IBM Better Then Its Reputation?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Morenga

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 10:38:15 PM12/26/02
to
OK, after the big fuzz is over we may (or may not?) all breather easier.
I just stumbled upon a web article in which a (low/high??? level) IBMer stated that despite the Press recently
announced
OS/2 demise (again, and again and ...) IBM would "support OS/2 indefinetely".
Well those are pretty big words. Can we built our trust in them?
I at least decided to do some major upgrades (rather then migrates) on my box and stick with OS/2 for my biz as well.

So out go those darn WinPrinters back where I got them from.

The future alone will tell how wise my stuborness was in this case.

Greetings
Morenga


life...@xxvol.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2002, 9:33:28 PM12/27/02
to
"Morenga" <free...@no.net> said:

>despite the Press recently announced OS/2 demise (again, and
>again and ...) IBM would "support OS/2 indefinetely". Well those
>are pretty big words. Can we built our trust in them?

That's just the point some folks miss entirely. I started using OS/2
while Warp 3 was relatively new. Since not long after Warp 4 came out,
IBM hasn't given us any real reason not to fear the props wouldn't be
knocked out from under us.

There are, of course, those who insist that OS/2 has always been strong.
But IBM has not always told us that - in fact told us they wanted us to
drop it on at least one occasion - so we have always had a degree of
trepidation associated with our use of OS/2.

I think the only reason a lot of us have stuck with OS/2 is merely that
Windows is such crap. OS/2 gives us security regarding our data, but no
security that we won't have to completely replace it at some point - who
knows how soon. That feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop
comes directly from IBM and I, for one, would like to do some major
kicking of blue shins.

Jim L
Snip XX to Email
Which?
Bush is evil for the Gulf military buildup now, hoping for war! Bush is
good for a "warning" buildup now, hoping to avoid war!

Ernie Fisch

unread,
Dec 28, 2002, 10:51:40 PM12/28/02
to
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:33:28 UTC, life...@XXvol.com wrote: 2000

>
> I think the only reason a lot of us have stuck with OS/2 is merely that
> Windows is such crap. OS/2 gives us security regarding our data, but no
> security that we won't have to completely replace it at some point - who
> knows how soon. That feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop
> comes directly from IBM and I, for one, would like to do some major
> kicking of blue shins.

Jim,

I think your points are well taken. My view is that I can run for at
least a couple of years more even if IBM were to drop OS/2 on Monday.
That is at least two lifetimes for a Win printer. At the end of that
time my options are open, Linux or a Mac. Windows is right out.

--
ernie fisch

heit...@ameritech.net

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 12:20:47 PM12/30/02
to

The only problem is living with OS/2 is it is a slow death via
a thousand little cuts. I guess I like pain. My recent experience
is spending all day trying to get SMP working on the 4.52 setup
I have. When I stopped I realized there *is no* SMP support for
4.52 unless you have the WSEB version (even though installing SMP
support is an option on the selective install menu). Enabling SMP
in Windows 2000 is a simple right mouse click. I hate M$ but facts
is facts.

--

Fred

Error Loading Explorer.exe
You must reinstall Windows.

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 10:14:00 PM12/30/02
to
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:

> The only problem is living with OS/2 is it is a slow death via
> a thousand little cuts. I guess I like pain. My recent experience
> is spending all day trying to get SMP working on the 4.52 setup
> I have. When I stopped I realized there *is no* SMP support for
> 4.52 unless you have the WSEB version (even though installing SMP
> support is an option on the selective install menu). Enabling SMP
> in Windows 2000 is a simple right mouse click. I hate M$ but facts
> is facts.
>

fact 1 - OS/2 SMP uses true mutli-threading
fact 2 - OS/2 SMP uses true multi-tasking
fact 3 - OS/2 is 64 CPU capable, and a 4x Netfinity box is blinding,
blows Win/Linux away
fact 4 - win2000 fails on both counts, hence the 'simple click' - but
why bother
fact 5 - linux fails on threading
fact 6 - SMP module is available from Serenity for $99
fact 7 - TANSTAFL - you get what you pay for.....

BTW been running 2x SMP for 2yrs now... totally stable, and fast....

cheers,
--
Britt - bmt1sympaticoca - add the punctuation
OS2 the more you use it, the better it gets...
Winxx.. keep the apps.. junk the OS.. => http://www.ecomstation.com
System uptime is 4 days 16:53 hrs/mins

heit...@ameritech.net

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 11:42:37 AM12/31/02
to
Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:
>
>
>fact 1 - OS/2 SMP uses true mutli-threading
>fact 2 - OS/2 SMP uses true multi-tasking

These two are just slinging buzz words around.
Multi-threading and multi-tasking are still evolving technology
at least at the high end.

>fact 3 - OS/2 is 64 CPU capable, and a 4x Netfinity box is blinding,
>blows Win/Linux away

64-bit? On what hardware? If I was in the market for a
64-bit box, I wouldn't want one that was *capable* of doing
64-bits - I'd want one that *was* 64-bit.

>fact 4 - win2000 fails on both counts, hence the 'simple click' - but
>why bother

Well I'm not going to defend Windows and M$ too much but
64-bit means almost nothing if you don't have applications
for it. But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more
responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2,
MCP 4.52. I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs
about like Warp (again saddly).

>fact 5 - linux fails on threading

It's weak I admit but getting better all the time.

>fact 6 - SMP module is available from Serenity for $99

Does it work on MCP 4.52? i.e. could I buy it for
$99 and install it on my system -no other purchases
required?

>fact 7 - TANSTAFL - you get what you pay for.....

I have no doubt that the SMP performance for Warp is
probably world class. I *also* have no doubt that for
most applications that real people care about Linux and
Windows SMP is probably OK. Can you find a case where
Warp SMP is better - sure.

TANSTAAFL - The catch all phrase telling someone to piss off.

fact 0 - Only the most wealthy and dedicated OS/2 User can
get SMP for OS/2.

I have spent, probably thousands of $$ supporting OS/2
over the years and now I have to pay more for SMP support,
something available standard on every other comparable OS.
Yes, "comparable" could be open to interpretation.

The statement IBM will support OS/2 for as long as anybody
wants it means that as long as someone is willing to pony
up big (corporate style) bucks IBM will supply and support
OS/2. It means virtually nothing to users like me.
Can't say I blame IBM really. They have a product they
really wish they could shit-can, but if a little more
$$ is to be made, well, what-the-hell?

I am a SOHO user (hobbiest really.) I use Linux most
of the time. Occasionally I boot OS/2 to marvel at some
of the cool things and curse the really stupid things.
The experience kind of reminds me of using a Macintosh,
except on a Macintosh you can actually get current (meaning
a programmer actually worked on it recently) shrinkwrap software
(that people like me might actually use) for it. And BTW Mac OS X
has SMP and you don't have to pay extra to have it in the
OS.

