with many of your points, the WPS hasn't changed much.
What's amazing though, is this OOUI interface is still FAR MORE ADVANCED than
anything else. IBM just doesn't exploit it because their priorities are
elsewhere. :-(
Most OS/2 users don't even know many of the things the WPS allows you to do.
Stardock has shown what the interface can do. Now if only IBM would.
TCP/IP hasn't changed much in decades, and it is VERY useful. Putting a fancy
interface on it doesn't change that fact.
I really don't care about Version numbers, It seems that most people today pick
them out of the air anyway. With this Beta called 9.99 and the last Beta called
2.99, maybe the new version will be Warp 10? What difference does it make?
Win95 is still based on DOS in many ways, with many BIG changes...But why keep
the DOS part?...Because it WORKS! Just Like OS/2.
I like Merlin So far because
1) it's faster
2) it comes with even more stuff
3) it still has the best OOUI around
4) it still allows MAJOR customization (in function and look)
5) I can script most of the operations dealing with the Shell and OS.
...There's nothing else out there that comes even close, so what difference does
the version number make? To me, none, I'm going to use and upgrade OS/2 because
it does what I want, how I want TODAY and TOMORROW.
gman...@dbintellect.com
In <4u8825$k...@idefix.eunet.fi>, pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) writes:
>In message <4u6h9i$29...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - dua...@ibm.net (Duane A.
>>
>>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>
>>>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>>>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>>>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>>>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>>>elegant and offers more features?
>>
>>statement. Does NT have TelnetDaemon, FTPDaemon, tFTPDaemon, RshDaemon,
>>LPDeamon, Sendmail server, talkDaemon, and Netware 4.0 NDS (including Login
>>script support)? just to mention a few.
>
> I'm pretty sure NT 4's Netware client has NDS, and the client is
>overall much better and more elegant than the outdated Warp/Merlin
>client. And I don't care about blahblahDaemon; those I can get for
>free if I need them. What I care about is integration and ease-of-use.
>Merlin's networking is a bundle of old separate stuff like MPTS and
>TCP/IP. It's a mess, and there's no integration. Even file and print
>sharing is a separate product! NT's Network Control Panel provides easy
>installation of everything: adapters, protocols, clients, services.
>And Merlin's Internet dial-up connectivity feels like an amateurish
>Windows 3.0 shareware solution. It's hard to install and use (compare
>"Dial Other Internet Providers" to NT 4's dial-up networking), and it
>doesn't even do basic things like IPX or NetBEUI over PPP.
having mounted a drive on the office's NT server and have the
Netware client running IPX over IP (PPP) having mounted a drive
on a client's Novell server. Both drive connections are active now,
while I am reading news. BTW: Both of these components came for
free on my Connect CD and were installed during my initial
installation, which went without incedent, I might add.
Besides, how often do we hear (paraphrased) "NT includes all this
network stuff. With OS/2 I need to go out and find it.'
>
>Of course, for those big corporate networks, Merlin is still probably
>better than NT 4. But they said they are also after the "connected
>customer" power user, and there NT really beats Merlin.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? About the only place NT beats
currently shipping OS/2 is in Marketing and senior management
mindshare. Unfortunately, this is where Merlin needs to excel as well.
[snip]
//Greg
**************************
Gregory Allyn Mancuso
dbINTELLECT Technologies (R)
Electronic Data Systems
< I speak only for myself! >
**************************
Martin Alfredsson
In message <4u600b$1h...@mule2.mindspring.com> - dmcn...@mindspring.com
(Daniel McNulty)5 Aug 1996 23:27:07 GMT writes:
>
>Ya know, there is one little thing that is beginning to bug me
>about OS/2's 'single' input queue and NT's 'multiple' input
>queue. While trivial to some, correct terminology is important
>to most technically-oriented computer types.
>
>Anyway, both operating systems have multiple input queues. Even
>Windoze 3.1 has a multiple input queue (one for the mouse and one
>for the keyboard, I believe).
own queue. Its a different thing that the system input queue. You will need
no more than one (per input device).
