Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
bb...@netonecom.net
>Subject: Re: Last version of OS/2?
>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 03:41:35 GMT
>Message-ID: <4b036v$q...@moreinfo.com>
>References: <4aits1$a...@steel.interlog.com> <DJIts...@news.hawaii.edu> <4api0s$6...@mailhub.hcl.com> <4apngt$d...@news.microsoft.com> <4at9ts$e...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>
>dan...@ix.netcom.com (Dan Davis) wrote:
>
>>I can't help but take some shots at this moron:
>
>IF he is the moron, then why are you the one who's carrying on with
>that same old "I'm going to hold my breath 'till the whole world
>admits my OS is the BEST" crap?
>
>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped. As for my copy,
>I spent a weekend trying to convince it that I had TWO drives, a
>CDROM, and a modem. Then I spent months waiting on drivers that the
>manufacturers had no interest in producing, then I said fuck it and
>took the damn thing off. I mean, come on, a system whose primary
>selling point is "we can run the competition's software (just not as
>fast)"?
>
Calling others Moron makes you a Moron. It is not because you love your
Windows 95 so much that OS/2 is no good.
As far as OS/2 software is concerned, I find plenty of it and of great quality.
You must have been indisposed when you tried (I wonder) to install it.
I guess I was luckier than you when I had problems I called IBM and there
was always a very friendly person to help me out. I don't recall ever having that
kind of support from Microsoft. So give me a break about all those ridiculous
statements about your beliefs about what is or is not available for OS/2.
I've used OS/2 for a couple of years and am not about to drop, I'm sure most
OS/2 users feel the same.
If you find it so bad leave this column alone.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
>>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
>>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped.
???
Exactly how much Win3.1 software was there before Win3.1 shipped?
OS/2 is far from dead -- unless you're a network administrator or
otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
At work, *none* of our computers providing any shared resource rely on
DOS, Win3.x, or Win95. We do rely on OS/2 for an essential shared
resource.
Brian Lewis
>bb...@netonecom.net wrote:
>>>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
>>>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
>>>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped.
>???
>Exactly how much Win3.1 software was there before Win3.1 shipped?
>OS/2 is far from dead -- unless you're a network administrator or
>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
PC market. Not earth.
>At work, *none* of our computers providing any shared resource rely on
>DOS, Win3.x, or Win95. We do rely on OS/2 for an essential shared
>resource.
Not sure at all what this statement means but I'm sure this "shared
resource" is essential for you.
Brian Lewis
Mark Nixon
br...@pop.acsb.k12.nf.ca (Brian Lewis) wrote:
>wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>
>>OS/2 is far from dead -- unless you're a network administrator or
>>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
>>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
>
>What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
>PC market. Not earth.
I don't know what computers they have on Betalgeuse, but here on earth
we sure as hell have cash machines, cash registers etc. Think about it.
>
>Brian Lewis
--
Mark Nixon
----
Un montrealais living in Denmark
Internet: man...@ibm.net
Fidonet :2:234/9...@fidonet.org
Bob Brody
>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped.
I don't think it was dead before it shipped, it had good 3rd-party
software support and commitments. But that was then and this is now.
Many 3rd-party software books were being written, under publisher's
contract no less, but publishers ultimately chose not to publish. It
does seem to me to be moribund. The continuing stream of announcements
from major, and minor, software developers that they're discontinuing
further OS/2 development doesn't hold much hope for its future. I
imagine it will remain an active OS for some time to come but
mainstream software development will continue to dwindle. I can't
predict the future though barring the unforeseen, I believe Windows has
won the marketing war (for this decade, at least).
Bob
Robert Aboud
wis) writes:
:>
:>wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
:>
:>>bb...@netonecom.net wrote:
:>
:>>>>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
:>>>>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
:>>>>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped.
:>>???
:>
:>>Exactly how much Win3.1 software was there before Win3.1 shipped?
Quite a bit actually. Ever hear of Windows 3.0? How about Windows 2.x or
even 1.x. Yes they did exist. Way back in 87 I had a game called Balance of
Power that required Windows 1.0. It took 10 minutes to boot of off floppy
(8 MHz XT w/640k RAM and 2 360k diskette drives) and 2 minutes for me to lose
the game and have to reload WIN 1.0.
Windows 2.x. 2 flavors. Windows 286, and Windows 386. Looked like it was
designed and written with a crayon and I'm not joking.
Windows 3.0. I bought it the first week it was released in January 90. It
lasted all of a Week. I spent over 3 hours on the phone with MS tech support
trying to get a 14.4k USR HST modem to work with it. After that three hours
the MS tech said it would have to call back after he found out why it
wouldn't work. I'm still waiting for the phone call. BTW, the problem was
that WIN 3.0 could not support modem speeds above 9600bps.
Yes MS Windows was alive before WIN 3.1 and there were more then a few
applications. In fact way back when, PC Mag had published alist of over 300
Windows applications available for WINDOWS 3.0 when WIN 3.1 was released.
<---------------------- Brag Sheet --------------------------------->
Robert Aboud Member Team OS/2 Since 1991
OS/2 BESTeam member OS/2 Champions Member
A+ Certified Technician
Gaven Miller
> Windows 3.0. I bought it the first week it was released in January 90. It
Wasn't Widows 3.0 released in May of 1990? (The 22nd, I believe)
Just curious.
--
Quote For The Month: "I'd horse-whip you if I had a horse"
Victor Healey
Kevin Burton | kbu...@umbc.edu wrote the following obsevatioon
in our NT beta group...
NT 4.0 and the
nashville version of win 95 are supposed to include direct X drivers
for windows NT/95 that will allow games and utilities to think that
they
have direct access to the hardware without bringing down the whole
system in the process........
(Warning comentary to follow)
The thing that makes me mad about MS is not that they make bad
operating
systems. In fact it is just the opposite, they make good operating
systems. What I am pissed about is that fact that they have _no_
competition except IBM and OS/2.
Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine. There is also pitifull driver
support and hardly any apps.
Kevin Burton
On 1 Jan 1996 12:53:02 -0700, Bob Brody <br...@primenet.com> wrote:
>bb...@netonecom.net wrote:
>
>>I am not all that thrilled about it (just because I drive a ford,
>>don't mean I want them to stop making chevys) but OS2 has such little
>>industry support, it was dead before it ever shipped.
>
>I don't think it was dead before it shipped, it had good 3rd-party
>software support and commitments. But that was then and this is now.
>Many 3rd-party software books were being written, under publisher's
>contract no less, but publishers ultimately chose not to publish. It
>does seem to me to be moribund. The continuing stream of announcements
>from major, and minor, software developers that they're discontinuing
>further OS/2 development doesn't hold much hope for its future. I
>imagine it will remain an active OS for some time to come but
>mainstream software development will continue to dwindle. I can't
>predict the future though barring the unforeseen, I believe Windows has
>won the marketing war (for this decade, at least).
>
>Bob
Do you know someone who is WARPED?
WARP:
1. to distort or cause to distort so as to lose truth or objectivity.
2. a mental twist, bias or quirk.
3. to distort a person's judgement or principels. - Oxford American Dictionary
...........................................................................
People usually get what's coming to them... unless it was mailed.
Ralph Goers
rites:
:>
:>Here are reasons 89-94 to stop wasting time worrying about OS/2.
:> Kevin Burton | kbu...@umbc.edu wrote the following obsevatioon
:>in our NT beta group...
:>NT 4.0 and the
:>nashville version of win 95 are supposed to include direct X drivers
:>for windows NT/95 that will allow games and utilities to think that
:>they
:>have direct access to the hardware without bringing down the whole
:>system in the process........
:>
:>(Warning comentary to follow)
:>The thing that makes me mad about MS is not that they make bad
:>operating
:>systems. In fact it is just the opposite, they make good operating
:>systems. What I am pissed about is that fact that they have _no_
:>competition except IBM and OS/2.
:>
:>Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
:>thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
:>since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine. There is also pitifull driver
:>support and hardly any apps.
:>
:>Kevin Burton
As usual Victor it is probably best to simply ignore your posts since they
are always filled with the same nonsense. BTW - who the hell is Kevin Burton?
Why should I care what he thinks? What makes him such an expert? And, why
are you posting this here and not him? Don't answer. I really don't want to
know.
Nick Marc
-> Subject: Re: Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
->
Kevin and Vic: here's the real reason why you think OS/2 sux:
Windows NT: 600,000 copies sold todate
OS/2 Warp: 12,000,000 sold todate and growing!
Take your FUD back to alt.os.os.winders with the rest of you
CLUBWIN idiots belong. We don't need your #$!@& here.
Nick Marc
Charles Crockett
->
-> (Victor Healey, President of ClubWIN) rites:
-> :>
-> :>Here are reasons 89-94 to stop wasting time worrying about OS/2.
Reason 89: It works better than any desktop operting system on
the market today.
Reason 90: It doesn't shut down my Word Processing print job when
I want to play a DOS game or run a DOS program.
Reason 91: It doesn't allow some CLUBWIN fan to reformat my hard
drive by simply bypassing the bootup with F5 to reveal
a DOS prompt (re: format c: destroys Win95 at this point).
Reason 92: You don't need $500 worth of additional RAM, nor $1,000
for a new CPU for a lessor performance as you get with
Win95.
Reason 93: You have over 4,000 native apps to run and only 100 for
Win95 (where are the 1,000 promised within 90 days of
Win95's release...hummm...?)
Reason 94: It won't trash your boot sector destroying your entire
system and all your Windows 3.x applications.
But let's continues, shall we?
Reason 95: You don't have to start every program using a start
button.
Reason 96: You don't lose your "shortcuts" when you crash.
Reason 97: You can boot up in 90 seconds and not five minutes.
Reason 98: "Hello, Microsoft Support"
: "I have a problem with..."
: "Please quote your credit card number after the beep"
: "thank you for calling long distance, support will
be with you in 30 minutes...."
Reason 99: You get a real operating system, not a snazzy DOS GUI
over MSDOS7
Reason100: Your not limited to e-mail at 14.4k even though the
Win95 box says you "get FULL internet access on
today's high speed modems (this line is blacked out
on Win95 boxes overseas or face total ban by Europe
for false advertising).
Reason 101: You don't have to wait to be allowed shut your computer off.
Reason 102: You get a REAL 32-bit operating system as opposed to MSDOS7.
Reason 103: Your Win3.x programs run faster as opposed to crawling
under Win95 and you can run 255 at once, not 2.
Reason 104: Native OS/2 apps are written for a real architecture and
not the psuedo hacked architecture of Win95.
Reason 105: Mission critical apps won't fail as they do under Win95.
Reason 106: You don't lose your long file names when you crash.
Reason 107: Prettier more feature laden Interface that can be
changed to anything you want unlike Win95.
Reason 108: You don't boot to MSDOS7 when someone sticks a win.bat
file in your root directory as with Win95.
Reason 109: You don't deafult to MSN, with it's only feature: email.
Reason 110: You can run OS/2, and DOS (and Windows 3.x) programs all
at one time but you can't with Win95. In fact, you can
run NO OS/2 apps which have more features, more stability.
How's that? I could continue as I've garnered 1001 reasons for
running OS/2 Warp rather than Windows 95. If you like, I could
post the rest. Where do they all come from? My roommate has
Win95 and I have Warp. These are all the problems he continues
to have after investing over $5,000 to run Windows 95. Me? I
paid $79 for Warp!
Charles Crockett
Driving the Rolls Royce of Operating Systems: OS/2 WARP!
Matt McLeod
>>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
>>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
>
>What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
>PC market. Not earth.
Learn to read, dimwit.
The previous poster said "outside your house". If you use
ATMs, then you are probably using an OS/2-based system. Same
goes for airline bookings, banking, and so on.
>>At work, *none* of our computers providing any shared resource rely on
>>DOS, Win3.x, or Win95. We do rely on OS/2 for an essential shared
>>resource.