Again, I am not defending Windows 2000, Machintosh, Linux, etc.
except to point out that SMP is extra on OS/2 and standard
on its competition.

David T. Johnson

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 9:13:31 AM12/31/02
to
heit...@ameritech.net wrote: > Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote: >>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote: >>fact 1 - OS/2 SMP uses true mutli-threading >>fact 2 - OS/2 SMP uses true multi-tasking > These two are just slinging buzz words around. > Multi-threading and multi-tasking are still evolving technology > at least at the high end. >>fact 3 - OS/2 is 64 CPU capable, and a 4x Netfinity box is blinding, >>blows Win/Linux away > 64-bit? On what hardware? If I was in the market for a > 64-bit box, I wouldn't want one that was *capable* of doing > 64-bits - I'd want one that *was* 64-bit. He is talking about 64 CPUs, not 64-bit. Some servers use up to 64 CPUs. >>fact 4 - win2000 fails on both counts, hence the 'simple click' - but >>why bother > Well I'm not going to defend Windows and M$ too much but > 64-bit means almost nothing if you don't have applications > for it. That is not defending Windows. There are almost no 64-bit Windows applications available. > But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more > responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2, > MCP 4.52. Are you really using OS/2 Warp 4.52 from IBM? I have used it for many months now and have not seen any stability problems with it of any kind at all. If you are really using OS/2 Warp 4.52 and are truly having stability problems, there is something wrong with your system or install. Specifically, what kind of "stability" failure are you observing and how often do you see it? > I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs > about like Warp (again saddly). Comparing Windows 98SE with Warp 4.52 is ludicrous. Windows 98SE is a toy. Specifically, what runs on Windows 98SE 'about like Warp?' Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and IBM Web Browser v2.0

J. Clarke

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 1:55:37 PM12/31/02
to
In article <1OjQ9.10796$4j5.6...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
heit...@ameritech.net says...

> Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >fact 1 - OS/2 SMP uses true mutli-threading
> >fact 2 - OS/2 SMP uses true multi-tasking
>
> These two are just slinging buzz words around.
> Multi-threading and multi-tasking are still evolving technology
> at least at the high end.
>
> >fact 3 - OS/2 is 64 CPU capable, and a 4x Netfinity box is blinding,
> >blows Win/Linux away
>
> 64-bit? On what hardware? If I was in the market for a
> 64-bit box, I wouldn't want one that was *capable* of doing
> 64-bits - I'd want one that *was* 64-bit.

I think he meant 64-way SMP. Somehow I doubt that his 4x Netfinity with
OS/2 is going to be much of a threat to a Z900-2C9 with Linux.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:20:24 PM12/31/02
to
[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...] On
Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:42:37 UTC, heitnospamkamp(at)ameritech(dot)net
wrote:

> Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >fact 1 - OS/2 SMP uses true mutli-threading
> >fact 2 - OS/2 SMP uses true multi-tasking
>
> These two are just slinging buzz words around.
> Multi-threading and multi-tasking are still evolving technology
> at least at the high end.
>

Hi Fred,

you raised some interesting points...

re above.. quite probably for other OSes... OS/2 works great, and has
done for years, so rather than wait and hope for improvements in other
OSes, I have since '96 enjoyed, and am still enjoying, that which is yet
to mature elesewhere....



> >fact 3 - OS/2 is 64 CPU capable, and a 4x Netfinity box is blinding,
> >blows Win/Linux away
>
> 64-bit? On what hardware? If I was in the market for a
> 64-bit box, I wouldn't want one that was *capable* of doing
> 64-bits - I'd want one that *was* 64-bit.
>

uuhmmm.. 64 Central Processing Units.... who cares about 64bit CPU's

> >fact 4 - win2000 fails on both counts, hence the 'simple click' - but
> >why bother
>
> Well I'm not going to defend Windows and M$ too much but
> 64-bit means almost nothing if you don't have applications
> for it. But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more
> responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2,
> MCP 4.52. I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs
> about like Warp (again saddly).
>

then maybe you should investigate why OS/2 is not stable....
here this 4.5+ vintage has proved to be the most stable ever... and we
are talking months of up time, in daily use, and occasional very heavy
loads during the course of the day... solid as a rock....

> >fact 5 - linux fails on threading
>
> It's weak I admit but getting better all the time.
>

true, but bear in mind as I said above, I have had the benefit of good
threading/multitasking for years already....



> >fact 6 - SMP module is available from Serenity for $99
>
> Does it work on MCP 4.52? i.e. could I buy it for
> $99 and install it on my system -no other purchases
> required?
>

yep... hence it is classed as an upgrade...



> >fact 7 - TANSTAFL - you get what you pay for.....
>
> I have no doubt that the SMP performance for Warp is
> probably world class. I *also* have no doubt that for
> most applications that real people care about Linux and
> Windows SMP is probably OK. Can you find a case where
> Warp SMP is better - sure.
>
> TANSTAAFL - The catch all phrase telling someone to piss off.
>

Huh..? [T]here [A]in't [N]o [S]uch [T]hing [A]s [A] [F]ree [L]unch..?
pisses you off..? how for god's sake..?



> fact 0 - Only the most wealthy and dedicated OS/2 User can
> get SMP for OS/2.
>

oh how silly.... spend hundreds on hardware and software, and then
grumble about $100 for something that max'es the investment out.... and
something that you only buy once, and never wears out at that....

> I have spent, probably thousands of $$ supporting OS/2
> over the years and now I have to pay more for SMP support,
> something available standard on every other comparable OS.
> Yes, "comparable" could be open to interpretation.
>

yes of course it's available for free elsewhere.... nobody in their
right mind buys something that cannot perform comensurate with the
investment....hence free => useless (or next to)

> The statement IBM will support OS/2 for as long as anybody
> wants it means that as long as someone is willing to pony
> up big (corporate style) bucks IBM will supply and support
> OS/2. It means virtually nothing to users like me.
> Can't say I blame IBM really. They have a product they
> really wish they could shit-can, but if a little more
> $$ is to be made, well, what-the-hell?
>

I don't buy computer hardware/software unless I need it....
So I don't anticipate any further investments for several years, other
than perhaps $90 or so for upgrade protection from Serenity... the
software I need I already have, OS/2 max'es out my hardware, so the
upgrade urge is non existant... except perhaps for actual hardware
failures...

> I am a SOHO user (hobbiest really.) I use Linux most
> of the time. Occasionally I boot OS/2 to marvel at some
> of the cool things and curse the really stupid things.
> The experience kind of reminds me of using a Macintosh,
> except on a Macintosh you can actually get current (meaning
> a programmer actually worked on it recently) shrinkwrap software
> (that people like me might actually use) for it. And BTW Mac OS X
> has SMP and you don't have to pay extra to have it in the
> OS.
>

depends how you define free... you pay one way or another... be it high
package prices for the OS, technically inferior performance, or just
having to work in an environment not to your taste.....