>What OS/2 has that is causing problems is a SYNCHRONOUS input
>queue, while NT and Win95 have an ASYNCHRONOUS input queue.
The best thing would be multiple asyncronous (I thought that Windows NT had
that).
>What bugs me about the SIQ 'fix' is that if the timeout period
>could be reduced to zero, you essentially have an asynchronous
>queue. Not only that, but the fix doesn't really fix anything.
>I think something else is broken in there, because (in theory)
>the timeout should solve this problem completely. Obviously, it
>does not.
The fix tries to rip the focus away. If you set 0 secounds any application
that takes more than 0 secounds to process a message will be put on
hold. Many OS/2 apps violate the 0.1 sec rule and the idea of a settable
time is to allow you to use a time that works with your apps/machine.
The fix works (in Merlin, Alt-Esc) quite good in that it will beep and tell me
that it
has started to try ripping the focus away. I always get the beep but that
seldom
helps. Eg. its not the theory behind the fix that is the problem but more the
way
they have implemented it. Some apps just cant be fixed (and most cannot be
closed).
Martin Alfredsson
JMA Data Software Technologies (ma...@jmast.se)
Professional Member of the IBM Solutions Developers Program
Member of Team OS/2
Member of the Swedish OS/2 User Group
Pauli Ojala
In message <4u8qj7$j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> - ead...@ibm.net writes:
>
>So, I agree that Merlin is ancient technology with lots of gimmicks, like VTD,
>to help us forget the unfinished pieces from 2.0. Warp 4.0 should have been
>a leap nearer to the leap from 1.3 to 2.0 but it isn't and IBM's going to be
>hurting badly in the already anti-OS/2 market because of it. Instead we
>have to turn to Stardock and others for things IBM should be doing.
Warp v3 should have been a much bigger leap than it was. And because
it was no big upgrade, Merlin should have been a huge leap like
1.3->2.0, or Win 3.1->95. But because Merlin is no big upgrade, the
microkernel "Warp v5" should be a gigantic leap, like the imaginary
Win NT 3.5->Cairo. And to save OS/2, it should be out next year.
Unless IBM has some important tricks in their many sleeves (maybe
leftover code from Warp PPC?), they won't make it. :(
And while things like Stardock's Merlin Plus Pak are nice, I won't
be happy at all to buy 3rd party software to get features that
should be in the base package. And Stardock can't do IBM's work in
the most important places, so IBM should not delude themselves to
thinking "Stardock can upgrade OS/2's UI".
web...@ibm.net
The problem you mean is not the SIQ.
It's the DOS Kill section in the OS/2 kernel. this part didn't work correct because
it has been added to OS/2 after the kernel design.
this is the main problem and IBM should fix this.
Michael Widmann
TeamOS/2
roberto...@mailbox.swipnet.se
>Warp v3 should have been a much bigger leap than it was. And because
>it was no big upgrade, Merlin should have been a huge leap like
>1.3->2.0, or Win 3.1->95. But because Merlin is no big upgrade, the
>microkernel "Warp v5" should be a gigantic leap, like the imaginary
As I've heard Merlin is as big leap as from v2.0 to v3 (Warp).
One of the easies things to notice is the user interface. Then there is lot's
under the hood like integrated OpenDOC, GRADD device drivers, integrated
JAVA, OpenGL + more.
Quite a 'small' leap huh?
>Win NT 3.5->Cairo. And to save OS/2, it should be out next year.
Why? Maybe v5 is out next year..
You are confusing Cairo with NT 4. Not the same thing.
>Unless IBM has some important tricks in their many sleeves (maybe
>leftover code from Warp PPC?), they won't make it. :(
GRADD...
>And while things like Stardock's Merlin Plus Pak are nice, I won't
>be happy at all to buy 3rd party software to get features that
>should be in the base package.
The W95 plus pack is *not* in the base package.
The Warp Bonus pack *is* in the base package.
> And Stardock can't do IBM's work in
>the most important places, so IBM should not delude themselves to
>thinking "Stardock can upgrade OS/2's UI".
If you do not like Stardocks products don't buy them. I think their are nice
xtra features that use the power of OS/2 OO design (try getting this kind
of stuff in W95 or NT!).