>
>Not sure at all what this statement means but I'm sure this "shared
>resource" is essential for you.
What he means, idiot, is that they don't put shared filesystems,
printers, modems, etc on DOS or Windows 3.x/95 machines. A
very sensible policy (stick 'em all on NT, NetWare, OS/2 or
Un*x machines - at least you can be fairly sure they'll
be available when you need them)
Is it only my imagination, or are more and more Windows advocates
lacking in basic comprehension skills?
Matt
Daniel Dillman
>wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>Exactly how much Win3.1 software was there before Win3.1 shipped?
>OS/2 is far from dead -- unless you're a network administrator or
>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
>What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
>PC market. Not earth.
Note he did not say anything about the home market. He said "6 of the last 10
computers you used OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE were running" [OS/2].
And he may well be right. Do you use the ATM machines? They're almost all
running OS/2. Stop for chicken with the Colonel? KFC's POS system runs on
OS/2. Ride the train? ALL of the US railroads are in process of moving to
OS/2-based software. Call a cop? Almost all of the squad car computers run
OS/2. Call 911? Yup, they use OS/2 as well. And I'm sure he had many others
in mind.
Dan
---
* MR/2 2.25 NR *
Glenn Allen
-> Subject: Re: Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
->
-> (Victor Healey) writes:
-> :>
I think alt.os.os2.misc needs a security guard to escort these
WinLoonies back to alt.os.msdos.windows and ClubWIN. From their
posts they are either being paid by Microsoft or are self-appointed
officers of the Loonie Windows Club.
Glenn Allen
Jeremy Mathers
Matt McLeod <ma...@toaster.hna.com.au> wrote:
...
>Is it only my imagination, or are more and more Windows advocates
>lacking in basic comprehension skills?
Well, I think it is fair to say that WinAdvocates are generally not
strong in net skills (as that term is generally understood). They are
generally newcomers to the net (and likely to computers in general).
That doesn't mean that they are stupid, of course.
It does seem, however, based on the stuff I've been reading in the OS/2
groups lately, that these days it is the WinAdvocates who are the most
paranoid. As an objective question, let me ask this: If I happened to
drop in on the various Win groups (esp the advocacy groups), would I see
the same kind of "storm trooper" activity (by, say, Team OS/2'ers) that
we've come to expect in the OS/2 groups from loonies like Dedcat?
My answer is "I doubt it" and I think it shows who's really paranoid now.
(Sung to the tune of "Who's Sorry Now?)
************************************************************************
"At Tower Books in Bellevue, Helen Custer's _Inside_Windows_NT_ is
outselling Madonna's _Sex_ by 125 to 109."
-- Seattle Times, Jan 21, 1993
- py...@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
Mike J. Oconnor
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.windows95,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.p
c.hardware.m
Subject: Re: Last version of OS/2?
Expires:
References: <4aits1$a...@steel.interlog.com> <4b9hd8$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4ba19d$e...@news.microsoft.com> <30ec7aa1.14916845@newsvr>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA
Keywords:
Cc:
Mike J. Oconnor
Don't forget Pizza Hut (some of the newer POS systems going into the Huts
are more than likely OS/2 based. I work part time for them, and their
Info systems are still mostly using AT&T 6386 WGS's in the stores.)
Joe Taylor
->
-> Kevin Burton | kbu...@umbc.edu wrote the following obsevatioon
Although I believe everyone has the right to tag a subject line
with an eye catching subject, I also believe negative subject
lines as this have no real place in a civilized advocacy group.
Mr. Burton would garner more interest and more serious responses
had he titled this thread with less negative emphasis.
- -
- o o - Joseph E. Taylor
- ! -
^ ^ ^^^
Markus Michels
> claims from over-eager supporters on both sides of the aisles.
I agree to a hundred percent!!! Let's talk about facts, discuss
problems...
I am still a windows user (even though I like OS/2 as well) because I
had loads of problems getting it go and it was the better system FOR MY
PURPOSE at that time. But times can change and I am watching out for hot
new facts about OS/2.
I would like to know if there are already Merlin users (beta) outside
who could talk a bit about the system (UI, stability, ease of
INSTALLATION -one of the biggest problems of warp, I reckon-, driver
support, Win32 support (there are lots of rumours about that)).
Would be great...
Markus
David LeBlanc
> As an objective question, let me ask this: If I happened to
> drop in on the various Win groups (esp the advocacy groups), would I see
> the same kind of "storm trooper" activity (by, say, Team OS/2'ers) that
> we've come to expect in the OS/2 groups from loonies like Dedcat?
> My answer is "I doubt it" and I think it shows who's really paranoid now.
I suggest you read the newsgroup before coming to a conclusion. After watching
this circus for the last 2 years, I can tell you that loonies are not drawn to
any given OS. The Windows newsgroups are just as likely to be infested with
rabid OS/2 "storm troopers" telling them they are all idiots, etc. I don't know
how many times I've seen people tell me NT is dead - does that ring a bell?
The same tactics are often used as well - the real bozos will post only into the
opposing group, since they are really only flamebaiting. What we're dealing with
is human nature - people on either side of the fence are just about as likely to
be nice and reasonable or juvenile and flamebaiting.
--
David LeBlanc dleb...@mindspring.com
<sig under construction>
Happily running NT and Linux
Dann Lunsford
>
>Is it only my imagination, or are more and more Windows advocates
>lacking in basic comprehension skills?
>
>
Goes with the territory, I'd say..
*************************************************************************
* Dann Lunsford * The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil *
* da...@greycat.com * is that men of good will do nothing. -- Cicero *
*************************************************************************
David Ehrens
Matt McLeod <ma...@toaster.hna.com.au> wrote:
..
>Learn to read, dimwit.
>
>The previous poster said "outside your house". If you use
>ATMs, then you are probably using an OS/2-based system. Same
>goes for airline bookings, banking, and so on.
Besides the hefty use of words like dimwit and idiot, this is simply wrong. It
is certainly true that *some* ATM's and airline systems use OS/2, but not
even anywhere near *most*. There are still a number of the older ATM's out
there which are actually programmed in IBM [mainframe] assembler macros. There
are some (Diebold and NCR) which actually use embedded DOS. Then, on the back
end, many banks have these suckers plugged into their mainframes, either an
IBM 37X5 controller, or non-stop machines like Stratus or Tandems, which act
as front-ends to the banks' "system of record." Airline systems are similar
in that they are high-availability, high transactions/sec. systems. There's
no doubt that on some of the "true blue" systems you may find OS/2, but OS/2
doesn't usually play a critical role... at least to the degree that one could
predict that one is "probably using an OS/2-based system."
Don't get me wrong: I like OS/2, but I'm getting tired of reading inflated
claims from over-eager supporters on both sides of the aisles.
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Ehrens | email: da...@pencilnet.com |
| Pencil/NET, Inc. | phone: (508) 999-5259 |
| 1750 Purchase Street | fax: (508) 999-0107 |
| New Bedford, MA 02740 | WWW: http://www.pencilnet.com |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
Hank Baumer
beta, but wouldn't that be odd for IBM to change the way they have done
OS/2 betas for so long??
Win32 support has already been indicated in a certain way: You can
port your win32 app to OS/2 and many of the API's will map due to the addition
of new API's in OS/2. IBM has indicated that if the demand is great enough they
could add the support but that the demand has not been there. hb
In <30EE17...@flintheart.ead.auckland.ac.nz>, Markus Michels <mmic...@flintheart.ead.auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>> Don't get me wrong: I like OS/2, but I'm getting tired of reading inflated
>> claims from over-eager supporters on both sides of the aisles.
>
>
>I agree to a hundred percent!!! Let's talk about facts, discuss
>problems...
>
>I am still a windows user (even though I like OS/2 as well) because I
>had loads of problems getting it go and it was the better system FOR MY
>PURPOSE at that time. But times can change and I am watching out for hot
>new facts about OS/2.
>
>I would like to know if there are already Merlin users (beta) outside
>who could talk a bit about the system (UI, stability, ease of
>INSTALLATION -one of the biggest problems of warp, I reckon-, driver
>support, Win32 support (there are lots of rumours about that)).
>
>Would be great...
>
>Markus
ษà¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸›
บ Hank Baumer บ
บ hba...@ix.netcom.com บ
บ Senior Analyst บ
บ Las Colinas, Tx Team OS/2 บ
ศà¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸à¸œ
Nick Marc
-> Subject: Re: Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
->
-> Matt McLeod <ma...@toaster.hna.com.au> wrote:
-> ..
-> >Learn to read, dimwit.
-> >
-> >The previous poster said "outside your house". If you use
-> >ATMs, then you are probably using an OS/2-based system. Same
-> >goes for airline bookings, banking, and so on.
->
-> Besides the hefty use of words like dimwit and idiot, this is simply
-> is certainly true that *some* ATM's and airline systems use OS/2, but
No David, you are wrong. OS/2 runs almost every computer sitting
inside a police car, runs almost every train that sits atop railroad
tracks in America, runs BlockBuster's Video on Demand computer systems
throughout America, runs the entire Apollo airlines terminal system,
runs just about every NCR cash register in America, is used exclusively
in more Government offices than any other operating system, including
your beloved Windows. I know because we are an investment firm that
sells and trades stock in all of the items noted above. And David, you
don't want me to list all the places OS/2 is used outside the US,
especially when the European community has nearly banned Windows 95
because of it's false claims and advertising, do you? And what
about the Asian and Chinese communities who's governments have embraced
OS/2 and completely ignored Windows 95 and Windows NT? And Japan,
Australia, Guam, Mariposa Islands, Canada, Russia, Isreal where OS/2 and
the IBM name is recognized quicker than any other computer operating
system or company for it's quality products?
Nick Marc, Office Manager
Chauvet & Company
Daniel Dillman
Hey Vic, haven't given up FUDding for the new year? Too bad...
>The thing that makes me mad about MS is not that they make bad
>operating systems. In fact it is just the opposite, they make good operating
systems. What I am pissed about is that fact that they have _no_
>competition except IBM and OS/2.
Yeah, that's problematic, isn't it? Fortunately, OS/2 is giving BOTH of
Microsoft's OSes a run for their money.
>Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
Weak. I bet you use Win95. Credibility = 0.
>thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
>since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine.
Absolutely WRONG. OS/2 uses whatever RAM YOU set for each VDM. Want a 200k
VDM with no EMS or XMS? Easy, just set the DOS Settings for that VDM. Come
on, Vic, if you're going to FUD us, at least do it with things that even the
average user can't easily refute.
>There is also pitifull driver support and hardly any apps.
Again, WRONG. There are more native 32-bit OS/2 apps than there are native
32-bit Win95 apps. And OS/2 users can use the vast majority of Win3.1
software. Can WinX users use 32-bit OS/2 software? No.
Vic, you'll never learn, will you?
Darren Tuetken
>The previous poster said "outside your house". If you use
>ATMs, then you are probably using an OS/2-based system. Same
>goes for airline bookings, banking, and so on.
> [snip] they don't put shared filesystems,
>printers, modems, etc on DOS or Windows 3.x/95 machines.
My local Pacific Bell office (not a small company) uses Win (either
3.? or WFWG). I'll admit I was surprised...
>Is it only my imagination, or are more and more Windows advocates
>lacking in basic comprehension skills?
It's not so much your imagination as it is your prejudice.
Darren
e...@cybergate.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
"You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained."
Hoodoznik
David "The Great One" Digger"
Tom Bulum
>Here are reasons 89-94 to stop wasting time worrying about OS/2.
> Kevin Burton | kbu...@umbc.edu wrote the following obsevatioon
>in our NT beta group...
>NT 4.0 and the
>nashville version of win 95 are supposed to include direct X drivers
>for windows NT/95 that will allow games and utilities to think that
>they
>have direct access to the hardware without bringing down the whole
>system in the process........
>(Warning comentary to follow)
>The thing that makes me mad about MS is not that they make bad
>operating
>systems. In fact it is just the opposite, they make good operating
>systems. What I am pissed about is that fact that they have _no_
>competition except IBM and OS/2.
>Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
>thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
>since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine. There is also pitifull driver
>support and hardly any apps.
>Kevin Burton
I don't know where you get this idea that OS/2 takes 2 Megs per
virtual machine? I can set it for many megs of memory but it will only
use what's been requested.
Tom Bulum (tom....@accc.gov.au)
---
Nothing I have written here is in any way, shape, or form the policy or opinion of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and should not be represented as such when quoted or referred to here or in any other forum or in any publication.
jbr...@aros.net
>>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
>>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
>What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
>PC market. Not earth.
>
Read, read, read!! He said computers, not PC's. You should understand that
the number of computers in the world far outnumber the amount of
desktop PC's. :) OS/2 runs more computers on the planet earth than
windows ever will.
John
Joe Epperson
60% of computers use OS/2
Wanna buy a bridge???????
WOW
Joe
Dan Casey
>
> WHAT
> 60% of computers use OS/2
> Wanna buy a bridge???????
> WOW
> Joe
> On 10 Jan 1996 01:08:47 GMT, jbr...@aros.net wrote:
OS/2 computer!
<just ONE example>
Jeremy Mathers
Nik Simpson <ndsi...@ingr.com> babbled:
>Major non-sequitur alert. The implication of these examples is that OS/2 is
>controlling your car or the local digital telephone switch, in fact it does
>neither and would not be suitable for either.
I take it English is not your first language, since no such
implication was made. He never made the claim that these products were
using OS/2, but rather the point is simply that there are a lot of other
systems/platforms that people, all people, use on a day to day basis other
than the ubiquitous Windoze. OS/2 is merely one of them.
>>It is a FACT that the most common computer operating system in
>>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
>
> So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
Not only that, but we all benefit from police coverage. Point made again.
(I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this. I really did...)
************************************************************************
A: Northern Exposure and Microsoft Windows.
Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
John Reinhold
Distribution:
Joe Epperson (jepp...@haverford.edu) wrote:
> WHAT
> 60% of computers use OS/2
> Wanna buy a bridge???????
> WOW
> Joe
> On 10 Jan 1996 01:08:47 GMT, jbr...@aros.net wrote:
computers is not just what you are thinking of as computers...
Did you know that any time you drive a car made after 1980 you
are using a computer that probably does not run windows?
Any ATM does not use windows, but OS/2 instead...
How about the phone company? Computers re-direct all the lines
and contrall all the packets and switches..
It is a FACT that the most common computer operating system in
the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
knows about, has over 10 million users. OS/2 is far from
dead. OS/2 IS NOT Win95. It never will be! If you don't want
or plan to use OS/2, too bad. OS/2 does things that win does
not and vice versa...
It all depends on what you use your computer for..
The REAL issue here is not windows, but Microsoft.
Microsoft is the only problem with win95. Microsoft
insists that users are stupid, they insist that we all
are sheep. In a large part they are correct, but those
of us who know any better do not buy an OS just because Microsoft
sez so. Anyone with a brain will do research about what
is best for their use.
I advised my sister to stick with DOS/Win3.x
They both do what she needs/wants and she can do it with her 486sx
and 4megs of RAM.
I prefer OS/2 because I use its features... AND OS/2 gets
better every day. Merlin promises to be real nice! (OS/2 4.0)
Also, there are now companies writing software for OS/2 which
is actually GOOD on OS/2!
OS/2 is everywhere... just open your eyes and notice...
Ever gone to Kinko's? Kinko's uses OS/2 internally.
> >>>OS/2 is far from dead -- unless you're a network administrator or
> >>>otherwise frequently move from one workstation to another, probably 6
> >>>of the last 10 computers you used outside your house were running it.
> >> ^^^^^^^^
> >>What planet are you from where OS/2 has a 60% market share of the home
> >>PC market. Not earth.
> >>
> >
> >Read, read, read!! He said computers, not PC's. You should understand that
> >the number of computers in the world far outnumber the amount of
> >desktop PC's. :) OS/2 runs more computers on the planet earth than
> >windows ever will.
> >
> >John
--
----------------------------<*>----------------------------
TEAM OS/2
At WARP speed, Windows should not be open.
OAKLAND RAIDERS REAL MEN WEAR BLACK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<:>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rein...@mnw.net Montgomery, Alabama USA
rein...@math.enmu.edu Portales, New Mexico USA
No Constitution, No Freedom. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
(NOT the Bill of Gates!)
Nik Simpson
John Reinhold <rein...@math.enmu.edu> wrote:
>
>Did you know that any time you drive a car made after 1980 you
>are using a computer that probably does not run windows?
>Any ATM does not use windows, but OS/2 instead...
>How about the phone company? Computers re-direct all the lines
>and contrall all the packets and switches..
>
Major non-sequitur alert. The implication of these examples is that OS/2 is
controlling your car or the local digital telephone switch, in fact it does
neither and would not be suitable for either.
>It is a FACT that the most common computer operating system in
>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
--
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Nik Simpson Mail : ndsi...@ingr.com |
| Intergraph Computer Systems |
|--------------------------------------------------|
jbr...@aros.net
Oh, stop it! You're making us OS/2 users blush <g>
Thanks for the backup to what I have learned in business over the years.
Windows is popular in the US and that is about it. But what does that say
about the ability of the US PC user to make an intelligent choice?
Guess I should leave it alone.
John
JBlessing
>Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>
--
So that's why my damn ATM is always down when I need it. I heard MS was
investigating the Win95 ATM market but it was decided that the average
person wouldn't wait 20 minutes for their cash.
J Blessing L1 Master Tech
Martinus Tels
comparing OS's. Especially not if those threads contain sexual acts to
describe the qualities of one or more of the OS's being compared. So let's
just let this thread die, shall we?
Thank you.
--
* Ben Tels | Let op: Ben Tels is NIET Martinus Tels! *
* proudly part | Where Star Trek and DiscWorld meet, *
* of the | There you shall find me. *
* telsmb entity | Attention: Ben Tels is NOT Martinus Tels *
Jeremy Mathers
Paul J.W. de Wit <ksi...@radiomail.nl> wrote:
...
>There is only one thing I can say: FUCK YOU OS/NO
>If my boss tells me to use OS/2, I will certain look for another job!
Shhhhhh. He may be reading this newsgroup. Somehow, I see OS/2 in your
future...
************************************************************************
I'm Lester Pate!
Paul J.W. de Wit
says...
is
>>controlling your car or the local digital telephone switch, in fact it
does
>>neither and would not be suitable for either.
>
>implication was made. He never made the claim that these products were
>using OS/2, but rather the point is simply that there are a lot of other
>systems/platforms that people, all people, use on a day to day basis
other
>than the ubiquitous Windoze. OS/2 is merely one of them.
>
>>>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
>>
>> So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
>
>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>
again.
>
>(I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this. I really did...)
>
>************************************************************************
>A: Northern Exposure and Microsoft Windows.
>
>Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
>
> hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
>************************************************************************
>rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
TheRoge
>Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>Not only that, but we all benefit from police coverage. Point made again.
OK, how about everyone who reads a text that was written on MS Word is
a Windows user? Fits perfectly in you analogy. How many people have
read texts that were originally written in Word? About everyone? Top
that, Warp...
Man, _you_ are even using Windows _right now_! I am writing this using
Free Agent in Windows 95 and you read this! You're a Windows user too!
Sorry for the 'flaming', I'm in a bad mood. Today I received a brand
new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
get a workaround to make Warp use PPP instead of SLIP. I'm glad my
Win95 is still on C: so I can get some real work done and have my BBS
online functioning at a normal speed (BBS+Warp is NOT warp speed!).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ File & Mailboard AD FUNDUM - The Netherlands - Powered by Win95 +
+ +31-320-282104 *** No sHiT - JuSt EnJoY *** RA 2.02/FD 2.12 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Christopher L. Estep
>>>It is a FACT that the most common computer operating system in
>>>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
>>
>> So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
>
>Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
Wouldn't try to....but then, I don't USE ATMs anymore....I generally do my
banking either in person or online...and, when I do it online, the OS at my
end is Windows 95, and NT Server at the bank's end (Citibank (Maryland),
N.A.). No OS/2 in-between. So much for the statement that EVERYONE uses
ATMs....also, most Diebold ATMs DO run embedded DOS....in ROM, not RAM or
disk-based....in fact, it's usually either IBM DOS or even MultiDOS (based on
the original Digital Research Multiuser DOS) from Citrix (a bunch of
ex-IBMers who also developed a multi-user version of LAN Server)...ever take
a look at the back section of BYTE or Dr. Dobb's Journal?
>
>Not only that, but we all benefit from police coverage. Point made again.
Yes...coverage of ATM "stickups".....which is why I avoid ATMs........
>
>A: Northern Exposure and Microsoft Windows.
>
>Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
A: The Texas Longhorn BASKETBALL team.
Q: Name the last winning team (other than football) headquartered in Austin,
Texas.
Mike Crifassi
>In article <DKzJ6...@midway.uchicago.edu>, py...@ellis.uchicago.edu
>says...
>>
>>Nik Simpson <ndsi...@ingr.com> babbled:
>>>Major non-sequitur alert. The implication of these examples is that OS/2
>is
>>>controlling your car or the local digital telephone switch, in fact it
>does
>>>neither and would not be suitable for either.
>>
>>I take it English is not your first language, since no such
>>implication was made. He never made the claim that these products were
>>using OS/2, but rather the point is simply that there are a lot of other
>>systems/platforms that people, all people, use on a day to day basis
>other
>>than the ubiquitous Windoze. OS/2 is merely one of them.
>>
>>>>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
>>>
>>> So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
>>
>>Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
>>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>>
>again.
>>
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>
>>Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
>>
>> hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
>>************************************************************************
>>rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
>
>
>There is only one thing I can say: FUCK YOU OS/NO
>If my boss tells me to use OS/2, I will certain look for another job!
>
We certainly won't miss you and your fowl language.
Mike C.
David Ehrens
christop...@idsonline.com (Christopher L. Estep) wrote:
>In article <DKzJ6...@midway.uchicago.edu>, py...@ellis.uchicago.edu says...
>> [paraphrasing]: Well, MY bank uses OS/2; No, MY bank uses NT. Nyaaah nyaaah
>> nyaaah nyaaah nyaaah!
Both of you have drunk too much jolt cola and didn't eat enough fish as
children.
Banks have a tremendous number of systems in place for various kinds of
authorizations, gateways, etc. Your transactions may actually be routed
through several systems, including NT and OS/2, before they find their way
into the... [brace yourself]... mainframe.
David Ehrens
the...@inter.nl.net (TheRoge) wrote:
..
>Sorry for the 'flaming', I'm in a bad mood. Today I received a brand
>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
>get a workaround to make Warp use PPP instead of SLIP.
Good grief! Standard Warp comes with PPP. Your other problems may emanate from
a bad install. It's different from Windows, true, but I've found that if you
actually read the messages on the screen before pressing "OK" or "Cancel", you
have a lot less problems.
Jeremy Mathers
Mike Crifassi <mcri...@ncgresearch.com> wrote:
...
>>There is only one thing I can say: FUCK YOU OS/NO
>>If my boss tells me to use OS/2, I will certain look for another job!
>>
>
>We certainly won't miss you and your fowl language.
>
>Mike C.
He sure is a turkey, isn't he?
************************************************************************
La plus belle fille du monde ne peut
donner que tout ce qu'elle a.
Mike Crifassi
>py...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Jeremy Mathers) wrote:
>
>>Absolutely. I think is pretty safe to say (subject to the caveat, of
>>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>
>>Not only that, but we all benefit from police coverage. Point made again.
>
>a Windows user? Fits perfectly in you analogy. How many people have
>read texts that were originally written in Word? About everyone? Top
>that, Warp...
>
>Man, _you_ are even using Windows _right now_! I am writing this using
>Free Agent in Windows 95 and you read this! You're a Windows user too!