I like OS/2, I have everything I need/want to do that which I want, the
deficincies of OS/2 are few and now have no effect on me.... at the same
time the other OSes interest me not in the slightest as they fail to
meet my needs.....

So if I consider my OS/2 experience it goes something like

'93 => $25 for v2.1 (I actually prefered DesqView/Xwindows in this era)
'95(6?) => $125 for W4 (skipped 3)
2000 => $139 for eCs
2000 => $99 for SMP

so over 10 years I have invested ~ $400 or $40 per year.....

not to mention intangibles like not having to futze around with
hardware/software, once a thing is installed and working, in OS/2 it
will continue todo so for evermore...

then there is the install thingy, I do mine roughly annually, just to do
a major cleanup... amazing what I find..<VBG>

then there is the fact that I have not had to revise my mode of working,
nor have I wasted time relearning things... over the years I have become
quite proficient at doing what I want to todo with the least effort....

> Again, I am not defending Windows 2000, Machintosh, Linux, etc.
> except to point out that SMP is extra on OS/2 and standard
> on its competition.
>

I hear you... but I personally would rather spend a few $$$$ on
something that directly benefits me, rather than foregoe that benefit...
hence I have few qualms about investing in OS/2... whereas I see no
advantage in switching to Linux, free or not, being that in my opinion
'free' is not applicable to me, as I would invest time and effort to get
Linux useable and to my taste, instead of doing what I want with what I
already have....

eric w

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 8:27:46 PM12/31/02
to
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:42:37 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:

> But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more
> responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2,
> MCP 4.52.

you simply need to invest a little time applying maintenance.

here is my formula for stability:

kernel 14.093a (10/28/2002) (add CLOCKSCALE=4 to config.sys
for greater responsiveness)
mpts fixpak WR08706
stack apar fix IC35005
tcp fixpak UN02206
warpzilla 1.2.1
sddse 7.1.1


shouldn't take more than a few hours (pls remember to backup first).

Happy 2003!

eric...

USBGuy

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 9:54:57 PM12/31/02
to
>>I have spent, probably thousands of $$ supporting OS/2
>>over the years and now I have to pay more for SMP support,
>>something available standard on every other comparable OS.
>>Yes, "comparable" could be open to interpretation.
>>
>
>
> yes of course it's available for free elsewhere.... nobody in their
> right mind buys something that cannot perform comensurate with the
> investment....hence free => useless (or next to)

Well as far as wnidows SMP is not available as standard.
- 9x series (95-Me) no SMP
- XP-Home only SMT ( Hyperthreading (HT) in P4 > 3GHz) with 2 log CPUs
- NT series (3.5x, 4.0, 2000 & XP) Workstaion/Professional SMP with max
2 - CPUs, with XP Prof 2 physical or 4 logical using HT with 2 P4s > 3GHz.
- NT-Server has a limit of 4 or 8 CPUs
- W2K Enterprise Server is needed for more CPUs.

So if we compare OS/2 or ECS with current Windows
you have
XP-Home which sells for 229 EUR or 119EUR (Update) which can't do SMP or
XP Pro which you can't even new buy as a supported version from MS in
Germany Update price is 239 EUR which can do dual SMP so the pricetag
for SMP on windows is about 120 EUR. thats around 114 $ (US).
It might get cheaper if you buy the SystemBuilder (SB) versions of
XP-Home 109 EUR, XP-Pro 169 EUR. So its' 60 EUR or 57$(US) you pay for
SMP. But for that price you only get the CD and no support from MS like
replacement of defective medias. And that SB version is the only way one
can buy a new XP-Pro lic in Germany.
So 99$ for the SMP addon is very compatitive.

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:03:01 AM1/1/03
to
[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...]

>

> I think he meant 64-way SMP. Somehow I doubt that his 4x Netfinity with
> OS/2 is going to be much of a threat to a Z900-2C9 with Linux.
>

dunno what that beast is... what would one cost..?

Oh BTW thanks for quoting the whole

heit...@ameritech.net

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 2:31:55 PM1/1/03
to
Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
>[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...] On
>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:42:37 UTC, heitnospamkamp(at)ameritech(dot)net
>wrote:
>
>> 64-bit? On what hardware? If I was in the market for a
>> 64-bit box, I wouldn't want one that was *capable* of doing
>> 64-bits - I'd want one that *was* 64-bit.
>>
>uuhmmm.. 64 Central Processing Units.... who cares about 64bit CPU's

Yeah sorry, I misread that. Some people care about 64-bit CPUS.
Mostly database and very large file people. Maybe others too.

>then maybe you should investigate why OS/2 is not stable....

It runs pretty good most of the time, but if I start stressing it
by opening lots of apps on the GUI, compiling programs, reading
news, using WIN-OS2 and stuff like that, invariably OS/2 will lock
up (or at least the interface will.) and I will have to reboot.
No other OS on my system does that with such frequency. OS/2 seems
to get in race conditions or deadlocks of some sort as well.
Sometimes I can just go watch TV for awhile and when I get back
it will be "fixed". I've noticed this on OS/2 ever since I
began using it. I've had several different PCs that I installed
OS/2 on. I realize this could be just buggy apps or drivers.
If a similar thing happens on say Linux, the vast majority of
the time xkill or kill will get rid of the offending process.
Now on Windows 2000, I have had apps freeze the machine where
CTRL-ALT-DEL would not bring up the task manager and a reboot
was required. Not too often though.

>> >fact 6 - SMP module is available from Serenity for $99
>>
>> Does it work on MCP 4.52? i.e. could I buy it for
>> $99 and install it on my system -no other purchases
>> required?
>>
>yep... hence it is classed as an upgrade...

Hmmm. I might just try it then. I was also thinking I might
get the SWC again if I had some idea what IBM would provide over
the next two years. For instance, SMP support for everybody,
more drivers for modern HW, firewire support, etc.

>> TANSTAAFL - The catch all phrase telling someone to piss off.
>>
>
>Huh..? [T]here [A]in't [N]o [S]uch [T]hing [A]s [A] [F]ree [L]unch..?
>pisses you off..? how for god's sake..?

I used the phase "piss off" as in go-away. Not as in I-am-angry.
Perhaps that is wrong usage.

When someone uses TANSTAAFL, it *may* have an implied elitism
depending on the authors intent.

>
>yes of course it's available for free elsewhere.... nobody in their
>right mind buys something that cannot perform comensurate with the
>investment....hence free => useless (or next to)
>

Even though Linux is "free" I don't find it useless nor do
I find a nice walk on a sunny summer day useless, and it is
"free" as well. i.e. not all things free are useless and not
all things that cost a lot are a good value.