Yours,
Roberto Chaves
Cascada VR Section / Evolution 42
email: roberto...@mailbox.swipnet.se
Martin Lafaix
In article <4u7n5n$9...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
It's really up to the application to decide, but it will be possible.
Below is an extract from _OS/2 Warp Appl. Primer featuring XPG4_:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internationalization, which is often abbreviated by I18N, refers to
the process of developing programs without prior knowledge of the
following:
o Code page
o Cultural conventions
o Language
o Code conversion between code-sets
For example, the format of date depends on the culture, and user
interface elements such as messages and panels (so-called PII) depend
on the language. An internationalized program, however, does not need
to know any date format or to contain any PII written in a specific
language. In other words, an internationalized program is a
culture-neutral object code.
Localization, which is often abbreviated by L10N, is a process of
establishing information specific to each supported language, cultural
convention and code page combination. L10N adds the language and
culture specific information to the internationalized program.
At run time, an internationalized program loads appropriate L10N
information dynamically depending on a run time environment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Sakezles
:>How can you be an advanced developer if you also are confused by the OS/2 SIQ
:>problem? One more time, both OS/2 and NT have a single input queue. Both can have
:>multiple message queues for each app. OS/2 has a SYNCHRONOUS input queue while
:>NT has an ASYNCHRONOUS input queue. This small change in words may not change the
:>underlying problem but it keeps you and every other person who repeats the "single
:>input queue" mantra from looking like an idiot since, as I already stated, NT also has a
:>single input queue. Please get it right next time.
:>
:>>So there.
:>>
:>>
:>
:>So there.
:>
:>///////////////////////////////////////
:>//
:>// Randy Bagwell
:>// rbag...@hiwaay.net
:>//
:>//
Who cares what you call it? These are just words. Anyone that has used both
products knows that OS/2 crashes (a PM hang is effectively a crash if you
can't recover) ALOT more than NT does. I have been using OS/2 on five
different machines since version 2.0 and It is still superior to NT 4.0 in
many ways. However, I am getting tired of all the crashes - If they don't fix
the queue problem in Merlin I'm switching to NT. I think I have waited long
enough.
Michael Davis
Please, internationali[sz]ation :-)
--
Michael Davis <mi...@jabberwock.win-uk.net>
... finger jub...@he.net for PGP public key
http://www.he.net/~jubjub/
... all you need to know about using voice modems with OS/2
Christopher Sakezles
In message <4ugjdc$f...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> - cs...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
(Christopher Sakezles)9 Aug 1996 23:59:39 GMT writes:
:>
:>:>How can you be an advanced developer if you also are confused by the OS/2 SIQ
:>
:>
:>
Sorry, forgot to sign the last post . . .
Christopher Sakezles
Materials Science and Engineering
University of Florida
Pauli Ojala
In message <4uc8ap$g...@mn5.swip.net> - roberto...@mailbox.swipnet.se8 Aug
1996 08:26:01 GMT writes:
>
>>Warp v3 should have been a much bigger leap than it was. And because
>>it was no big upgrade, Merlin should have been a huge leap like
>>1.3->2.0, or Win 3.1->95. But because Merlin is no big upgrade, the
>>microkernel "Warp v5" should be a gigantic leap, like the imaginary
>
>As I've heard Merlin is as big leap as from v2.0 to v3 (Warp).
>One of the easies things to notice is the user interface. Then there is lot's
>under the hood like integrated OpenDOC, GRADD device drivers, integrated
>JAVA, OpenGL + more.
>Quite a 'small' leap huh?
2.0->Warp wasn't that big. There was a kernel rewrite I think,
but from an UI standpoint practically nothing happened. OpenDoc,
Java, OpenGL, Open32 are just bundles of the exact same software
that's available free for Warp. Ok, GRADD is new. The user
interface is not "new", they've just changed some graphics -
there's not much new functionality or features. URL and FTP
objects, "Become", new icon arrangement functions... those ugly
"new" notebooks are not a new feature or new functionality,
they're just a new way of drawing the notebook control.