>
>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
>Win95 is still on C: so I can get some real work done and have my BBS
>online functioning at a normal speed (BBS+Warp is NOT warp speed!).
>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ File & Mailboard AD FUNDUM - The Netherlands - Powered by Win95 +
>+ +31-320-282104 *** No sHiT - JuSt EnJoY *** RA 2.02/FD 2.12 +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
just dropping your problems out here on cooa.
You've also mentioned in a couple of your posts that your bbs runs slower under
OS/2 than under Windows95. What bbs software are you using? Have you bothered
to do any optimization for the session? Or are you like me (only in opposite) and
really don't care to mess with OS/2 (I don't care to mess with Windows95). I know
I won't work my tail off to try to fix problem software under Win95 if it runs under
OS/2.
Mike C.
Team OS/2
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
>
>Wouldn't try to....but then, I don't USE ATMs anymore....I generally do my
>banking either in person or online...and, when I do it online, the OS at my
>end is Windows 95, and NT Server at the bank's end (Citibank (Maryland),
Are you damn sure? Hmmm? They also end up going into IBM big iron anyway.
>N.A.). No OS/2 in-between. So much for the statement that EVERYONE uses
>ATMs....also, most Diebold ATMs DO run embedded DOS....in ROM, not RAM or
Yeah. I talk to a friend who works with Diebold ATMs everyday, and he
installs OS/2 on them. In fact, the firm who handles the Diebolds also handle
a lot of the IBM stuff over here.
>disk-based....in fact, it's usually either IBM DOS or even MultiDOS (based on
>the original Digital Research Multiuser DOS) from Citrix (a bunch of
>ex-IBMers who also developed a multi-user version of LAN Server)
By the way, said operating systems won't support the OS/2 based ATM and
bank software. Furthermore, MultiDOS or FlexOS, as it is also called, is non
graphical, and most ATMs nowadays require a graphical interface. FlexOS is
used by IBM inside 4680 cash registers.
Whatever your sources are, it's can't beat my source, a company who actually
works on these machines.
Rgds,
Chris
Rei Hino/Sailor Mars Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury Minako Aino/Sailor
Venus Makoto Kino/Sailor Jupiter Haruka Tenoh/Sailor
Uranus Michiru Kaioh/Sailor Neptune Setsuna Meioh/Sailor Pluto
Usagi Tsukino/Sailor Moon Hotaeru Tomoe/Sailor Saturn
Chiusagi Tsukino/Sailor Chibimoon *****cro...@kuentos.guam.net*****
Mark Nixon
>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
>get a workaround to make Warp use PPP instead of SLIP. I'm glad my
>Win95 is still on C: so I can get some real work done and have my BBS
>online functioning at a normal speed (BBS+Warp is NOT warp speed!).
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, really? I'll assume you're not trolling. What kind of BBS software
are you running? OS/2 or DOS? I had OS/2 2.11 and WARP installed on a
homemade 386-40, installed without a hitch, ran OS/2 based BBS
Bink/Maximus tossing 5-6 MB a day to up to 6 downlinks. It flew. What
are your problems specifically?
Running an OS/2 BBS under OS/2 is a no-brainer.
>
--
Mark Nixon
----
Un montrealais living in Denmark
Internet: man...@ibm.net
Fidonet :2:234/9...@fidonet.org
TheRoge
>I'm just interested in why you had so many problems? Could you specify, instead of
>just dropping your problems out here on cooa.
>You've also mentioned in a couple of your posts that your bbs runs slower under
>OS/2 than under Windows95. What bbs software are you using? Have you bothered
>to do any optimization for the session? Or are you like me (only in opposite) and
>really don't care to mess with OS/2 (I don't care to mess with Windows95). I know
>I won't work my tail off to try to fix problem software under Win95 if it runs under
>OS/2.
I have recieved your e-mail and I will put my reply on that one right
here for everybody to see (saves a lot of typing :)
[From my e-mail to you with quoted text originated from you]
>I hope you do not take my posts from COOA as flames. But I'm interested in the problems
>you've mentioned with OS/2. If I can help, I will.
I never was able to install the Dutch Try & Buy version properly on my
computer. I wasn't sure if it was a hardware-related problem or that
the T&B was buggy (there were a lot of complaints in Holland about the
T&B).
Now I have a 'real' Warp CDpak and I managed to install it, with a lot
of pains. For instance, usually COM1 is disabled on my controller
(Side Jr Pro) since I don't use it anyway. Win95 doesn't have a
problem with that and sees COM2 (mouse) and COM3 (internal modem) just
as what they are: COM2 and COM3 on default addresses. Somehow OS/2
decided to start counting COM2 as COM1, just as plain DOS does. It
made a CONFIG.SYS where the mouse-driver was set to COM1. While
booting, I got error-messages: COM.SYS not loaded, VCOM.SYS not
loaded, DOS support could not be installed. From an OS/2 install FAQ I
learned that the first two above error-messages indicate shared IRQ's
at the COM-ports.
I was sure the COM-ports didn't share IRQ's, because I use COM2 and
COM3 with default addresses and IRQ's. After enabling COM1 in the
controller and setting the mousedriver in CONFIG.SYS to COM2, the
error-messages disappeared and I could re-install DOS-support (somehow
it didn't initially (before enabling COM1 on the Side Jr Pro) install
DOS-support well because of the conflict OS/2 _thought_ was there.
Another problem was installing the standard S3 drivers that come with
Warp. At one point, it had to check my monitor or something to detect
something (I'm not sure). I saw an OS/2 or DOS-box was started up (it
went very quickly so I didn't if it was an OS/2 or DOS-box) and I saw
SVGA.EXE on the command-line and _boom_... black screen, no cursor,
nothing happens for minutes.. Hard reset.. Opening and pressing
ALT-HOME to switch a DOS-windows to full screen causes the same thing,
black screen, nothing happens, hard reset needed.. Downloaded the Miro
OS/2 drivers for my videocard and I can switch ALT-HOME now without
problems.. Only, now, in a DOS-box the mouse doesn't work.. but it's
better than no DOS-support at all (especcially if you're running a
24hour DOS-based BBS ;-)
I know there still is something wrong, but I do not know if it's my
computer or OS/2's problem... If I do Shutdown, it says: 'Press
CTRL-ALT-DEL' to restart (or something like that). At that point,
CTRL-ALT-DEL does nothing.. The screens just stays there.. So
everytime I shutdown OS/2 to boot to Win95, I have to hard reset the
computer to start it up again..
If I do just CTRL-ALT-DEL without doing Shutdown first, OS/2 closes
all the applications, as it's supposed to do. But then it hangs hard..
Hard reset needed again...
I have not given up hope, I saw how the Miro drivers solved the
ALT-HOME related problem, and I'm hoping Fixpack #16 (which I will
install after IBM has released the update on that one), will solve the
CTRL-ALT-DEL problem.. Maybe it isn't a hardware related problem, but
is OS/2 just a 'bit' picky on my hardware and can it be solved by
applying a fixpack with updated drivers etc.. Time will tell..
[end of my e-mail to you]
As any OS/2-user can see, these installationproblems are not due to my
supposedly 'not reading the text before pressing OK or Cancel', as
some 'I-think-I'm-funny-and-all-Win95-users-are-stupid'-guy wrote in a
e-mail message to me (that was probably posted here too, but I didn't
see it yet, probably will find it later on when I read the next 70
messages that came in with my last poll at my newsserver).
About the BBS: the building-up of ANSI screens is way to slow, you can
see the lines drawen one by one, in Win95 an ANSI screen is built up
within a second.
I have the SIO package installed (with replacements for COM.SYS and
VCOM.SYS) because all the sysops using OS/2 recommend it, and
installed the VX00.SYS as a fossildriver. I've tried it with
Idle_sensitivity and Idle_seconds all the way up, as the Warp
help-file advised (that gave me a 100% CPU usage all the time, but
didn't make the building-up of ANSI's any faster). Also
Session_priority was increased, without the result I was looking for,
although it the building up of ANSI-screen became little faster, it
wasn't quiet as fast as Win95. Any suggestions are welcome, maybe it's
not Warp being slow in showing ANSI's, but something that
synchronizes the display of ANSI's on my screen with the speed of
sending to the remote?
The software I'm using is DOS-based: RemoteAccess 2.02 (Andrew Milner)
and FrontDoor 2.12 (Joachim Homrighausen).
TheRoge
>In article <4d4c2q$v...@altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net>,
> the...@inter.nl.net (TheRoge) wrote:
>..
>>Sorry for the 'flaming', I'm in a bad mood. Today I received a brand
>>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
>>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
>>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
>>get a workaround to make Warp use PPP instead of SLIP.
>Good grief! Standard Warp comes with PPP. Your other problems may emanate from
>a bad install. It's different from Windows, true, but I've found that if you
>actually read the messages on the screen before pressing "OK" or "Cancel", you
>have a lot less problems.
Aha, here's the message from the
'I-think-I'm-funny-and-all-Win95-users-are-stupid'-guy I mentioned.
First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
with PPP' claim from? I will have to find a work-around for this, but
I hope PPP is in the Fixpack #16 that I will install after the update
comes out.
Second: read my message on the installproblems, swallow your ego, and
apologize... By e-mail will be fine, it will save you the public
embaressment (See, although I use Win95 I'm not a bad guy at all ;-).
Scott McGrath
>>Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
>>thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
>>since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine. There is also pitifull driver
>>support and hardly any apps.
Kevin: You've never used OS/2, have you... Try it some time... You
might like it...
Scott
>
>>Kevin Burton
>
>
>I don't know where you get this idea that OS/2 takes 2 Megs per
>virtual machine? I can set it for many megs of memory but it will only
>use what's been requested.
>
Tom: OS/2 can also assign _Virtual_ DPMI Memory to apps. It can make
an app think it's got 256Mb RAM to work with if the user wants...
Scott
>
>
>Tom Bulum (tom....@accc.gov.au)
TheRoge
>Running an OS/2 BBS under OS/2 is a no-brainer.
Might be, but I run DOS-based BBS software. IMHO, the best shareware
BBS/Mailer software is still made for DOS. OS/2 has a variety of
mailers, but except for one, they all are static mailers. I use
FrontDoor (DOS), that's a dynamic mailer and I love it. I tried a
static mailer one time, but it's not for me.. AFAIK, my only choice
for a dynamic mailer under OS/2 would be Maindoor, but I've heard not
to good things of that (textboxes in half Spanish/half English is not
my idea of a mailer that's 'ready for it').
BBS's like Maximus is also not my taste of BBS. I don't like to set up
my BBS using only textfiles to configure! RemoteAccess (DOS) which I
use, has a setup-program which makes setup up new menu's etc. a much
quicker job to do. Also Maximus hasn't got a number of features that
RA has, like good support for animated ANSI, a choice to use a
file-_database_ instead of the old-aged FILES.BBS system, etc..
Even the AdeptXBBS OS/2 native BBS with multiple tasks doesn't cut it.
Of course it's nice to scroll trough file-listings while the
BlueWave/QWK packet is being made in background, but for the rest is
s*cks compared to RA. I'll stick to RA and Frontdoor. BTW: de author
or RA, Andrew Milner is working on a DOS 16 bit, Win32 and OS/2 32 bit
versions of RA (2.50).
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>Have you got an URL for me where I can get it? To be able to 'retrieve
>software updates' I have to install SLIP first.
=============
gopher updates.gopher.ibm.com
will get you to the IBM update site. You can do this from a web
browser by:
gopher://updates.gopher.ibm.com
If you get SLIP going, then retrieve software updates should work.
>The SLIP setup asks me for a IP address, but my provider has
>dynamic IP bla bla bla (don't know how to put it in English).
>I get an IP address at logon, so I cannot fill it in in the SLIP setup.