>I like OS/2, I have everything I need/want to do that which I want, the
>deficincies of OS/2 are few and now have no effect on me.... at the same
>time the other OSes interest me not in the slightest as they fail to
>meet my needs.....
>
>So if I consider my OS/2 experience it goes something like
>
>'93 => $25 for v2.1 (I actually prefered DesqView/Xwindows in this era)
>'95(6?) => $125 for W4 (skipped 3)
>2000 => $139 for eCs
>2000 => $99 for SMP
>
>so over 10 years I have invested ~ $400 or $40 per year.....

Actually I have have exaggerated a bit, but I have bought nearly
every version of OS/2 since 2.0. I guess my main gripe that's
not anyones fault is buying a few expensive OS/2 apps that I did
not get a whole lot of use out of.

>
>then there is the install thingy, I do mine roughly annually, just to do
>a major cleanup... amazing what I find..<VBG>

OS/2's ini-file system leaves a lot to be desired IMHO. Over
a period of time, there are a lot of dead paths and pointers that
accumulate that really slow the system down. Fortunately wptools32
does a pretty good job of getting rid of them. OS/2 needs a
decent package manager app that solves this problem. I know there
are some apps out there that address this but they don't work
with legacy apps AFAIK.
>

Fred

heit...@ameritech.net

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 2:40:46 PM1/1/03
to
David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>heit...@ameritech.net wrote:
>> Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:
>> But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more
>> responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2,
>> MCP 4.52.
>
>Are you really using OS/2 Warp 4.52 from IBM? I have used it for many

Yep.

>stability problems, there is something wrong with your system or
>install. Specifically, what kind of "stability" failure are you
>observing and how often do you see it?

See my other followup.

>
>> I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs
>> about like Warp (again saddly).
>
>Comparing Windows 98SE with Warp 4.52 is ludicrous. Windows 98SE is a
>toy. Specifically, what runs on Windows 98SE 'about like Warp?'

What I meant is general feel of speed and responsiveness.
Windows 98SE is much more responsive, say using Mozilla, which
is my browser of choice. Obviously Windows 98SE will not
be able to handle badly coded programs or programs that shuffle
large quantities of data/IO around as well as Warp, but
Warp could really stand improvement in this area as well.

Fred

Bob McLellan

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:08:20 AM1/1/03
to
I can tell you from experience with Mac and Windows in live business
siuations that even the seeming isolation of OS/2 is preferable to the
problems that occur with both those system environments. OS/2 still
carries on doing the the bulk of the business with no complaints or
hassles. When the other two environments are required for specific
business related programs, a litany of diversions occur with all the
related cost and frustration.

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 3:42:32 PM1/1/03
to
[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...]

> >then maybe you should investigate why OS/2 is not stable....


>
> It runs pretty good most of the time, but if I start stressing it
> by opening lots of apps on the GUI, compiling programs, reading
> news, using WIN-OS2 and stuff like that, invariably OS/2 will lock
> up (or at least the interface will.) and I will have to reboot.
> No other OS on my system does that with such frequency. OS/2 seems
> to get in race conditions or deadlocks of some sort as well.
> Sometimes I can just go watch TV for awhile and when I get back
> it will be "fixed". I've noticed this on OS/2 ever since I
> began using it. I've had several different PCs that I installed
> OS/2 on. I realize this could be just buggy apps or drivers.
> If a similar thing happens on say Linux, the vast majority of
> the time xkill or kill will get rid of the offending process.
> Now on Windows 2000, I have had apps freeze the machine where
> CTRL-ALT-DEL would not bring up the task manager and a reboot
> was required. Not too often though.

Hi Fred,

I leave mine running 24/7 it is a peer on a 3 node peer network, and it
has *never* locked up, and I mean over like 2 years now.....

My basic desktop has the following running/active

Mozilla, mail only with 5min refresh and ding set
Borland C++
ProNews/2
A cmdln window open
File Commander
screensaver
SCSI drive shutdown
and any default OS/2 processes

When in use I will be opening closing Lotus 123, WordPro, Web browsing
with Mozilla etc
Only play Shisen (quite addictive) now and again, but I do play Harpoon
in a Winos/2 session for hours <VBG>

> >> >fact 6 - SMP module is available from Serenity for $99
> >>
> >> Does it work on MCP 4.52? i.e. could I buy it for
> >> $99 and install it on my system -no other purchases
> >> required?
> >>
> >yep... hence it is classed as an upgrade...
>
> Hmmm. I might just try it then. I was also thinking I might
> get the SWC again if I had some idea what IBM would provide over
> the next two years. For instance, SMP support for everybody,
> more drivers for modern HW, firewire support, etc.
>

just not worth the $$$ which is just my opinion, this goes back to the
old argument, which if you are so inclined you can dig up from
google....

I have full SWC access with my eCs purchase which covers drivers/fixes,
and I got the apps covered with my upgrade protection... but I will
probably foregoe the UP, even tho' at $90 it's no biggie...

> >> TANSTAAFL - The catch all phrase telling someone to piss off.
> >>
> >
> >Huh..? [T]here [A]in't [N]o [S]uch [T]hing [A]s [A] [F]ree [L]unch..?
> >pisses you off..? how for god's sake..?
>
> I used the phase "piss off" as in go-away. Not as in I-am-angry.
> Perhaps that is wrong usage.
>

ahh, no, I am going myopic in my adult years... I saw pissed rather than
piss...
(probably also a bit of conditioning from the fudster's round here...)

> When someone uses TANSTAAFL, it *may* have an implied elitism
> depending on the authors intent.
>

nah, I'm just an old Heinlein/Van Vogt/Pohl fan....hmmm, maybe I am an
elitist..?<VBG>

> >
> >yes of course it's available for free elsewhere.... nobody in their
> >right mind buys something that cannot perform comensurate with the
> >investment....hence free => useless (or next to)
> >
>
> Even though Linux is "free" I don't find it useless nor do
> I find a nice walk on a sunny summer day useless, and it is
> "free" as well. i.e. not all things free are useless and not
> all things that cost a lot are a good value.
>

well, yeh, and I apologise for not putting my point more clearly... I
meant that Linux is free to obtain, but requires investment of my time
and effort to get to work close to how OS/2 works for me now.... so for
me it's 'free' with a catch....

> >I like OS/2, I have everything I need/want to do that which I want, the
> >deficincies of OS/2 are few and now have no effect on me.... at the same
> >time the other OSes interest me not in the slightest as they fail to
> >meet my needs.....
> >
> >So if I consider my OS/2 experience it goes something like
> >
> >'93 => $25 for v2.1 (I actually prefered DesqView/Xwindows in this era)
> >'95(6?) => $125 for W4 (skipped 3)
> >2000 => $139 for eCs
> >2000 => $99 for SMP
> >
> >so over 10 years I have invested ~ $400 or $40 per year.....
>
> Actually I have have exaggerated a bit, but I have bought nearly
> every version of OS/2 since 2.0. I guess my main gripe that's
> not anyones fault is buying a few expensive OS/2 apps that I did
> not get a whole lot of use out of.
>

I hear you, and I don't think many long term OS2 users have had any
better experience, but I would suspect that some other comercial apps
for other platforms have caused similar problems

At the same time things like ProNews, MRice, PMView, FileCommander, and
several more (which I apologise for forgetting...) make up for a lot....
and because OS2 has been around in a stable (as in no major changes)
form for so long, most current apps work like a dream...