>>Win NT 3.5->Cairo. And to save OS/2, it should be out next year.
>Why? Maybe v5 is out next year..
Because, as someone said it here, Merlin is the best
advertisement NT 4 can get. In the "connected customer" or
power user market, that is. IBM should deliver an _impressive_
Cairo-killer Warp v5 next year, before NT 5 is released.
>You are confusing Cairo with NT 4. Not the same thing.
What makes you think I'm confusing Cairo with NT 4?
>>Unless IBM has some important tricks in their many sleeves (maybe
>>leftover code from Warp PPC?), they won't make it. :(
>
>GRADD...
They should bring the rest of Warp PPC to Intel as well.
>>And while things like Stardock's Merlin Plus Pak are nice, I won't
>>be happy at all to buy 3rd party software to get features that
>>should be in the base package.
>
>The W95 plus pack is *not* in the base package.
>The Warp Bonus pack *is* in the base package.
The important features of the W95 plus pack are in the NT 4
base package.
>> And Stardock can't do IBM's work in
>>the most important places, so IBM should not delude themselves to
>>thinking "Stardock can upgrade OS/2's UI".
>If you do not like Stardocks products don't buy them. I think their are nice
>xtra features that use the power of OS/2 OO design (try getting this kind
>of stuff in W95 or NT!).
I agree that the SOM/WPS OO stuff is very powerful, and allows
for 3rd party software to integrate with the OS better than
what's possible in Windows. And I do like Stardock's products.
I just don't want to pay them for features IBM should deliver in
the base package.
ask...@ibm.net
The tragedy of the whole issue is that there is no excuse for it being allowed to
be a problem. None. Zero. Just plain ignorance on the part of those who managed
the project. IMHO the actual programmers could have fixed it. But there is the legacy
of the Model 26 card punch - which would hang if you typed just ONE character too
fast. Naturally 3270 terminals had to follow suite, and so also OS/2.......
Think about it. The hardware analog is a single dumb terminal, say a VT100, and a rotary switch
to multiple VAX hosts. Host cannot touch the switch. User can.
- Quarterdeck handled this problem better in a DOS extender than OS/2 does.
- Concurrent CP/M, DRDOS, and Novell DOS handled it in multitasking or
task-switching DOS better than OS/2 does.
- NT seems to handle it better than OS/2.
- Ray Duncan's Z-80 FORTH round-robin multitasker on a 2 MHZ Z-80 handled it better!Q
and that was before the first IBM-PC1 even shipped.
If there is only one mouse and one keyboard, and if there are potentially many apps
that need them, and if there is an "exec" that controls the system, then
1) an input buffer must exist for each app
2) the input device(s) must pass information through a separate input buffer
enroute to the targetted application buffer - so it can be watched for escape
sequences or "shed" if it cannot transfer into the application buffer.
3) the exec must always be "invokable" with zero discernable delay. if that
requires an extra key on my keyboard, or the mandatory designation of a key
for no other purpose, why-so be it!
- If an app is too busy or ill-behaved to accept characters into its input buffer
from the keyboard buffer, then DISCARD EM!, "beep" and go on!
- For the moment, who cares WHY the app is choked, awaiting characters
(computers are patient) or whether it is "not responding" and may or may not
- ever again.
- These are all issues - but they should never be issues that are allowed to wrest
system control from the exec - for any "time" period.
The Mississippi River *carries* barge traffic - it doesn't *STOP* for it.
IBM *could* fix this, but not by playing with timers.
Bill Hacker
Richard DS Miller
In <T6mByUhB...@ibm.net>, laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix) writes:
>In article <4u36ap$i...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>In message <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net> - laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix)Fri, 02
>>Aug 1996 00:17:43 +0200 writes:
>>>
>>>In article <4tnlfr$p...@idefix.eunet.fi>,
>>>pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) wrote:
>>>>Just for fun (??), I spent a minute listing the new features in
>>>>Merlin. I mean _new_ features in Merlin. I also made separate lists
>>>
>>>You've only listed "visible" changes.