This is what bootp is for (bootp works under SLIP and PPP). You
will run bootp within a *.cmd file. You won't fill in addresses in
the dialer, as they will be dynamically created during the SLIP
log-on procedure. For our campus, we have a tuned *.cmd file
such that in the dialer window for script we put the name
of the *.cmd file, the user name and the user logon password.
The file we used in the modification was annex.cmd (which
is supplied by IBM). There are lots of scripts around and I'll
be a bit surprised if your provider doesn't have one.
You can get the information needed to establish a dynamic SLIP
account by looking at the addresses that show up in the dialers
list-box, then entering the proper values at an OS/2 command
line.
You can also do SLIP from a command line:
Needed information and files before going on-line
1) SLIP.CFG file in x:\tcpip\bin with the following:
interface sl0 {
device=com2
{
where the sl0 (s'el''zero') indicates the first SLIP connection
(I believe you can have more than one SLIP connection), and
the device=com2 is for a com2 modem (default is com1 and
this can be eliminated if the modem is on com1). The curly
brackets are necessary.
2) The router and netmask used by your provider. The
router information and netmask must be provided by
your provider (bootp gets this automatically, but I can't
figure out how to query our terminal servers to find it
out without using bootp). You should also find out the
number of hops to the router (almost always one).
Going on-line and connecting.
Three command line sessions are used successively.
1) The first command-line simply gets the word SLIP. A
dialogue box will pop-up with how to kill SLIP at the
end of the session. This window must be left running.
2) Pop a second command-line and type SLIPTERM. This
is the dialer program that ships with Warp. Use standard
Hayes AT commands to dial and establish a connection
(i.e. atdt xxx-yyyy). Do the logon and password as
required by your provider. Type 'slip default' at the
command line (no quotes). You should get the dynamic
IP address as a return variable from your providers
computer (note this). This window must also be left
running.
3) The third command-line is used to configure the SLIP
session. At the third command line type:
ifconfig. sl0 111.111.111.111 222.222.222.222 netmask 333.333.333.333
Where
111 is the dynamic IP address that was just given to you
222 is the router address from your provider (this is often static,
if it's dynamic, I don't know how to query for it and you're SOL)
333 is the netmask. Try 255,255,255,0 or 255,255,254,0 if unknown
Next command to type is the route command. You're still in the
third command-line session so type:
route -fh add default 222.222.222.222 1
Where 222 is the router address and the "1" is the number of
hops to the router.
At this point, SLIP should be configured. You can test using
ping or telnet or whatever.
I hope I haven't forgotten anything.
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
>the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
>with PPP' claim from?
=========
I believe you've been able to do a "retrieve software update" for
about a year to add PPP to Warp.
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
TheRoge
>>First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
>>the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
>>with PPP' claim from?
>=========
>
>I believe you've been able to do a "retrieve software update" for
>about a year to add PPP to Warp.
Have you got an URL for me where I can get it? To be able to 'retrieve
software updates' I have to install SLIP first. The SLIP setup asks me
for a IP address, but my provider has dynamic IP bla bla bla (don't
know how to put it in English). I get an IP address at logon, so I
cannot fill it in in the SLIP setup. I rather start with PPP right
away in Warp, as I did in Win95.
So if I have a URL where I can get the PPP update (using
Internet-access with Win95) and update Warp.. Is it maybe also in the
fixpacks? I'm am planning apply Fixpack #16 when it's updated anyway,
if that installs PPP too I'm happy.
>Eric Larson
>ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Miles Thompson
<snip>
> The only thing I miss about warp is the boot menu. I'd like to reinstall
> that and have multiboots for win95, DOS, FreeBSD, NextStep (if I can
> still find it), Linux, and possibly Warp if IBM can improve idiot
> usability.
Matthew -
Unlike most of the commens made hear I have to agree with yours. MSFT did make the
installation of Win 95 incredibly easy, as if they analyzed their support calls and
determined "If we can get it INSTALLED we are in a much better position to help the user."
I had a problem with WARP - memory which worked fine under 2.1 but which WARP could not
tolerate.
I am having a probelm with Win 95 - it recognizes the US Robotics fax/modem card and does
everything right except pick up the line and dial the phone. (It's presently set to
"standard 14.4) The WARP Dial Other Internet Providers had no problem with it. So I guess
it's about even.
You can reinstall Boot Manager you know - just start the Warp installation, pick
"advanced", set up Boot Manager the way you want it and exit. Reboot the machine and voila,
your choice of operating systems. BTW - how much disk did you say you had??
Regards, Miles Thompson
Mathew Hennessy
CRAPPY DRIVER SUPPORT, mainly. I have:
ASUS SP3G 486 PCI/ISA motherboard, integrated IDE/SCSI,
2x16550AFN serial, 1 EPP/ECP parallel, 2x<=2.88mb floppy
intel 486dx2/66, 8MB RAM
Diamond Stealth64 2MB Vram
Ensoniq Soundscape
NCR 53C810 PCI-SCSI chip in motherboard (basic SCSI drivers in BIOS)
Quantum LPS540S
Toshiba 3501 4x SCSI CDROM
Tandberg TDC 3600 tape drive
USR sportster 28.8k
Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
and I had to root around through the manual to find install
directions. win95 automatically recognized my 53C810 and installed
32-bit drivers (which had not been available under win3.1).
2) os/2 came with no Stealth64 VRAM PCI support. The card came with
os/2 2.1 drivers. Overall graphics performance felt slow. 8MB
system had _LOTS_ of disk thrash. No native "S64MODE" software to
configure the card's refresh rates at different resolutions (problem
shared with win95). However, win95 graphics performance at 1280x1024
x256@60hz feels much faster than warp.
3) ensoniq support for warp is pathetic. support for win95 is
superb. If you want the best wavetable value, get soundscape,
but only if you're running 95. warp has no midi support, while
win95 _ADDS_ full-duplex functionality to the soundscape.
4) win95 supports newer internet apps and "plugins" now. when will
warp be able to run win95 apps or get native ports?
5) various problems running win apps in winos/2 (mostly related to
the soundscape driver inadequacies)
Reasons why I personally prefer win95 on my home machine as opposed to
warp (besides the problems listed above):
1) dialup ppp in win95 is easier to use (IMHO).
2) tcp stack has, so far, for dialup use, proven solid.
3) multiple login user "personalities"
4) animated cursors (without the NT resource hit)
5) hardware/software install made simpler
6) personally, I like the start menu more than the taskbar.
you can set the start menu to appear only when you put
your pointer down to the bottom of the screen.
7) greater potential for available, affordable apps. Also,
can run intel NT apps (such as the animated cursor editor).
Only problems with win95 so far:
1) no support for my Tandberg tape drive.
2) Still think the Plus pack is a ripoff: it should have come
with win95 (like in the beta), IMHO.
3) When playing a DOS game in the background, then alt-tabbing out
of it, the DOS game's sound continues to hold the speakers. Try
this with Heretic, Transport Tycoon, or Civilization (for DOS).
At work, I run unix (AIX, to be exact). At home, win95 has won.
The only thing I miss about warp is the boot menu. I'd like to reinstall
that and have multiboots for win95, DOS, FreeBSD, NextStep (if I can
still find it), Linux, and possibly Warp if IBM can improve idiot
usability. When I come home from a hard day of adminning computers, I
want an OS I don't have to think about. I haven't yet had to think about
win95, except to cure a simple conventional mem problem.
- Matt
Jim Royer
>da...@pencilnet.com (David Ehrens) wrote:
>>In article <4d4c2q$v...@altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net>,
>> the...@inter.nl.net (TheRoge) wrote:
>>..
>>>Sorry for the 'flaming', I'm in a bad mood. Today I received a brand
>>>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
>>>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
>>>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
>>>get a workaround to make Warp use PPP instead of SLIP.
>>Good grief! Standard Warp comes with PPP. Your other problems may emanate from
>>a bad install. It's different from Windows, true, but I've found that if you
>>actually read the messages on the screen before pressing "OK" or "Cancel", you
>>have a lot less problems.
>Aha, here's the message from the
>'I-think-I'm-funny-and-all-Win95-users-are-stupid'-guy I mentioned.
>First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
>the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
>with PPP' claim from? I will have to find a work-around for this, but
>I hope PPP is in the Fixpack #16 that I will install after the update
>comes out.
The Warp "for Windows" (Red Pack) did not come with PPP included. You
don't need the full FixPack to get it. Download PPP.ZIP from
hobbes.nmsu.edu/os2/tcpip
>Second: read my message on the installproblems, swallow your ego, and
>apologize... By e-mail will be fine, it will save you the public
>embaressment (See, although I use Win95 I'm not a bad guy at all ;-).
Some folks get carried away......
Jim Royer
> My brother swears by warp, but I'm not convinced. Why?
>CRAPPY DRIVER SUPPORT, mainly. I have:
> ASUS SP3G 486 PCI/ISA motherboard, integrated IDE/SCSI,
> 2x16550AFN serial, 1 EPP/ECP parallel, 2x<=2.88mb floppy
> intel 486dx2/66, 8MB RAM
> Diamond Stealth64 2MB Vram
> Ensoniq Soundscape
> NCR 53C810 PCI-SCSI chip in motherboard (basic SCSI drivers in BIOS)
> Quantum LPS540S
> Toshiba 3501 4x SCSI CDROM
> Tandberg TDC 3600 tape drive
> USR sportster 28.8k
>Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
>1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
> and I had to root around through the manual to find install
> directions. win95 automatically recognized my 53C810 and installed
> 32-bit drivers (which had not been available under win3.1).
So you had it fixed and working....
>2) os/2 came with no Stealth64 VRAM PCI support. The card came with
> os/2 2.1 drivers.
The Diamond Stealth64 series of cards didn't exist at the time Warp
was released. Did yoiu expect IBM to have video drivers included in
their packaege for non-existant video cards?? The card came with OS/2
2.1 video ddrivers. Well talk to Diamond about that.
> Overall graphics performance felt slow. 8MB
> system had _LOTS_ of disk thrash.
I would imagine video response would be slow. You can get an
immediatre pickup by turning off annimation.
> No native "S64MODE" software to
> configure the card's refresh rates at different resolutions (problem
> shared with win95).
The S64MODE software belongs to Diamond. They hold a copyright on it.
I believe they would get quite upset if either MS or IBM included it
with their OSs.
> However, win95 graphics performance at 1280x1024
> x256@60hz feels much faster than warp.
Since you apparently have the correct video drivers for it with Win95
this is not surprising.
>3) ensoniq support for warp is pathetic. support for win95 is
> superb. If you want the best wavetable value, get soundscape,
> but only if you're running 95. warp has no midi support, while
> win95 _ADDS_ full-duplex functionality to the soundscape.
Warp certianly has MIDI support. It may not have all the features YOU
want but its there non the less.....
>4) win95 supports newer internet apps and "plugins" now. when will
> warp be able to run win95 apps or get native ports?
When will WIn95 get native OS/2 app support??? OS/2 has internet apps
that are just as new as those for Win95 and the WebExplorer in OS/2 is
gobs better that MS's Internet Explorer..
Mathew Hennessy
Miles Thompson <mtho...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>your choice of operating systems. BTW - how much disk did you say you had??
Currently, not much. However, when the "variable pay" comes in,
I'm considering 32 extra MB RAM and ~9GB extra HD. Gotta love SCSI!
(already have 3 SCSI devices, with room for 4 more!)
The killer is, my employer (who will remain nameless but
shouldn't be too hard to figure out) offers 30% off all their own gear to
employees, including RAM and HD. So, either a whole bunch of upgrades to
my dx2 or a nifty new notebook PC with a folding keyboard..
>Regards, Miles Thompson
--
- Matt
henn...@cloud9.net
<em><a href="http://www.cloud9.net/~hennessy>My useless page</a></em>
Mike Crifassi
>mcri...@ncgresearch.com (Mike Crifassi) wrote:
>
>>In <4d5kgr$m...@news.euro.net>, ksi...@euronet.nl (Paul J.W. de Wit) writes:
>>>>Nik Simpson <ndsi...@ingr.com> babbled:
>>>>>Major non-sequitur alert. The implication of these examples is that OS/2
>>>is
>>>>>controlling your car or the local digital telephone switch, in fact it
>>>does
>>>>>neither and would not be suitable for either.