> >
> >then there is the install thingy, I do mine roughly annually, just to do
> >a major cleanup... amazing what I find..<VBG>
>
> OS/2's ini-file system leaves a lot to be desired IMHO. Over
> a period of time, there are a lot of dead paths and pointers that
> accumulate that really slow the system down. Fortunately wptools32
> does a pretty good job of getting rid of them. OS/2 needs a
> decent package manager app that solves this problem. I know there
> are some apps out there that address this but they don't work
> with legacy apps AFAIK.
> >
>

I do checkini before and after I install an app, and also about once a
month before my complete backup.... yeh, the ini's do get cluttered, but
it's not much trouble to keep on top of...

I've heard others mention ring0 traps etc, but personally, at least
since 4.5x, I have yet to experience anything remotely like that...
these systems are toitally stable....(wanna bet what happens in the very
near future....(VBG)

There was an SMP/PEER issue, but thatwas fixed by Serenity several
months ago, so as of now I find it hard to think of something that needs
fixing... sure can think of a few things I would like added.....

Happy New Year,

eric w

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 4:14:15 PM1/1/03
to
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:31:55 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:

> Hmmm. I might just try it then. I was also thinking I might
> get the SWC again if I had some idea what IBM would provide over
> the next two years. For instance, SMP support for everybody,
> more drivers for modern HW, firewire support, etc.
>
>

from what I have been reading ECS is the better route for you!

eric...

eric w

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 4:16:04 PM1/1/03
to
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:40:46 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote:

> What I meant is general feel of speed and responsiveness.
>

clockscale=4 (config.sys) in new kernels helps this a great deal.

eric...

David T. Johnson

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 8:38:20 PM1/1/03
to
heit...@ameritech.net wrote: > David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote: >> heit...@ameritech.net wrote: >> >>> Britt Turnbull <nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:20:47 UTC, heit...@ameritech.net wrote: >>>> >>> >>> But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more responsive and stable >>> (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2, MCP 4.52. >> >> Are you really using OS/2 Warp 4.52 from IBM? I have used it for >> many > Yep. What do you show under "syslevel" for the "OS/2 Convenience Pack Service Level?" >> stability problems, there is something wrong with your system or >> install. Specifically, what kind of "stability" failure are you >> observing and how often do you see it? > See my other followup. Is this your comment? [begin Heitkamp comment] "It runs pretty good most of the time, but if I start stressing it by opening lots of apps on the GUI, compiling programs, reading news, using WIN-OS2 and stuff like that, invariably OS/2 will lock up (or at least the interface will.) and I will have to reboot. No other OS on my system does that with such frequency. OS/2 seems to get in race conditions or deadlocks of some sort as well. Sometimes I can just go watch TV for awhile and when I get back it will be "fixed". I've noticed this on OS/2 ever since I began using it." [end Heitkamp comment] Your first comment stated "But sadly for me Windows 2000 is much more responsive and stable (as is Linux) on my box than OS/2, MCP 4.52" Your second comment seems more general and refers to 'OS/2 since you began using it' and seems to refer to a frozen desktop that you claim is caused by opening lots of apps on the GUI and reading news while compiling software. What compiler are you using when this happens? Also, I notice that your posts in this thread are made with Linux rather than OS/2. Also, you posted here back in September that you use mostly Linux. It does not look like you actually use OS/2 very much and it does not look like you have very much experience with Warp 4.52 since it was only recently released and you use Linux most of the time anyway. Your comments wrt recent OS/2 versions (Warp 4.51 and Warp 4.52) don't seem to have very much familiarity with the software. For example, you also stated back in October: "Well I don't have eCS but when use the OS/2 4.52 boot CD and bring up LVM it is totally hosed." You did not mention VCU running and yet it is impossible to boot from the Warp 4.52 CD-ROM for the first time without having the VCU run. If you refuse to let VCU run, Warp goes no further. Recently, here, you posted here about installing 'SMP' on Warp 4.52 and yet Warp 4.52 has never shipped with SMP or with an SMP install screen. The bottom line on all of this is that Warp 4.52 (and Warp 4.51) are very stable and do not cause random freezes or a pattern of instability or anything else that you are alluding to above. It sounds to me like you either have never used Warp 4.52, did not install it properly, or have some problem with your your hardware/drivers or something. You refer above, though, to the problem as being a continuing one over time with many machines and many versions of OS/2 and that is completely contrary to my own experience over many machines, many years, and many versions of OS/2. I certainly would not bother using OS/2 if it randomly froze when I opened a large number of applications and for you to claim to use it for a long period of time under those conditions is odd. Even the worst problems that I remember with Warp 3 did not approach what you describe above when you say "invariably OS/2 will lock up (or at least the interface will.) and I will have to reboot." >>> I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs about like Warp >>> (again saddly). >> >> Comparing Windows 98SE with Warp 4.52 is ludicrous. Windows 98SE >> is a toy. Specifically, what runs on Windows 98SE 'about like >> Warp?' > What I meant is general feel of speed and responsiveness. Windows > 98SE is much more responsive, say using Mozilla, which is my browser > of choice. I use IBM Web Browser v2.0 which is based on Mozilla 1.0 and it seems very responsive to me. I also occasionally use Internet Explorer v5.5 on Windows 98SE on the same hardware and I don't notice any particular difference in responsiveness between the two. The menu options and windows and such open and close with suitable alacrity. Hardware has generally gotten fast enough that the speed of the software menus, windows, and stuff is no longer noticeable IMO unless there is a particular task being done that is unusually demanding. > Obviously Windows 98SE will not be able to handle badly coded > programs or programs that shuffle large quantities of data/IO around > as well as Warp, but Warp could really stand improvement in this area > as well. I simply do not see any freeze-ups and such in Warp 4.52. Warp has gradually gotten better over the years in that regard. I remember Warp 3 being much less stable than Warp 4, although it was quite good for its time when compared with the Windows 3.1 in use at the time. Warp 4 got better as the fixpacks appeared. Beginning with Warp 4.51, I did not see system lockups anymore in normal use with anything except occasionally Netscape which itself gradually improved. At the moment, I am running Warp 4.52. The only "fixes" that I have applied are fixpack 3 and device driver fixpack 3 and neither of those were required for me. The Warp 4.52 GA ran just fine for me without them. Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and IBM Web Browser v2.0

Martin Nisshagen

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:42:46 PM1/2/03
to
Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:42:32 GMT received comm from
"nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid (Britt Turnbull)":

: Only play Shisen (quite addictive) now and again, but I do play Harpoon

: in a Winos/2 session for hours <VBG>

Just curious; what type of games is Shisen and Harpoon?