>>>
>>>Merlin contains some very significant "behind the scene" changes (I18N
>>>and such come to mind).
>>
>>So what's I18N? True, I have a directory called IBMI18N (yet another
>>directory OS/2 throws right under root - arggggh!!), and it seems to
>>be some internationalization stuff. It's probably nice to have, but
>>it looks like something Windows 3.1 could do. Why is it "very
>>significant"? It looks "pretty minor".
>
>it's a very significant enhancement.
>
>>>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>>>years ago.
>>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>>elegant and offers more features?
Correction, networking intergation is there, but its INSTALLABLE, not
there sucking up resources you don't have for something you don't need.
(ie: Windows Network).
Besides, I'd rather get 40 miles to the gallion (OS/2) vs. 15 miles (NT) when I'm
traveling across the country.
>Don't misunderstand me. In another thread in this newsgroup, I
>complained about the lack of uniformity in Merlin (more precisely, the
>lack of CUA compliance).
Oh, you mean those three special apps that don't even COMPLETLY follow
the CUA specs themselves since they add extensions to them?..
I've got news for you amigo, Merlin has that too... It's again, INSTALLABLE
not just THERE (using resources). I don't CUA, heck, most of the offices
(goverment and corporate) don't use CUA, the defense dept, uses a modified
version of the CUA spec (that IBM wrote I might add).
So again, who cares.
>I'm not claiming that Merlin is perfect. I was simply answering your
>post, in which you only listed "visible" changes. I am just saying
>that Merlin contains some very important changes, even if these are
>not immediately visible.
The day a perfect OS comes out, I'll be first in line. But EVERYTHING (written
by humans is going to be imperfect)
>That's what I was trying to explain with my poor metaphor.
Your metaphor is ok, you just have to spell it out for some people.
Just my 3 cents...
------------------------------------
To love life.. One must test everything.
Richard "DS" Miller
The Worlds Imagined Network Systems, Inc.
doc...@ibm.net
rbag...@hiwaay.net
>objects, "Become", new icon arrangement functions... those ugly
What is this "Become" that you keep mentioning? Is this a new feature in Merlin?
I have not seen anyone else mention this.
>,-------------------------------------. o
>| complicated at | o
>| sea Internet | o ,------------------.
>| can The dawn | | Pauli: :ojalA |
>| you've unless | | |
>| seen be |-----| paojala@ |
>| the | | mail.hrsk.edu.fi |
>`-------------------------------------' `------------------'
>
Richard DS Miller
In <4u36ap$i...@idefix.eunet.fi>, pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) writes:
>In message <H0SAyUhB...@ibm.net> - laf...@ibm.net (Martin Lafaix)Fri, 02
>Aug 1996 00:17:43 +0200 writes:
[SNIPPED ALL THE UNNEEDED STUFF]
>>The fact that today's cars still have four wheels does not imply that
>>they are "not much of an upgrade" to the one available one hundred
>>years ago.
>
>Yep. Something that people here tend to forget. Those cars are like NT's
>and Merlin's networking, or UI. Both have those "four wheels", so why
>complain about OS/2's stupid non-integrated networking, since it works?
>Who cares that NT's networking is easier to install and use, much more
>elegant and offers more features?
This is probubly the same person that things NT 4.0 is a brand-spanking new
item.
Did he say elegant and officers more features?.. Oh brother.. What side of the
galaxy did you wake up on.. NT yes installes easier. But thats about it.
In fact, OS/2 only flaw is that it offers the sun, moon, stars.. and (This is the
real kicker, so listen closly) ACTUALLY DELIVERS what it promises.
Something that Windows (in any flavor you care to name) has NEVER
been able to do.
------------------------------------
To love life.. One must live Life!!!
WA5PUX
In <4uhqr0$b...@idefix.eunet.fi>, pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) writes:
>In message <4uc8ap$g...@mn5.swip.net> - roberto...@mailbox.swipnet.se8 Aug
>1996 08:26:01 GMT writes:
>>
>>>Warp v3 should have been a much bigger leap than it was. And because
>>>it was no big upgrade, Merlin should have been a huge leap like
>>>1.3->2.0, or Win 3.1->95. But because Merlin is no big upgrade, the
>>>microkernel "Warp v5" should be a gigantic leap, like the imaginary
>>
>>As I've heard Merlin is as big leap as from v2.0 to v3 (Warp).