>>>>
>>>>I take it English is not your first language, since no such
>>>>implication was made. He never made the claim that these products were
>>>>using OS/2, but rather the point is simply that there are a lot of other
>>>>systems/platforms that people, all people, use on a day to day basis
>>>other
>>>>than the ubiquitous Windoze. OS/2 is merely one of them.
>>>>
>>>>>>It is a FACT that the most common computer operating system in
>>>>>>the world is OS/2. Although the flavour of OS/2 that everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> So there are more OS/2 users than Win3.1 users, give me a break.
>>>>
>>>>course, that all generalizations are false) that everyone (at least in
>>>>the US) uses ATM machines on a fairly regular basis. Therefore, every
>>>>single one of us is an OS/2 user. Top that, Windoze...
>>>>
>>>>Not only that, but we all benefit from police coverage. Point made
>>>again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>************************************************************************
>>>>A: Northern Exposure and Microsoft Windows.
>>>>
>>>>Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
>>>>
>>>> hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
>>>>************************************************************************
>>>>rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
>>>
>>>
>>>If my boss tells me to use OS/2, I will certain look for another job!
>>>
>
>>We certainly won't miss you and your fowl language.
>
>>Mike C.
>
>
This is true, but there is such a thing as common courtesy. One might argue that
such language may result from intense emotional reaction (anger), but in a medium
such as this one should expect some control. Not everyone will exercise such
control, but one should expect it and comment on its inappropriateness when en-
countered.
At any rate, I was just wishing the poster a fond adieu.
Mike C.
Jonathan Barry
jbr...@aros.net
>-> From: vhe...@crl.com (Victor Healey)
>-> Subject: Re: Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
>->
>Kevin and Vic: here's the real reason why you think OS/2 sux:
>
> Windows NT: 600,000 copies sold todate
> OS/2 Warp: 12,000,000 sold todate and growing!
> ^^^^^^^^^
Oh man, you are gonna get killed for that statistic :)
Jeremy Mathers
Mathew Hennessy <henn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
(The usual, belongs in windows.advocacy only, whining - deleted)
> At work, I run unix (AIX, to be exact). At home, win95 has won.
>The only thing I miss about warp is the boot menu. I'd like to reinstall
>that and have multiboots for win95, DOS, FreeBSD, NextStep (if I can
>still find it), Linux, and possibly Warp if IBM can improve idiot
>usability. When I come home from a hard day of adminning computers, I
>want an OS I don't have to think about. I haven't yet had to think about
>win95, except to cure a simple conventional mem problem.
Well, see, that is the crux of it, isn't it? I think we should all
(meaning advocates on both sides of the fence) come clean about this.
Win95 (and its advocates) ought to just make it clear that it is the
no-brainer OS and that it is for ppl, like Matt, who put in an honest
day's work for an honest dollar and don't want to have to think when
they get home. I've got no problem with that, and believe me, I'm not
being sarcastic when I say it.
OS/2 (and its advocates), on the other hand, ought to come clean about
the fact that, like math, it is hard. And if the Barbie dolls of the
world want to go around saying "Math (or OS/2) is hard", then we should
just accept that, but we should all realize that that is not the fault
of math (or OS/2). I wish I had the exact Shakespearian quote handy,
but in short, the problem (for ppl who can't handle math or OS/2) lies
not in the stars, but within ourselves. As they say, man's got to know
his limitations.
====================================================================
There. That ought to end all this bickering forevermore. I assume
several newsgroups will be in the process of shutting down any day now.
************************************************************************
My version of Shakespeare, as applied to traffic safety:
First thing we do is kill all the cabdrivers!
Matt McLeod
>First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
>the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
>with PPP' claim from? I will have to find a work-around for this, but
>I hope PPP is in the Fixpack #16 that I will install after the update
>comes out.
Red spine Warp, by any chance? The original release of
Warp Red didn't have PPP - an upgrade for the IAK was
released some time later.
I'm pretty sure Warp Blue had PPP when first released,
and I know for sure that Connect had it. I had thought
that IBM had added PPP to Red once the PPP stuff
was available, too. Maybe you just got stuck with
an old Warp Red?
Anyway, look for "ppp.zip" on any of the usual OS/2
FTP sites (hobbes.nmsu.edu should have it). Or,
if you've got SLIP working OK, use the "Retreive
Updates" tool to get and install the update.
BTW, you probably shouldn't isntall FP16 - IBM has
recalled it.
Matt
--
Matt McLeod, <ma...@toaster.hna.com.au>
Sorry. All out of witty one-liners.
lpar...@midwest.net
> My brother swears by warp, but I'm not convinced. Why?
>CRAPPY DRIVER SUPPORT, mainly. I have:
> ASUS SP3G 486 PCI/ISA motherboard, integrated IDE/SCSI,
> 2x16550AFN serial, 1 EPP/ECP parallel, 2x<=2.88mb floppy
> intel 486dx2/66, 8MB RAM
> Diamond Stealth64 2MB Vram
> Ensoniq Soundscape
> NCR 53C810 PCI-SCSI chip in motherboard (basic SCSI drivers in BIOS)
> Quantum LPS540S
> Toshiba 3501 4x SCSI CDROM
> Tandberg TDC 3600 tape drive
> USR sportster 28.8k
>
>Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
>1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
> and I had to root around through the manual to find install
> directions. win95 automatically recognized my 53C810 and installed
> 32-bit drivers (which had not been available under win3.1).
I sell this motherboard/SCSI combo. The SCSI card comes with the driver
for OS/2. It would have been nice if IBM had included it, but I suppose
that they weren't ready when Warp shipped.
>2) os/2 came with no Stealth64 VRAM PCI support. The card came with
> os/2 2.1 drivers. Overall graphics performance felt slow. 8MB
> system had _LOTS_ of disk thrash. No native "S64MODE" software to
> configure the card's refresh rates at different resolutions (problem
> shared with win95). However, win95 graphics performance at 1280x1024
> x256@60hz feels much faster than warp.
I'm glad that the Diamond works so well in W95, but for my part, I would
select anything BUT Diamond. Poor quality drivers, poor quality video and
poor support.
>3) ensoniq support for warp is pathetic. support for win95 is
> superb. If you want the best wavetable value, get soundscape,
> but only if you're running 95. warp has no midi support, while
> win95 _ADDS_ full-duplex functionality to the soundscape.
>4) win95 supports newer internet apps and "plugins" now. when will
> warp be able to run win95 apps or get native ports?
What new internet apps and 'plugins' are you talking about. Some feel that
the WEBEX in OS/2 is superior to Netscape, and less buggy.
>5) various problems running win apps in winos/2 (mostly related to
> the soundscape driver inadequacies)
>
Well, I would expect any app that needed the ensoniq would certainly have a
problem. We solved our sound problems across the board by using only
Creative Labs stuff.
>Reasons why I personally prefer win95 on my home machine as opposed to
>warp (besides the problems listed above):
>
>1) dialup ppp in win95 is easier to use (IMHO).
I didn't find either one to be difficult, however that wizard sure makes it
simpler for the TCPIP challenged. :)
>2) tcp stack has, so far, for dialup use, proven solid.
Same here, but that is true for OS/2 also.
>3) multiple login user "personalities"
>4) animated cursors (without the NT resource hit)
>5) hardware/software install made simpler
Personally, I have no problems installing either OS. But then, I use top
quality parts from manufacturers that recognize that some of us are not
hung up on one OS.
>6) personally, I like the start menu more than the taskbar.
> you can set the start menu to appear only when you put
> your pointer down to the bottom of the screen.
>7) greater potential for available, affordable apps. Also,
> can run intel NT apps (such as the animated cursor editor).
>
>Only problems with win95 so far:
>1) no support for my Tandberg tape drive.
>2) Still think the Plus pack is a ripoff: it should have come
> with win95 (like in the beta), IMHO.
I agree. I like the Plus pack, just think it should have been included.
>3) When playing a DOS game in the background, then alt-tabbing out
> of it, the DOS game's sound continues to hold the speakers. Try
> this with Heretic, Transport Tycoon, or Civilization (for DOS).
>
> At work, I run unix (AIX, to be exact). At home, win95 has won.
>The only thing I miss about warp is the boot menu. I'd like to reinstall
>that and have multiboots for win95, DOS, FreeBSD, NextStep (if I can
>still find it), Linux, and possibly Warp if IBM can improve idiot
>usability. When I come home from a hard day of adminning computers, I
>want an OS I don't have to think about. I haven't yet had to think about
>win95, except to cure a simple conventional mem problem.
>
>- Matt
I'm glad it works for you. I use it occasionally when I want to play the
pinball game, but not much else. I find that OS/2 is better for me.
// Lloyd Parsons
// Herrin, IL
//
Kalimero
:>new copy of Warp and I had a _lot_ of installproblems. It runs now
:>(after many many hours), but my BBS is slow as hell, Warp freezes
:>tight everytime I set a DOS-box to full-screen mode and I will have to
:>Win95 is still on C: so I can get some real work done and have my BBS
:>online functioning at a normal speed (BBS+Warp is NOT warp speed!).
There is a file called CONFIG.SYS, it came with your brand new copy, check it
out.
And if your Win95 system came only with a mouse and no keyboard, than try the
SETTINGS options.
" In warp speed, Windows should not be open."
Kalimero
John Hendricks
up a phone.
-john
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 17:58:30 GMT, Dan Casey <dan...@in.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> WHAT
>> 60% of computers use OS/2
>> Wanna buy a bridge???????
>> WOW
>> Joe
>> On 10 Jan 1996 01:08:47 GMT, jbr...@aros.net wrote:
>
>Ever stuck a card in an ATM machine at a bank?? Chances are VERY good that you just used an
>OS/2 computer!
>
><just ONE example>
>
>
=================================================================
-All spilling errirs are international
-Yes, I know I am wrong, no need to e-mail me and tell me so.
joh...@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Note: I am driving a company car on the information super-highway.
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
=================================================================
John Hendricks
workstation.
Kelly Sawatski
>Have you got an URL for me where I can get it? To be able to 'retrieve
>software updates' I have to install SLIP first. The SLIP setup asks me
>for a IP address, but my provider has dynamic IP bla bla bla (don't
>know how to put it in English). I get an IP address at logon, so I
>cannot fill it in in the SLIP setup. I rather start with PPP right
>away in Warp, as I did in Win95.
>So if I have a URL where I can get the PPP update (using
>Internet-access with Win95) and update Warp.. Is it maybe also in the
>fixpacks? I'm am planning apply Fixpack #16 when it's updated anyway,
>if that installs PPP too I'm happy.
I doubt it will, but you can get it from ftp.ibm.net, I believe.
That's where I got it. Filename is PPP.ZIP. I've never used SLIP
since I heard it was harder to install. With the PPP patch I have no
problems at all, and transfers are very quick!
If you have problems locating it, I could e-mail it to you or
something.
Kelly..
TheRoge
>>Have you got an URL for me where I can get it? To be able to 'retrieve
>>software updates' I have to install SLIP first.
>=============
>gopher updates.gopher.ibm.com
[cut]
>I hope I haven't forgotten anything.
What a list! :-) Thanx for all the info.. A point of my BBS uploaded a
file named PPP.ZIP to my BBS (he knew I couldn't install PPP yet on
Warp). It seems that this little package just installs PPP itself..
I'll check both your instructions and his program out later this week.
Shack
this OS/2 stuff doing here. Go to your own news group!
Thanks
-- Shack
Always remember, where
ever you go - there you
are.