Best regards,

m a r t i n | n

--
Martin Nisshagen - http://194.236.153.211/

Herbert Rosenau

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 3:51:11 PM1/2/03
to
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:38:20 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:

> Your comments wrt recent OS/2 versions (Warp 4.51 and Warp 4.52) don't
> seem to have very much familiarity with the software. For example, you
> also stated back in October: "Well I don't have eCS but when use the
> OS/2 4.52 boot CD and bring up LVM it is totally hosed." You did not
> mention VCU running and yet it is impossible to boot from the Warp 4.52
> CD-ROM for the first time without having the VCU run. If you refuse to
> let VCU run, Warp goes no further. Recently, here, you posted here
> about installing 'SMP' on Warp 4.52 and yet Warp 4.52 has never shipped
> with SMP or with an SMP install screen.

Lies over lies from the fudster DTJ. VCU is a buggy piece of software
as it is unable to convert each partition to LVM. It works only for
primary partitions.

Nobody needs VCU anyway. Boot from CD, starting LVM from hand and
converting any partition OS/2 has to see manually works quite more
better.



> The bottom line on all of this is that Warp 4.52 (and Warp 4.51) are
> very stable and do not cause random freezes or a pattern of instability
> or anything else that you are alluding to above. It sounds to me like
> you either have never used Warp 4.52, did not install it properly, or
> have some problem with your your hardware/drivers or something.

The fudster DTJ is unable to name a single point who differs from MCP1
with current fixes and the fixed MCP2. Be sure, there is not a single
byte of code in any module that comes with MCP1 + fixes that is
different to MCP2.

DTJ has proven multiple times that he quacks about things he knows
nothing about.

You
> refer above, though, to the problem as being a continuing one over time
> with many machines and many versions of OS/2 and that is completely
> contrary to my own experience over many machines, many years, and many
> versions of OS/2.

DTJ is the only who hadn't never needed a fixpack. So he had never
installed MCP1 and MCP2 because his WARP3 is absolutly problemless, so
he doesn't need a fix.

But there millions of SOHO and big customers around who are have real
problems with even the newest kernel.

I certainly would not bother using OS/2 if it
> randomly froze when I opened a large number of applications and for you
> to claim to use it for a long period of time under those conditions is
> odd. Even the worst problems that I remember with Warp 3 did not
> approach what you describe above when you say "invariably OS/2 will lock
> up (or at least the interface will.) and I will have to reboot."

Will you get each and any message one can find in os2.* who is
reporting bugs against MCP2 only? Only that MCP2 DTJ cries that it has
no bugs! Only MCP2, not MCP1, not WARP4 nothing else than MCP2 that is
reported as unable to boot from CD, that is reported to hung the whole
mashine, that is reported to have a Windows virus included in the
package builded by IBM on IBMs windows mashines, downloadable for some
moth from IBM - even weeks after after the virus was removed from the
eCS server and weeks after IBM itself had announced that there were a
virus.

It was eCS SMP IBM had removed the 3 years old bug in peer services
who had made peer unuseable under SMP. But DTJ likes to ignore any
fact who doesn't match his dreamword.

DTJ was telling anybody that IBM will bring MCP3 and MCP4 even after
IBM had officially announced that there will be no MCP after MCP2. He
was crying that MCP2 were on a better codelevel - even as one needs to
install MCP1 and thereafter MCP 2 if one has to upgrade from WARP4. He
cries MCP 2 is at a more current codelevel than MCP 1 with the fixes
announced after MCP2 was relesead some month delayed.

DTJ is known as a fudster because he cries that MCP2 with available
fixes is different from MCP 1 with the same fixpacks available - but
until today he is unable to present a single byte that is different on
both systems.

DTJ is known as a liar because he cries that SMP is only available for
WSOD but refuses to accept that SMP is available for really cheap
money with eCS 1.0 SMP and will be available with eCS 1.1 ulti
Processor Pack.

DTJ is known as a fudster because he fuds against eCS without having
seen it from far. He will tell you that MCP is not MCP because MCP is
the base used in eCS. He will declare you that the WPS is not the WPS
because eCS has some _more_ classes integrated as MCP. But again DTJ
quacks about things he knows nothing about.

DTJ will tell you that tcp/ip 4.3.2 is not tcp/ip 4.3.2 even as the
fixpack for them is identical to the one IBM provides - including the
thame virus IBM had admitted to build in theyr SWC fixpack. But as eCS
had dedectet that fiyx it was DTJ who had fudded around that it were a
bug of eCS - and even yet DTJ cries that it were an eCS virus. So DTJ
had proven himself as fudster and liar multiple times. It is DTJ who
quacks about eCS users - but as he has never seen eCS and knows
absolutly nothing about serenity systems, mensys and other
distributers he spreads FUD over FUD. So he is known one time more as
a liar and fundster who quacks about things he knows nothing about.

DTJ is known as one who likes to quack about things he knows nothing
about.



> >
> >>> I also have Windows 98SE on the box and it runs about like Warp
> >>> (again saddly).
> >>
> >> Comparing Windows 98SE with Warp 4.52 is ludicrous. Windows 98SE
> >> is a toy. Specifically, what runs on Windows 98SE 'about like
> >> Warp?'
> >
> >
> > What I meant is general feel of speed and responsiveness. Windows
> > 98SE is much more responsive, say using Mozilla, which is my browser
> > of choice.
>
> I use IBM Web Browser v2.0 which is based on Mozilla 1.0 and it seems
> very responsive to me.

So DTJ will tell you if something works well on his single computer
anybody on the world is lying when he has lots of probemls. That means
DTJ names anybody who is unable to get MCP1 or MCP2 installed on his
computer lies. That means that anybody who has problems to get another
OS installed on the computer he had installed MCP1 or MCP 2 lies. DTJ
claims that anybody who has problems with sound, graphic, hanging MCP
he lies because he has no problem.

DTJ claims that eCS is not MCP because there are essential more eCS
users who had liked to pay less for more, who had liked to pay for a
product instead for a subscription to a black box and therefore there
are some more bugs found in theyr MCP code, like tcp/ip 4.3.x.

Be sure, if anything that is an OEM product in the home and office of
DTJ would going dissolve itself he had nothing - even not a pant. That
shows that DTJ quacks about things (licensing, OEM) he knows nothing
about.

I also occasionally use Internet Explorer v5.5
> on Windows 98SE on the same hardware and I don't notice any particular
> difference in responsiveness between the two. The menu options and
> windows and such open and close with suitable alacrity. Hardware has
> generally gotten fast enough that the speed of the software menus,
> windows, and stuff is no longer noticeable IMO unless there is a
> particular task being done that is unusually demanding.

