WILL There Be A WARP 5?
Dave Feustel
As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
in Warp.
I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
--
Dave Feustel http://feustel.mixi.net
219-483-1857 mailto:feu...@netcom.com
Rene Pawlitzek
Dave Feustel (feu...@netcom.com) wrote:
: As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
: run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
: implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
: in Warp.
You can run Win32 applications on a NT Server and redirect the output to
your Win-OS/2 environment. You can also run programs on a UNIX box and
redirect the output to the OS/2 X-Server.
: I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
You better stick with Java! It's more secure and a de-facto standard.
: Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
IBM has [D]SOM for OS/2 and AIX.
: How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
Java applications run well on OS/2. PC Magazin reported that the OS/2 Java
VM was able to run all their test applications.
: --
: Dave Feustel http://feustel.mixi.net
: 219-483-1857 mailto:feu...@netcom.com
Hope this helps
Rene Pawlitzek
http://www.pawlitzek.halifax.ns.ca
--------
OS/2 opens Windows......
Faye Pearson
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:00:39 GMT, Dave Feustel wrote:
>As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
>run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
>implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
>in Warp.
I think you are probably at least partly right there.
>I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
The only system currently running ActiveX is Windows to my knowledge.
I think Microsoft will be putting it into Internet Explorer for Unix
but I don't think many sysadmins would install it since it seems
to be tantamount to giving away the root password. I'll stick with
Java thank you very much.
>Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
OS/2 has had [D]SOM for a very very long time. I believe it is one of
the few object models that conforms to the CORBA/OMG standards.
The object oriented Workplace shell, StarDock's Object Desktop and
many other packages that seamlessly integrate into the OS/2 desktop
are built upon SOM and DSOM makes Client-Server applications a breeze
particularly when used with a Direct-to-SOM compiler.
>How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
Very well, and without a lot of the palava I have had trying to explain
how to run Java applications to Windows users. I believe that
Microsoft is purposely trying to make that part more difficult in
order to delay the take-up and development of mainstream Java
applications.
Faye
--
Faye Pearson, fa...@zippy.clara.net
Scan your POP3 mailbox for unwanted mail before you download:
Try POP3c for Java at http://home.clara.net/zippy/
Jan Danielsson
:>As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
:>run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
:>implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
:>in Warp.
Win32 'support' is implemented in OS/2 Warp4, but not as a
runtime-environment. (Bad termonology :-)
If IBM were to support all API:s they can find, OS/2 would be big. _Very_
big. So what they did was to develop a library which helps devlopers port
their applications from Win32 to OS/2.
IMHO, that is a better solution.
:>I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
Correct, AFAIK.
:>Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
[D]SOM?
:>How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
Good. I have only tried a few apps, but all of them have worked well.
However, I found one application which did not allow me to enter a
drive-letter (c:) in in a entry-field.
..jd
Robert Dohrenburg
Dave Feustel wrote:
>
> As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
> run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
> implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
> in Warp.
>
Only MS IE, thank God!
>
> Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
Yep, DSOM.
>
> How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
Java apps work very well under OS/2. Just attend any JAVA seminar and
you'll see the numbers behind it. JAVA is the future.
Robert Dohrenburg.
Matt McLeod
fa...@zippy.clara.net (Faye Pearson) writes:
>On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:00:39 GMT, Dave Feustel wrote:
[snip]
>>I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
>The only system currently running ActiveX is Windows to my knowledge.
>I think Microsoft will be putting it into Internet Explorer for Unix
>but I don't think many sysadmins would install it since it seems
>to be tantamount to giving away the root password. I'll stick with
>Java thank you very much.
The only way that an ActiveX control running on a Unix system is going to be
able to do superuser stuff is if the browser is being run by root, and quite
frankly, any admin who runs their web browser as root deserves whatever they
get.
ActiveX on a Unix platform would be a whole heap safer than ActiveX on any
of the current Win32 flavours. That's not to say that ActiveX is such a
great idea in the first place, though...
[snip]
>>How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
>Very well, and without a lot of the palava I have had trying to explain
>how to run Java applications to Windows users. I believe that
>Microsoft is purposely trying to make that part more difficult in
>order to delay the take-up and development of mainstream Java
>applications.
To be fair, the main difficulty in running Java apps on Windows is that you
don't get the JVM (outside IE) right out of the box the way you do with OS/2
or some Linux distributions. If you download and install the JDK though,
you're at pretty much the same level of support as OS/2 (probably slightly
better, actually, as Sun implements new JDK's on Windows long before IBM is
able to get any updates out for OS/2).