>>One of the easies things to notice is the user interface. Then there is lot's
>>under the hood like integrated OpenDOC, GRADD device drivers, integrated
>>JAVA, OpenGL + more.
>>Quite a 'small' leap huh?
>
>2.0->Warp wasn't that big. There was a kernel rewrite I think,
>but from an UI standpoint practically nothing happened. OpenDoc,
>Java, OpenGL, Open32 are just bundles of the exact same software
>that's available free for Warp. Ok, GRADD is new. The user
>interface is not "new", they've just changed some graphics -
>there's not much new functionality or features. URL and FTP
>| complicated at | o
>| sea Internet | o ,------------------.
>| can The dawn | | Pauli: :ojalA |
>| you've unless | | |
>| seen be |-----| paojala@ |
>| the | | mail.hrsk.edu.fi |
>`-------------------------------------' `------------------'
than 6 formats and reloads, still no winos2 full load. Have a 100mhz pentium and
48 mb of memory. Under "Selective Install" It will lockup when it looks at my
Sony monitor! ATI Mach 64 pci card.
Thank God I have bootmgr and good ole Warp installed!
V.J. Team os/2
rrs...@ibm.net
>And while things like Stardock's Merlin Plus Pak are nice, I won't
>be happy at all to buy 3rd party software to get features that
>should be in the base package. And Stardock can't do IBM's work in
>the most important places, so IBM should not delude themselves to
>thinking "Stardock can upgrade OS/2's UI".
Pauli,
Without getting into a discussion of what IBM should or should not include
in the Merlin package, I've been amazed by the number of people who bought
MSWin95, then went out and bought the MSWin95 "Plus Pack" without much
complaint. The main difference there is that one vendor gets all the
money, instead of it being spread around a bit. (;-)
We now return you to the ongoing discussion...
Frank McKenney / OS/2 Advisor (OS2BBS)
McKenney Associates / Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Internet: rrs...@ibm.net / TalkLink: WZ01123
Richard DS Miller
>And while things like Stardock's Merlin Plus Pak are nice, I won't
>be happy at all to buy 3rd party software to get features that
>should be in the base package. And Stardock can't do IBM's work in
>the most important places, so IBM should not delude themselves to
>thinking "Stardock can upgrade OS/2's UI".
I think IBM should tighten things up.. but they are on the right track..
You build in a lot of things.. THEN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPERS.
They can spread themselves out making warp the "killer" OS. Adding all the
bells and whistles to it.. but then where would that leave companies like
stardock who write code to tack into the core.
Make the UI cool.. build in some bells and whisltes.. but leave room for other
companies to work. (Hey, it's worked for MS and Novell)..
------------------------------------
To love life.. One must type: DELTREE C:\WINDOWS
Alistair Young
In <4uiq58$5...@parlor.hiwaay.net>, rbag...@HiWAAY.net writes:
>In <4uhqr0$b...@idefix.eunet.fi>, pao...@mail.hrsk.edu.fi (Pauli Ojala) writes:
>
>>objects, "Become", new icon arrangement functions... those ugly
>
>I have not seen anyone else mention this.
It's a new page in the settings notebooks for data-file objects, which
allows you to change the actual class of the object - from a normal data
file to an HTML file, or a sound file, etc, or vice versa.
Alistair
--
Arkane Systems Sysimperator, dominus regis deusque machinarum.
e-mail: ava...@arkane.demon.co.uk Phone: +44 (1833) 638233 (10am-9pm GMT)
sl...@bofh.net WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
The opinions above ARE my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]
"I prefer to think of 'fax' as a shortening of 'fac simile sed longe', a Latin
command meaning, 'make it the same, only far away.'"