It is DTJ who quacks that a menu entry 'send to...' is a security
risk. It shows that DTJ uses windows instead OS/2 - but whines that
anybody who uses an OEM OS/2 don't use OS/2 - even as it is OS/2.

I'd tried to get WARP4 installed on a 40GB IDE HD. The IBM installer
failed during the first boot - because it was unable to see the HD
right. Changing the IDE driver to DANIS506.ADD resolved that problem.
To get this driver I had to find another computer to download it from
internet.

I'd tried to install eCS on the same mashine. It instlled well -
including any network protocol - the IBM installer would't install
right for me.

I'd installed eCS with 1024x786 as default resolution. To get the same
resolution under IBM OS/2 I had to download SDD from internet and to
install it after the system was up and running under VGA.

So it's proven that the IBM installer is crap. I had to exchange 2
running systems:
1. system: WARP 4, FP 15, any currently available fixpack installed!
Yes, the system comes up and runs well
- because SDD accepts the new screen well
But it was impossible to get the NIC (SIS from mainboard CD)
installed because MPTS froze the whole mashine
during loading it as new adapter.
Yeah, this mainboard is coming with on board LAN
AND has an OS/2 NIC on its board CD (but no OS/2
Multimedia driver for its on board sound chip.)
ECS (Elitegroup) K7S5-L is cheap and OS/2 ready -
but eCS runs better on it.

2. sytem: eCS 1.01, FP2, any available fix installed
that means: the system is on a more current
codelevel as MCP2 ever will be.
Yes, it boots well up and runs well
It was easy to exchange the failing NIC to the
current one by firing up MPTS, inserting the
new nic as new adapter, changing the current one
against the new inserted. Easy, 2 minuts only
Shutdown and reboot and anything was done.

So it was really more easy to move eCS than it was to move OS/2 WARP,
even as WARP was going to an older, more compatible board.

>
> > Obviously Windows 98SE will not be able to handle badly coded
> > programs or programs that shuffle large quantities of data/IO around
> > as well as Warp, but Warp could really stand improvement in this area
> > as well.
> >
>
> I simply do not see any freeze-ups and such in Warp 4.52. Warp has
> gradually gotten better over the years in that regard. I remember Warp
> 3 being much less stable than Warp 4, although it was quite good for its
> time when compared with the Windows 3.1 in use at the time. Warp 4 got
> better as the fixpacks appeared. Beginning with Warp 4.51, I did not
> see system lockups anymore in normal use with anything except
> occasionally Netscape which itself gradually improved. At the moment, I
> am running Warp 4.52. The only "fixes" that I have applied are fixpack
> 3 and device driver fixpack 3 and neither of those were required for me.
> The Warp 4.52 GA ran just fine for me without them.

I'm running now eCS 1.03 - without any reinstall. As there was no need
to make a new install to get a current fix to work. It seems that an
upgrade from MCP1 to MCP2 requires a reinstall if one doesn't like
simply to update to the fixes IBM had brought since it has released
MCP2. So my eCS 1.03 is on a more current codelevel than the system of
DTJ who had done not a single fix since he has installed MCP 2. And if
he had done a single fix he is lying when he says he has no need for
fixes because his system is perfect - and he says that his system is
perfect.

--
Tschau/Bye

Herbert Rosenau
http://www.pc-rosenau.de eComStation Reseller in Germany
eCS 1.1 ist da!

David T. Johnson

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 7:14:46 PM1/2/03
to
Herbert Rosenau wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:38:20 UTC, "David T. Johnson" > <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote: >>Your comments wrt recent OS/2 versions (Warp 4.51 and Warp 4.52) don't >>seem to have very much familiarity with the software. For example, you >>also stated back in October: "Well I don't have eCS but when use the >>OS/2 4.52 boot CD and bring up LVM it is totally hosed." You did not >>mention VCU running and yet it is impossible to boot from the Warp 4.52 >>CD-ROM for the first time without having the VCU run. If you refuse to >>let VCU run, Warp goes no further. Recently, here, you posted here >>about installing 'SMP' on Warp 4.52 and yet Warp 4.52 has never shipped >>with SMP or with an SMP install screen. > Lies over lies from the fudster DTJ. VCU is a buggy piece of software > as it is unable to convert each partition to LVM. It works only for > primary partitions. No. VCU works for both primary and logical partitions. Also, I have not seen any bugs in it. > Nobody needs VCU anyway. Boot from CD, starting LVM from hand and > converting any partition OS/2 has to see manually works quite more > better. On OS/2, the conversion is required before you can access the hard drives for the first time with Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 when booting from the CD. Maybe you 'manual' by hand approach is why ecS users seem to have such a difficult time with LVM. [rant snipped] Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and IBM Web Browser v2.0

Herbert Rosenau

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 9:52:23 PM1/2/03
to
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:14:46 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:

> Herbert Rosenau wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:38:20 UTC, "David T. Johnson"
> > <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your comments wrt recent OS/2 versions (Warp 4.51 and Warp 4.52) don't
> >>seem to have very much familiarity with the software. For example, you
> >>also stated back in October: "Well I don't have eCS but when use the
> >>OS/2 4.52 boot CD and bring up LVM it is totally hosed." You did not
> >>mention VCU running and yet it is impossible to boot from the Warp 4.52
> >>CD-ROM for the first time without having the VCU run. If you refuse to
> >>let VCU run, Warp goes no further. Recently, here, you posted here
> >>about installing 'SMP' on Warp 4.52 and yet Warp 4.52 has never shipped
> >>with SMP or with an SMP install screen.
> >
> >
> > Lies over lies from the fudster DTJ. VCU is a buggy piece of software
> > as it is unable to convert each partition to LVM. It works only for
> > primary partitions.
>
> No. VCU works for both primary and logical partitions. Also, I have
> not seen any bugs in it.

We kon that DTJ means he is the middle of the universe. He cryes it
loud enough.



> >
> > Nobody needs VCU anyway. Boot from CD, starting LVM from hand and
> > converting any partition OS/2 has to see manually works quite more
> > better.
>
> On OS/2, the conversion is required before you can access the hard
> drives for the first time with Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 when booting from
> the CD. Maybe you 'manual' by hand approach is why ecS users seem to
> have such a difficult time with LVM.
>

The real bug is that VCU gets automatically the first time MCP gets
booted - but it is known that it makes sometimes strange things with
extended partitions. Even as the 'I know anything about all' won't
accept it.

Again! When comes the MCP3 and MCP4 DTJ had annouced?

Again: would you like to get any artike one can see about bugs on MCP1
and MCP2 whereas 'I know anything about all' cries that thais eCS only
bugs?

Please tell again how a menu entry 'send to...' can be a security
risk.

David T. Johnson has proven himself often that he is a fudster, liar
and quacks about things he knows nothing about.