The following is pure opinion: IBM would be wasting their time doing a Warp
5, unless they make some significant changes to the way in which they deal
with OS/2 - IMO, they should either:
* put OS/2 in a seperate company, and spin it off, or
* sell OS/2 to someone who actually wants to commit to it, or
* release all non-3rd-party source under GPL, and let the freeware community
fix it.
As things stand, it's just one little product in one huge corporation, used
as a bit of a political football.
Now, I actually *like* OS/2, but I won't get
particularly excited by a Warp 5 release unless IBM does something
significant with it - and bundling a bunch of pre-existing products with
bugger-all by way of integration, and making PM look a little different,
isn't what I call significant.
Matt
--
Matt McLeod, <mjm(at)hna.com.au>
"Please try to understand before one of us dies".
imw...@ibm.net
and several major plumbing enhancements are included, IBM would be wasting
our time and money with Warp 5. My own hunch is that that the client wps
Warp 5 will never see the light of day, in spite of what IBM has been saying.
Ira Wechsler, os/2 user and advocate, member NY OS/2 Users sig of NYPC UG
Mark Hood
m...@praetor.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
> Now, I actually *like* OS/2, but I won't get
> particularly excited by a Warp 5 release unless IBM does something
> significant with it - and bundling a bunch of pre-existing products with
> bugger-all by way of integration, and making PM look a little different,
> isn't what I call significant.
If Warp 5 includes JFS support, I'd consider that a significant improvement.
Getting rid of those damn drive letters, letting filesystems span physical
drives through logical volumes, and providing some sort of filename aliasing
with symbolic links would be enough to convince me to upgrade.
-- Mark Hood
Robert McCharles
> If Warp 5 includes JFS support, I'd consider that a significant
> improvement. Getting rid of those damn drive letters, letting
> filesystems span physical drives through logical volumes, and
> providing some sort of filename aliasing
> with symbolic links would be enough to convince me to upgrade.
>
> -- Mark Hood
By the time WARP 5 gets here, I will be wanting 10GB disk drives.
I don't want to wait an hour for FDISK to run on a couple of
those. I would probably buy WARP w/ JFS for that reason alone. They
don't have to get rid of the drive letters, and they probably
shouldn't for compatibility reasons. Just letting people span
a logical volume accross muliple drives would do it. I am not
keen on symbolic links. I used them for many years in a version
of U**X. Whenever I changed a file, I was never sure what else
I was changing. If they do add this I hope they will also add
an API that allows pointing backward from the file to all its
aliases.
...McBob
Erik Hofman
On 13 Jul 1997 00:02:08 +1000, m...@praetor.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
wrote:
>Now, I actually *like* OS/2, but I won't get
>particularly excited by a Warp 5 release unless IBM does something
>significant with it - and bundling a bunch of pre-existing products with
>bugger-all by way of integration, and making PM look a little different,
>isn't what I call significant.
Too much time spent with Microsoft software I guess:
IBM isn't the one who is selling an OS by adding gadgets, free
(worhtless) stuff etc.
The next release of OS/2 will (probably) be 64 bit oriented, multi
processor enabled an more of that.
Talking about an improvement here ...
Erik Hofman
David Shepherd
Robert Dohrenburg <rdo...@ibm.net> wrote:
: Dave Feustel wrote:
: >
: > As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
: > run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
: > implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
: > in Warp.
: > I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
: Only MS IE, thank God!
Yes - which is why our IT dept every so often remind people with
company laptops etc that NetScape is the only wen browser approved
by Corporate IT security and that it is specifically forbidden to
install IE on any company machine!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd
SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics Ltd, 1000 aztec west, bristol bs12 4sq, u.k.
tel/fax: +44 1454 611522/617910 email: d...@bristol.st.com
"whatever you don't want, you don't want negative advertising"
Matt McLeod
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:54:58 GMT, Erik Hofman <e...@a1.nl> wrote:
:On 13 Jul 1997 00:02:08 +1000, m...@praetor.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
:wrote:
:
:>fa...@zippy.clara.net (Faye Pearson) writes:
:>
:>>On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:00:39 GMT, Dave Feustel wrote:
:>[snip]
:>
:>>The only system currently running ActiveX is Windows to my knowledge.
I'm referring to Warp v4. Which is basically Warp v3, with a few fixes, the
appearance of most PM controls changed, a few new bits in WPS (like the
menubar in folders), and a whole heap of bundled software which doesn't
really seem very integrated into the whole package, beyond having a common
installer.