- Ed Hopkins
cr...@ibm.net
[snip]
>2.0->Warp wasn't that big. There was a kernel rewrite I think,
>but from an UI standpoint practically nothing happened. OpenDoc,
>Java, OpenGL, Open32 are just bundles of the exact same software
>that's available free for Warp. Ok, GRADD is new. The user
>interface is not "new", they've just changed some graphics -
>there's not much new functionality or features. URL and FTP
>objects, "Become", new icon arrangement functions... those ugly
>"new" notebooks are not a new feature or new functionality,
>they're just a new way of drawing the notebook control.
So, basically a lot of new stuff bundled, a bunch of recoding of
the PM drawing apps. Seems like a bit of work to me, but I don't
think I would be calling this OS/2 4.0.
However, IBM might think about it, since a buying public is not
likely to buy OS/2 3.1 when they could get NT 4.0. I honestly
believe that plenty of buyers will look at the version level itself
to tell them which is more advanced technology. Warp 5 might be a
bigger seller than OS/2 3.1 just because of the name. Of course,
MicroSoft believed this when NT was announced in the first place,
and released it as 3.1 to avoid losing the "ignorant buyer" sale.
>Because, as someone said it here, Merlin is the best
>advertisement NT 4 can get. In the "connected customer" or
I sure disagree with that.
>power user market, that is. IBM should deliver an _impressive_
>Cairo-killer Warp v5 next year, before NT 5 is released.
But I do believe that IBM should do this. Which is why I don't think
they should spend too much time with Merlin. First, delays in Merlin
will make the press, never a good thing. Second, pushing back
Merlin too far puts it's release date to close to the Cairo killer
release date. Third, there are only so many programmers available
for the job, if they spend too much time with Merlin, that is less
time available for working on the next major release.
>They should bring the rest of Warp PPC to Intel as well.
Likewise, they should bring PPC version up to date as well. Again, though
that depends on how many man hours.
>| can The dawn | | Pauli: :ojalA |
Chris Rehm | "I'm pink, therefore I'm spam."
cr...@ibm.net |
Team OS/2 | "Burn him."
From my non-Merlin desktop | - Chronicles of a Net Lord
Colin Hildinger
In message <4ugjdc$f...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> - cs...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
(Christopher Sakezles)9 Aug 1996 23:59:39 GMT writes:
:>
:>:>How can you be an advanced developer if you also are confused by the OS/2 SIQ
:>:>problem? One more time, both OS/2 and NT have a single input queue. Both can have
:>:>multiple message queues for each app. OS/2 has a SYNCHRONOUS input queue while
:>:>NT has an ASYNCHRONOUS input queue. This small change in words may not change the
:>:>underlying problem but it keeps you and every other person who repeats the "single
:>:>input queue" mantra from looking like an idiot since, as I already stated, NT also has a
:>:>single input queue. Please get it right next time.
:>:>
:>:>>So there.
:>:>>
:>:>>
:>:>
:>:>So there.
:>:>
:>Who cares what you call it? These are just words. Anyone that has used both
:>products knows that OS/2 crashes (a PM hang is effectively a crash if you
:>can't recover) ALOT more than NT does. I have been using OS/2 on five
:>different machines since version 2.0 and It is still superior to NT 4.0 in
:>many ways. However, I am getting tired of all the crashes - If they don't fix
:>the queue problem in Merlin I'm switching to NT. I think I have waited long
:>enough.
:>
I think that his point is that if the guys going to call us a bunch
"OS/2-weenies," he should at least get his info right. The problem is that
OS/2's input queue is synchronous. I could get out of almost all queue hangs
with no data loss using Watchcat until I install OD 1.0, now I can only kill
about 90% of my queue hangs (not those involving Control Center). Hopefully
Process Commander will make the latter the case once again. For Glenn: try
downloading Watchcat. If you get a queue hang, kill the program that's hung
(just like NT, look at what's hogging the CPU). I really hope this helps you,
because it probably would have kept you from losing the data you mentioned
losing. FYI - the guy that wrote Watchcat is working for Stardock on Process
Commander.
Warp 9.99 - approaching maximum theoretical Warp!
Colin L. Hildinger
Not an "OS/2 Weenie" like Glenn (at least I know about Watchcat) ;-)