Mathew Hennessy
<lpar...@midwest.net@midwest.net> wrote:
>In <4dc0k6$3...@cloud9.net>, henn...@cloud9.net (Mathew Hennessy) writes:
>>Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
>>1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
>> and I had to root around through the manual to find install
>> directions. win95 automatically recognized my 53C810 and installed
>> 32-bit drivers (which had not been available under win3.1).
>I sell this motherboard/SCSI combo. The SCSI card comes with the driver
>for OS/2. It would have been nice if IBM had included it, but I suppose
>that they weren't ready when Warp shipped.
Probable, though wasn't the 53C810 common at the time? btw: I
assembled the machine from parts for myself, though I am considering making
newer machines for friends. Building PCs is my way of relaxing.
btw: I would have to, on balance, recommend AGAINST the SP3G. ASUS
support has been less than exemplary. They seem to prefer the SP3. Then
again, with the world going to Pentium+Triton, that point is pretty
moot. But, I _do_ like the NCR (now SymBIOS) 53C810. I'm interested, on
my next upgrade, in getting their PCI wide variant (53C82x, can't
remember if the x is 3, 5, or 9).
>I'm glad that the Diamond works so well in W95, but for my part, I would
>select anything BUT Diamond. Poor quality drivers, poor quality video and
>poor support.
I am also not impressed with their driver support (any Xfree86
fans remember what hell it was to get Diamond to even allow driver
development independent of them?). However, I bought the card because it
was top rated for Win performance, had decent DOS performance, and was a
killer bargain at the time (2MB VRAM, $300 even, Dec. 1994). If I had it
to do over again, I may well have gone for the ATI mach64 VRAM board.
>What new internet apps and 'plugins' are you talking about. Some feel that
>the WEBEX in OS/2 is superior to Netscape, and less buggy.
I _really_ disagree with that. WebExplorer will core on pages it
can't read. It will refuse to display a whole page with a little bad
html, instead of ignoring the little bad html, like it should. With much
of the web "optimized" for Navigator or MS Info Explorer, not ignoring
non-HTML2 tags is unacceptable behavior. I'm told that WEv1.03 is better
behaved, and is free to warp owners. Its multithreading graphics display
is, to me, useless at 28.8Kbaud (though impressive with a token-ring
hooked up to a T1). The apps I refer to, specifically, are Java,
Shockwave, WebFX, RealAudio, and other new interesting net interactivity
tools. Java is in internal beta for OS/2 in hursley, but nothing yet
AFAIK. I am not sure of VRML yet, though the AIX version requires the
purchase of IBM's OpenGL package ($500)..
>>5) various problems running win apps in winos/2 (mostly related to
>> the soundscape driver inadequacies)
>Well, I would expect any app that needed the ensoniq would certainly have a
>problem. We solved our sound problems across the board by using only
>Creative Labs stuff.
Fair, except that at the time, the closest priced quality
wavetable card to the Soundscape ($169) was the AWE32 value ($200). I
just couldn't see paying more for a card with what are generally
considered inferior samples. Also, I didn't have that much to spend in
the first place. Now, on the other hand, the price differential (to me)
is moot. I'd probably go with Creative Labs, but I've heard some horror
stories (though I've dealt with their tech support while consulting, and
wasn't disgusted) there too.
>>Reasons why I personally prefer win95 on my home machine as opposed to
>>warp (besides the problems listed above):
>>1) dialup ppp in win95 is easier to use (IMHO).
>I didn't find either one to be difficult, however that wizard sure makes it
>simpler for the TCPIP challenged. :)
I administer TCP networks at work, but it was nice not having to
think much when plugging in my TCP numbers.. (what was your netmask
again? *clickety-click* ;)
>>2) tcp stack has, so far, for dialup use, proven solid.
>Same here, but that is true for OS/2 also.
Agreed.
>Personally, I have no problems installing either OS. But then, I use top
>quality parts from manufacturers that recognize that some of us are not
>hung up on one OS.
That's your design plan. It's just as valid to have a design plan
which attempts to get the best valued parts (value=performance/cost) for
the best price. Your plan is better for cross-platform compatibility.
Mine is better for raw price. You're responsible for how many
customers? I'm responsible for only one customer.
>I'm glad it works for you. I use it occasionally when I want to play the
>pinball game, but not much else. I find that OS/2 is better for me.
Hmm, a reasoned OS/2 post without invective? Shall I mark my
calendar? ;)
>// Lloyd Parsons
rd...@heartland.bradley.edu
OS/2? I doubt that Mesa or IBM Works would take so long.
Application software benchmarks are only an indication of how well the
software was written for the platform.
Robert Dean, Technology Coordinator
Illinois State University Laboratory Schools
Tim Smith
>Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
>1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
> and I had to root around through the manual to find install
> directions. win95 automatically recognized my 53C810 and installed
> 32-bit drivers (which had not been available under win3.1).
This puzzles me. The SDMS BIOS for the 810 provides INT 13h support.
OS/2 is supposed to be able to install and work on anything with INT 13h
support. It worked in 2.x, and was *very* well done. (Basically, it would
create a task running in V86 mode, and do INT 13h requests from that task
when it needed to to disk I/O. If you didn't happen to provide an ADD
for your host adaptor, OS/2 2.x was perfectly happy to keep on using the
V86 INT 13h interface to run. It wasn't as efficient as an ADD would be,
but for a non-server machine doing "ordinary" user-type stuff, it was
quite adequate.)
(I'm also puzzled why NCR never released 32-bit drivers for Win 3.x, since
they had them (WINCAM.386, a VxD that implemented CAM and provided 32-bit
disk access)).
>Reasons why I personally prefer win95 on my home machine as opposed to
>warp (besides the problems listed above):
>
>1) dialup ppp in win95 is easier to use (IMHO).
I switched my account from SLIP to PPP to try to make it easier for Warp,
and I still can't get Warp to make a reliable connection. It always
dies after a few seconds, claiming that it lost DCD (I think that's the
one--I don't have the output handy at the moment to check) and I should
call back.
> At work, I run unix (AIX, to be exact). At home, win95 has won.
>The only thing I miss about warp is the boot menu. I'd like to reinstall
>that and have multiboots for win95, DOS, FreeBSD, NextStep (if I can
>still find it), Linux, and possibly Warp if IBM can improve idiot
>usability. When I come home from a hard day of adminning computers, I
You don't need Boot Manager for that (except possibly for NextStep, since
I know nothing about what it takes to boot it). Just use LOADLIN to boot
Linux from DOS, and FBSDBOOT (I think that's what it is called--it's the
FreeBSD equivalent of LOADLIN) to boot FreeBSD. You can set up options
in CONFIG.SYS to run these as shells, skipping COMMAND.COM completely
when you want to boot DOS just to go to Linux or FreeBSD.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>>First: my Warp says: PPP is not supported in this version, and also
>>the PPP checkbox is grayed out. Where does your 'Standard Warp comes
>>with PPP' claim from?
>
>I believe you've been able to do a "retrieve software update" for
>about a year to add PPP to Warp.
When I do a "retrieve software update", it wants to connect to the net.
Since I've got a PPP account, I can't do this without the PPP software. :-)
If IBM had done this right, "retrieve software update" would connect to
IBM's internet service via a toll free number, and allow you to get the
software without making you get an account through them.
Ironically, to get the software for Warp, what I had to do was use PPP
from Windows 95 to FTP it from IBM.
--Tim Smith
Mathew Hennessy
Tim Smith <t...@coho.halcyon.com> wrote:
>Mathew Hennessy <henn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>Here are the problems I encountered during and after warp installation:
>>1) os/2 couldn't automatically recognize or deal with my 53C810,
>> and I had to root around through the manual to find install
>OS/2 is supposed to be able to install and work on anything with INT 13h
>support. It worked in 2.x, and was *very* well done. (Basically, it would
>create a task running in V86 mode, and do INT 13h requests from that task
>when it needed to to disk I/O. If you didn't happen to provide an ADD
>for your host adaptor, OS/2 2.x was perfectly happy to keep on using the
>V86 INT 13h interface to run. It wasn't as efficient as an ADD would be,
>but for a non-server machine doing "ordinary" user-type stuff, it was
>quite adequate.)
In warp, the manual states that if the SCSI CD driver's not included
in the warp package, you have to manually edit the config.sys to insert
your driver from your SCSI manufacturer's driver disk. See, OS/2 install
_could_ access my HD (that's how I installed boot manager), but it
couldn't read my CD-ROM, because the CD-ROM driver is loaded separately.
OS/2 could recognize some CD-ROM drivers (like running a rom off an
ADAPTEC or sound board), but not for the 53C810. The problem I had was
that my copy of warp came on CD. So, here's the fix for that:
1) copy your install floppies (the CD comes with 2, the install and
disk 1)
2) edit config.sys on install disk to point to CDROM.SYS driver
3) copy CDROM.SYS driver onto install disk
4) boot and play
Granted, it's not particle physics here, but I doubt joe user
appreciates having to do this, unless joe has access to coporate tech
support.
>(I'm also puzzled why NCR never released 32-bit drivers for Win 3.x, since
>they had them (WINCAM.386, a VxD that implemented CAM and provided 32-bit
>disk access)).
Oh, I bitched and moaned about this too. Perhaps it has
something to do with the sale of the NCR SCSI division to Symbios?
>>Reasons why I personally prefer win95 on my home machine as opposed to
>>warp (besides the problems listed above):
>>1) dialup ppp in win95 is easier to use (IMHO).
>I switched my account from SLIP to PPP to try to make it easier for Warp,
>and I still can't get Warp to make a reliable connection. It always
>dies after a few seconds, claiming that it lost DCD (I think that's the
>one--I don't have the output handy at the moment to check) and I should
>call back.
Hmm, can't help there. Win95 has pretty nifty TCP dialin
capabilities, but the fun bits (logon macros especially) are not
mentioned in the manual, and you have to root around on the CD to find
them. Also, btw: you can use PPP and the logon macro software, even
though my boss (the ex guru on site) thought that you could only use
SLIP. Yes, SLIP comes on every 95 CD, it's just a matter of finding it.
>You don't need Boot Manager for that (except possibly for NextStep, since
>I know nothing about what it takes to boot it). Just use LOADLIN to boot
Yes, but the BM is such an elegant solution for multiple
personalities: no system dependence.. it even pre-empts my bios overview
screen at boot! Your solution will work, but I just think the BM is
prettier and more elegant.
>--Tim Smith
Adam Felson
: In warp, the manual states that if the SCSI CD driver's not included
: your driver from your SCSI manufacturer's driver disk. See, OS/2 install
: _could_ access my HD (that's how I installed boot manager), but it
: couldn't read my CD-ROM, because the CD-ROM driver is loaded separately.
: OS/2 could recognize some CD-ROM drivers (like running a rom off an
: ADAPTEC or sound board), but not for the 53C810. The problem I had was
: that my copy of warp came on CD. So, here's the fix for that:
Fortuneately, warp's install program has no problem recognizing most
CD/controller combinations. It even booted up perfectly when I had my
CDROM off of my soundcard and my hard drives running off of an adaptec
i/f. MSwindows/95's install program wouldn't recognize my cdrom connected
to my soundcard even though I had drivers installed for ms-windows3.1.
Craig Mohn
>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>
>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
>
>Hmmmmm
Please go away!
I'm a very satisfied Win95 user, so don't get me wrong, but this kind
of message is just inviting a flame-fest where we'll all have to wade
through 100's of garbage messages for weeks. I personally am secure
that I made the right choice (for me), regardless of OS/2's relative
performance results.
I know this is futile to ask, but would everybody NOT respond to this
post?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mo...@are.berkeley.edu
Maxwell Daymon
: Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead
: last among NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a
: spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2 spreadsheet software, too). It
: took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
Stinks of FUD to me. (Either that or someone's totally brain dead)
The OS would have very little to do with a processor-centric function
like that. It would be between the processor and application almost
completely. How can you trust a magazine that thinks this has something
to do with the OS?