Warp v3 was similar - basically a tweaked v2.11, new icons, and bundled (but
not very well integrated) software.
We should really be on OS/2 v2.3 - neither v3 or v4 really warranted the
incremented major version number.
Now, given this track record (tweak it a bit, bundle some other,
pre-existing products, call it a major version upgrade), can anyone really
blame me for being a bit less than enthusiastic about v5?
Now, having a 64-bit, multi-processor OS would be nice, but how about really
fixing some of the faults in the existing product first? IBM should be
working on OS/2 v4.1, with better integration of all the parts and some of
the really bad bits of PM appearance fixed (like hard-coded grey
controls...). It doesn't have to be mind-bogglingly expensive to do.
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
In <feustelE...@netcom.com>, feu...@netcom.com (Dave Feustel) writes:
>As A Longtime OS/2 User who switched to Win95 & NT just to be able to
>run NetScape Navigator and IE Explorer, I wonder if IBM did not
>implicitly capitulate to MS when IBM decided not to implement Win32
>in Warp.
>
I have both Navigator and Explorer under both Windows 95 and Macintosh,
and I won't switch platforms just for them. In fact sometimes I prefer
running the browsers under the Mac, because the Mac caps a memory limit
on them. Navigator on the OS/2 and Windows side, as well as Explorer on
the Windows side, seems to exhibit memory leaks.
>I presume that no Web Browser runs ActiveX applications.
>
Thank god. ActiveX is one reason why I stay away from using Windows as
a browsing platform. In fact, my preferred platform when using IE is
the Mac (until someone learns how to make PowerPC ActiveX viruses).
>Does IBM have any software technology equivalent to Microsoft [D]COM?
Thank god no.
Every IBM object technology like DSOM is better.
>How well do JAVA apps run on OS/2 these days?
>--
Very good.
>Dave Feustel http://feustel.mixi.net
>219-483-1857 mailto:feu...@netcom.com
Rgds,
Chris
"Devant le comportement irrationnel de sa machine, j'ai compris que se
poser en dfenseur de Windows releve de la plus profonde bassesse. J'ai
honte" --- Eric Bernatchez, "La Presse" newspaper, "Cyberpresse"
column, March 22, 1997, Montreal, Canada.
"Confronted with his machines irrational behaviour, it dawned upon me
that taking the position of Windows advocate is of the lowest possible
ethics. I am ashamed".
***cro...@kuentos.guam.net***
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
>Now, having a 64-bit, multi-processor OS would be nice, but how about really
I am not sure if you really will see the light of this, since IBM
already has a 64 bit multiprocessor OS (AS/400) and plans to move AIX to
64 bit soon. That would be reinventing the wheel three times.
I don't even know if IBM will make an OS for Merced, and PPC OS/2 will
have to come out first before any 64 bit OS/2 because PPC OS/2 will have
to be the basis for 64 bit OS/2. My speculation points that you might
have to run some PPC G4 desktop (likely to be a Mac clone) for 64 bit
PPC OS/2 and the only thing you can save for use on this new platform
are your Java applications. And this scenario remains far off.
Whether 64 bit OS/2 is Merced or G4, it's going to be a server OS.
>fixing some of the faults in the existing product first? IBM should be
>working on OS/2 v4.1, with better integration of all the parts and some of
>the really bad bits of PM appearance fixed (like hard-coded grey
>controls...). It doesn't have to be mind-bogglingly expensive to do.
>
Yeah, but they seem to be concentrating on a minimized highly
configurable OS/2 for NCs and NetPCs with Netscape as its browser
interface and bundled with Lotus apps, including Java Kona applets.
Chances are that's going to be Warp v5---a ready made client for
Bluebird. Mark my word.
Rgds,
Chris
>--
>Matt McLeod, <mjm(at)hna.com.au>
>"Please try to understand before one of us dies".
>
Matt McLeod
On 16 Jul 1997 05:17:08 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net <cro...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
:Yeah, but they seem to be concentrating on a minimized highly
:configurable OS/2 for NCs and NetPCs with Netscape as its browser
:interface and bundled with Lotus apps, including Java Kona applets.
:Chances are that's going to be Warp v5---a ready made client for
:Bluebird. Mark my word.
OS/2 in name only, in other words.
Erik Hofman
On 15 Jul 1997 05:01:26 GMT, m...@SPAMMERS.hna.BUGGER.com.OFF.au (Matt
McLeod) wrote:
Hmm, not exactly,
Warp 4 is a networked version of warp 3. Warp connect was warp 3 with
added network support but warp 4 should have integrated network
support.
The major diferences between OS/2 2.1 and Warp 3 should be an increase
of overall performance. You could argu about the version numbers but
it seems a correct choice to me compared to windows ...
>Now, given this track record (tweak it a bit, bundle some other,
>pre-existing products, call it a major version upgrade), can anyone really
>blame me for being a bit less than enthusiastic about v5?
No.
>Now, having a 64-bit, multi-processor OS would be nice, but how about really
>fixing some of the faults in the existing product first? IBM should be
>working on OS/2 v4.1, with better integration of all the parts and some of
>the really bad bits of PM appearance fixed (like hard-coded grey
>controls...). It doesn't have to be mind-bogglingly expensive to do.
>
That's true, but i (personaly) like a well designed OS over an easy to
use OS with tons of bugs, etc.
I admit this won't probably sell an OS these days but it is the
stability (compared to the other) that keeps me with warp!
Erik Hofman
Adam Felson
In article <slrn5sm11...@praetor.hna.com.au>, Matt McLeod wrote:
>I'm referring to Warp v4. Which is basically Warp v3, with a few fixes, the
>appearance of most PM controls changed, a few new bits in WPS (like the
>menubar in folders), and a whole heap of bundled software which doesn't
>really seem very integrated into the whole package, beyond having a common
>installer.
>
>Warp v3 was similar - basically a tweaked v2.11, new icons, and bundled (but
>not very well integrated) software.
>
>We should really be on OS/2 v2.3 - neither v3 or v4 really warranted the
>incremented major version number.
>
>pre-existing products, call it a major version upgrade), can anyone really
>blame me for being a bit less than enthusiastic about v5?
IBM was probably following mickysoft's tactic of lying about version
numbers.
win-NT version 4.0 should really be 1.2. (NT started as 3.1 instead of
1.0)
Microsoft word 7.0 really should be 2.5. (they skipped versions 2-5)
Matt McLeod
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:25:03 GMT, Erik Hofman <e...@a1.nl> wrote:
:On 15 Jul 1997 05:01:26 GMT, m...@SPAMMERS.hna.BUGGER.com.OFF.au (Matt
:McLeod) wrote:
<snip>
:>I'm referring to Warp v4. Which is basically Warp v3, with a few fixes, the
:>appearance of most PM controls changed, a few new bits in WPS (like the
:>menubar in folders), and a whole heap of bundled software which doesn't
:>really seem very integrated into the whole package, beyond having a common
:>installer.
:>
:>Warp v3 was similar - basically a tweaked v2.11, new icons, and bundled (but
:>not very well integrated) software.
:>
:>We should really be on OS/2 v2.3 - neither v3 or v4 really warranted the
:>incremented major version number.
:Hmm, not exactly,
:
:Warp 4 is a networked version of warp 3. Warp connect was warp 3 with
:added network support but warp 4 should have integrated network
:support.
Most of the network stuff was pre-existing - e.g., the TCP/IP kit, and the
LAN Manager requester stuff. It may have been updated, but it certainly
wasn't integrated. Even the Peer stuff is near-useless to me, thanks to the
bug which causes Peer to crash if you actually access shares that it's
exporting.
:The major diferences between OS/2 2.1 and Warp 3 should be an increase
:of overall performance. You could argu about the version numbers but
:it seems a correct choice to me compared to windows ...
2.1->3.0 was more like Windows 3.0-3.1. The only sense in which it was
correct was in the sense that Windows was at version 3.x, and that's the
kind of logic which gives us a new OS debuting at version 3.1, and
word-processors which jump from version 2.0 to 6.0.
:>Now, having a 64-bit, multi-processor OS would be nice, but how about really
:>fixing some of the faults in the existing product first? IBM should be
:>working on OS/2 v4.1, with better integration of all the parts and some of
:>the really bad bits of PM appearance fixed (like hard-coded grey
:>controls...). It doesn't have to be mind-bogglingly expensive to do.
:>
:That's true, but i (personaly) like a well designed OS over an easy to
:use OS with tons of bugs, etc.
:I admit this won't probably sell an OS these days but it is the
:stability (compared to the other) that keeps me with warp!
I'm not talking about making OS/2 easier to use - just fixing some silly
little details, like the hard-coded grey PM controls.
And Warp 4 has plenty of bugs. All the talk about Warp 5 seems to be about
new features, but no mention of existing flaws being fixed.
I'm no longer confident that IBM will bother fixing these little things, and
I'd switch to Linux/WABI if only WABI could run WinG stuff (gotta have Civ2
:-)).