Triple Quadrophenic
>
>henn...@cloud9.net (Mathew Hennessy) wrote:
>
>
>>4) win95 supports newer internet apps and "plugins" now. when will
>> warp be able to run win95 apps or get native ports?
>
>
>When will WIn95 get native OS/2 app support??? OS/2 has internet apps
>that are just as new as those for Win95 and the WebExplorer in OS/2 is
>gobs better that MS's Internet Explorer..
>
Immediately after it gets support for the ZX81, Vic-20 and PDP8
Frank J Hollis________...@sbphrd.com________
Mass Spec. | |
SB Pharm | The Sinclair C5 of the |
Welwyn | Information Superhighway |
Herts. UK. |_______________________________________|
01438 782551 All opinions my own (So I'm told)
Dave Kapp
c.edu writes:
:>
:>In <4dbc2d$g...@altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net>, the...@inter.nl.net (TheRoge) writes:
:>
:>>Have you got an URL for me where I can get it? To be able to 'retrieve:>
:>will get you to the IBM update site. You can do this from a web
:>browser by:
:>
:>gopher://updates.gopher.ibm.com
:>
:>If you get SLIP going, then retrieve software updates should work.
:>
:>>The SLIP setup asks me for a IP address, but my provider has
:>>I get an IP address at logon, so I cannot fill it in in the SLIP setup.
:>This is what bootp is for (bootp works under SLIP and PPP). You
:>will run bootp within a *.cmd file. You won't fill in addresses in
{much configuration stuff snipped}
Gee, and all I did was fill in the nameserver, MTU size, and domain name
for slippm, and it connects fine with dynamic IP addressing.
Dave Kapp
dk...@nauticom.net
-Pessimists never have unpleasant surprizes-
Wna
NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
Hmmmmm
st...@radix.net
>Hmmmmm
But, as the article continues:
"As Lotus acknowledged, these out-of-whack results are probably due
more to the antiquated design of the current OS/2 version of 1-2-3
than to any fundamental problems with the OS itself."
I use both Windows 95 and Warp and both are good OS's. Let's not
spread disinformation around. There's already way too much of it...
Oliver Steinmeier
Wna <w...@evansville.net> wrote:
>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>
>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
>
>Hmmmmm
>
Hmmm, indeed...
Usually I don't waste my time on these kinds of messages... but anyway,
can you please explain why it takes Warp 28 minutes to recalculate a
spreadsheet? Or for that matter, any operating system? In case you don't
know, OS/2 (and Win95, NT, ...) is an operating system and not a
spreadsheet program.
So if this was an operating system shootout, why on earth did they use
(different, I presume) spreadsheet programs for this comparison?
Oliver
Tom Bulum
>>>Granted OS/2 is an alternative but a weak one. For me to do the same
>>>thing in OS/2 that I do now in 95 would take me about 64 megs of ram
>>>since OS/2 uses 2megs/virtual machine. There is also pitifull driver
>>>support and hardly any apps.
>Kevin: You've never used OS/2, have you... Try it some time... You
>might like it...
>Scott
>>
>>>Kevin Burton
>>
>>
>>I don't know where you get this idea that OS/2 takes 2 Megs per
>>virtual machine? I can set it for many megs of memory but it will only
>>use what's been requested.
>>
>Tom: OS/2 can also assign _Virtual_ DPMI Memory to apps. It can make
>an app think it's got 256Mb RAM to work with if the user wants...
>Scott
I think that was the point I was trying to make.
Tom Bulum (tom....@accc.gov.au)
---
Nothing I have written here is in any way, shape, or form the policy or opinion of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and should not be represented as such when quoted or referred to here or in any other forum or in any publication.
Ulrich Guenther
: Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
: NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
: spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
: Hmmmmm
WOW. That's MACROHARD!
This is 28sec vs 1680sec, where both numbers (in sec or min) can be
divided by 7. Amazing!
I actually expected 2 vs 95.
By the way: Where did they spread the sheets? Did they give any details?
What was the goal of spreading them?
Is there any philosophical background?
Are there any real applications to this?
--
*******************************************************
***** Ulrich Guenther, Tufts Univ., Biochemistry ****
***** email: ugun...@diamond.tufts.edu ****
*******************************************************
Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.
>
>I know this is futile to ask, but would everybody NOT respond to this
>post?
>
Ok. I promise. :-)
------------------------------------------------------
Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.
ezso...@microserve.net
http://www.microserve.net/~ezsoldos
David Shepherd
: In article <30fc4a12...@news.evansville.net>,
: Wna <w...@evansville.net> wrote:
: >Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
: >
: >NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
: >spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
: >
: >Hmmmmm
: Hmmm, indeed...
: Usually I don't waste my time on these kinds of messages... but anyway,
: can you please explain why it takes Warp 28 minutes to recalculate a
: spreadsheet? Or for that matter, any operating system? In case you don't
: know, OS/2 (and Win95, NT, ...) is an operating system and not a
: spreadsheet program.
: So if this was an operating system shootout, why on earth did they use
: (different, I presume) spreadsheet programs for this comparison?
There are some OS effects that can be measured - especially if you
set the benchmark up in a way where the OS/2 program (the old version
of 1-2-3 I assume which I believe is a real memory hog) pushes
resources past the point where it needs to swap a lot while the
others don't. Certainly I know on various programs I run on
Suns here that once you push the image size past the physical
memory size (BTW, I'm talking about machines with 0.25GB phys memories
here :-) then you might as well give up as you can quite easily see
a 100x slowdown.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd
SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics Ltd, 1000 aztec west, bristol bs12 4sq, u.k.
tel/fax: +44 1454 611638/617910 email: d...@bristol.st.com
"whatever you don't want, you don't want negative advertising"
Steve Withers
>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>
>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
>
>Hmmmmm
Only 60 times slower?
Surely they could have made it look worse than that.
What was the OS/2 spreadsheet app?
Steve
ga...@atcon.com
>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>
>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
>
>Hmmmmm
>
>
>
Well since I've never seen even the hugest spreadsheet I have take more than a few minutes for a calculation
under Mesa/2 in WARP, I'm guessing the Mag test was wrong or influenced by some
bug, if not Billy's wallet.
Klaus Fuchs
|> In <30fc4a12...@news.evansville.net>, w...@evansville.net (Wna) writes:
|> >Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
|> >
|> >NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
|> >spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
|> >
|> >Hmmmmm
|>
|>
|> Surely they could have made it look worse than that.
|>
|> What was the OS/2 spreadsheet app?
|> Steve
--
ciao |<laus
* e-mail : st00...@hrzpub.th-darmstadt.de
* (fido : 2:246/8755.15)
* s-mail : Klaus Fuchs / Gutastr.2 / 88046 Friedrichshafen
* phone : 06151/315015 oder 07541/21628)
* homepage: http://www.th-darmstadt.de/~st000914
Tim Bakaroff
-> Subject: Re: Why OS/2 sucks!?*&$%^#@
->
-> henn...@cloud9.net (Mathew Hennessy) wrote:
->
-> > My brother swears by warp, but I'm not convinced. Why?
(cut cut cut)
-> >- Matt
Well I'd say from your list of hardware that you need to make
some changes. OS/2 requires quality hardware (it IS an IBM
product, not a clone type product) and your brother probably
has beeter hardware (and probably running OS/2 native applications
where are really better than any Windows stuff I've seen.)
Tim B.
tim.ba...@chauvet.com
TheRoge
>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
What spreadsheet was that? I want to be sure _never_ to buy it! :-)
>Hmmmmm
That's certainly worth a hmmmmmmm, in fact a 28 minute
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm would be even more appropriate ;-)
Holger Veit
|> w...@evansville.net (Wna) wrote:
|>
|> >Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
|> >
|> >NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
|> >spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
|> >
|>
|> Please go away!
|>
|> I'm a very satisfied Win95 user, so don't get me wrong, but this kind
|> of message is just inviting a flame-fest where we'll all have to wade
|> through 100's of garbage messages for weeks. I personally am secure
|> that I made the right choice (for me), regardless of OS/2's relative
|> performance results.
Ever heard of the feature named "kill-file" that any reasonable newsreader
has? Your newsreader lacks it?
--
Dr.-Ing. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holge...@gmd.de
| | / GMD - German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448
|__| / Center for Information Technology| Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2242
| | / Schloss Birlinghoven | "They're not sending back [Win95]
| |/ D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany | because it's not selling well; they
WWW: http://borneo.gmd.de/~veit/ | have overordered" (M$ spokesperson)
bb0...@cc.binghamton.edu
>w...@evansville.net (Wna) wrote:
>
>>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead last among
>
>>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one running on native OS/2
>>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the same calculation.
>
>
>>Hmmmmm
>
>That's certainly worth a hmmmmmmm, in fact a 28 minute
>hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm would be even more appropriate ;-)
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ File & Mailboard AD FUNDUM - The Netherlands - Powered by Win95 +
>+ +31-320-282104 *** No sHiT - JuSt EnJoY *** RA 2.02/FD 2.12 +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
or whatever... meanwhile win95 was using its custom made Excel 7. And they
had both of them trying to do the same task.... BASTARDS!!!
Gerry
Boleslaw Mynarski
(Wna) w
rites:
==>
==>Did you read in PC World this month in the OS Shootout that Warp (dead
last among
==>
==>NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (one
running on native OS/2
==>spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the
same calculation.
==>
==>Hmmmmm
==>
I've just read an article in PC Week (or Canada Computes) talking about it.
IBM and Mac question the methodology of these tests. I'm not surprised.
Comparing Windows 95 and OS/2 is like taking a Porche into a 30 mile per
hour zone. It will never work.
Bolek,
See you on the NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boleslaw Mynarski, Team OS/2.........G E T W A R P E D by OS/2!!!
bmyn...@pathcom.com ..............http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk
OS/2 Junction Point: .....http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/os2.html
Charities:..........http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/charities.html
===================================================================
Pathway Communications' OS/2 Warp Support:
http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/pathway_os2.html
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Steinmeier
David Shepherd <d...@bristol.st.com> wrote:
>
>There are some OS effects that can be measured - especially if you
>set the benchmark up in a way where the OS/2 program (the old version
>of 1-2-3 I assume which I believe is a real memory hog) pushes
>resources past the point where it needs to swap a lot while the
>others don't.
Benchmarking different operating systems by running platoform-specific
programs says very little about the performance of the operating
system. Too many other factors (like the quality of the application,
the quality of the code produced by the compiler used to produce the
application) come into play. With these kinds of "benchmarks" you
can prove anything if you just look hard enough for an appropriate
pair of programs that suits your political agenda...
>Certainly I know on various programs I run on
>Suns here that once you push the image size past the physical
>memory size (BTW, I'm talking about machines with 0.25GB phys memories
>here :-) then you might as well give up as you can quite easily see
>a 100x slowdown.
>
Yeah, tell me... the only thing my Sun needed for that was Solaris
(after running SunOS before) <sigh>
Oliver
TheRoge
>:>This is what bootp is for (bootp works under SLIP and PPP). You
>:>will run bootp within a *.cmd file. You won't fill in addresses in
> {much configuration stuff snipped}
>Gee, and all I did was fill in the nameserver, MTU size, and domain name
>for slippm, and it connects fine with dynamic IP addressing.
A user of my BBS uploaded PPP.ZIP to me.. Just unzipped it in the
TCPIP dir, booted OS/2, and there it was: PPP Just configured it and
it was ready..
MIKE COCKE
> NT, Mac OS and Win 95, took 28 MINUTES to recalculate a spreadsheet (
> g on native OS/2
> spreadsheet software, too). It took Win 95 28 SECONDS to perform the
> lation.
Anyone who believes what they read in a Ziff-Davis publication
deserves what will happen to them when they count on it.
Mike-
Internet Email: mike....@cencore.com
========================================================================
Member: DNRC Watcher: Babylon 5 User: OS/2 Warp
I guess that about covers it!
* RM 1.31 1312 * OS/2:..."The same thing as NT-only it works." J. Dvorak