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 5:55:08 AM1/3/03
to
[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...]

> Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:42:32 GMT received comm from


> "nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid (Britt Turnbull)":
>
> : Only play Shisen (quite addictive) now and again, but I do play Harpoon
> : in a Winos/2 session for hours <VBG>
>
> Just curious; what type of games is Shisen and Harpoon?
>
>

Hi Martin

Shisen is a really neat mahjong style game from Daniel Valot,
http://dvalot.free.fr
Daniel is very accomplished and does some neat things, has some really
interesting stuff on his site, not just games, well worth a look...

Harpoon is a commercial WWIII strategy game, which whilst taking a while
to master, is remarkably entertaining to play.... really just a
sophisticated chess game with bangs and flashes...

cheers,

Martin Nisshagen

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 8:00:32 PM1/3/03
to
Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 03 Jan 2003 10:55:08 GMT received comm from
"nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid (Britt Turnbull)":

: [please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...]

:
: > Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:42:32 GMT received comm from
: > "nos...@sympatico.ca.invalid (Britt Turnbull)":
: >
: > : Only play Shisen (quite addictive) now and again, but I do play Harpoon
: > : in a Winos/2 session for hours <VBG>
: >
: > Just curious; what type of games is Shisen and Harpoon?
: >
: >
: Hi Martin
:
: Shisen is a really neat mahjong style game from Daniel Valot,
: http://dvalot.free.fr
: Daniel is very accomplished and does some neat things, has some really
: interesting stuff on his site, not just games, well worth a look...

Thanks, I tested his Mah Jongg, and I like it even better than the good old IBM
version I used to play some years ago! Perhaps something for eCS to include with
their distribution?

: Harpoon is a commercial WWIII strategy game, which whilst taking a while


: to master, is remarkably entertaining to play.... really just a
: sophisticated chess game with bangs and flashes...

Will try to find a link about it.

J. Clarke

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 9:10:25 PM1/3/03
to
In article <08cc1vgedmgggosp8...@4ax.com>, mn...@msn.com
says...

Note that Harpoon has many variations. There is a DOS version that IIRC
runs fine under OS/2, a Windows version that I don't think I ever tried,
a newer and much more complex DOS version using a proprietary DOS
extender, called "Harpoon II", which does not run under OS/2, unless
somebody has come up with a method that works since the last time I
tried it, a Windows version of Harpoon II called "Harpoon III", and a
new version coming "real soon now" called Harpoon 4, which is not to be
mistaken with the miniatures game of the same title.

Downsides are that the AI isn't all that smart and carriers have an
infinite supply of fuel and armaments for their aircraft. When I'm
feeling down it's kind of fun to put 4 CVBGs in the Indian Ocean
surrounded by vast arrays of enemy everythings and then light up all the
radars and hum "If you want it, here it is, come and get it . . ." while
creating massive mayhem.


>
> Best regards,
>
> m a r t i n | n
>
>

--

David T. Johnson

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 2:55:12 AM1/4/03
to
Herbert Rosenau wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:14:46 UTC, "David T. Johnson" > <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote: >>Herbert Rosenau wrote: >>>On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:38:20 UTC, "David T. Johnson" >>><djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote: >>>>Your comments wrt recent OS/2 versions (Warp 4.51 and Warp 4.52) don't >>>>seem to have very much familiarity with the software. For example, you >>>>also stated back in October: "Well I don't have eCS but when use the >>>>OS/2 4.52 boot CD and bring up LVM it is totally hosed." You did not >>>>mention VCU running and yet it is impossible to boot from the Warp 4.52 >>>>CD-ROM for the first time without having the VCU run. If you refuse to >>>>let VCU run, Warp goes no further. Recently, here, you posted here >>>>about installing 'SMP' on Warp 4.52 and yet Warp 4.52 has never shipped >>>>with SMP or with an SMP install screen. >>>Lies over lies from the fudster DTJ. VCU is a buggy piece of software >>>as it is unable to convert each partition to LVM. It works only for >>>primary partitions. >>No. VCU works for both primary and logical partitions. Also, I have >>not seen any bugs in it. > We kon that DTJ means he is the middle of the universe. He cryes it > loud enough. You claimed incorrectly that VCU only works for primary partitions. I have corrected your false claim. Given your ad hominen response here, it looks as though you know your claim was false. You also claimed that VCU was "buggy". I have never seen any bugs in it and I have used it quite a few times when converting Warp 4 systems to Warp 4.5x/LVM systems. You did not provide an example of the "buggy" behaviour you claim but instead continued with your ad hominem attacks. Looks as though you knew that your claim of VCU being "buggy" was also false. >>>Nobody needs VCU anyway. Boot from CD, starting LVM from hand and >>>converting any partition OS/2 has to see manually works quite more >>>better. >>On OS/2, the conversion is required before you can access the hard >>drives for the first time with Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 when booting from >>the CD. Maybe you 'manual' by hand approach is why ecS users seem to >>have such a difficult time with LVM. > The real bug is that VCU gets automatically the first time MCP gets > booted - No, that is not a "bug" but rather the intended action. It is not very user-friendly, though, but that is a different issue. >but it is known that it makes sometimes strange things with > extended partitions. You said above (incorrectly) that VCU only works for primary partitions. Now, you are claiming that it 'makes strange things' with extended partitions. Neither claim is true in my experience. VCU quickly and reliably converts Warp 4 partitions (primary or logical) to Warp 4.5x "compatibility" volumes in a matter of seconds when Warp 4.5x is booted on the system for the first time. [snip of off-topic ranting] Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and IBM Web Browser v2.0

Britt Turnbull

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 6:23:50 AM1/4/03
to
[please, think of others, refrain from posting naked addresses...]

>

> Note that Harpoon has many variations. There is a DOS version that IIRC
> runs fine under OS/2, a Windows version that I don't think I ever tried,
> a newer and much more complex DOS version using a proprietary DOS
> extender, called "Harpoon II", which does not run under OS/2, unless
> somebody has come up with a method that works since the last time I
> tried it, a Windows version of Harpoon II called "Harpoon III", and a
> new version coming "real soon now" called Harpoon 4, which is not to be
> mistaken with the miniatures game of the same title.
>

Hi John,

wow... never realised there was another 'pooner here.....

well, I have as well as a bunch of upgrades and additional scenario
paks,

Harpoon II - Dos, don't like the UI, it replicates a military display,
which is great if you are into realism etc, AI has some major flaws...

Harpoon Admiral's Edition, as above, just more scenarios...

Harpoon Classic - Win '95, works fine under Winos2, has a totally
different UI which I personally like, the AI is really very quirky, but
still fun to play

Harpoon III, DOS based won't run under OS/2, but I am still tying,
military UI again ome I personally don't like, AI radically improved, so
what little I have played has been quite exciting

I bought the pre-release version of Harpoon IV, Win '98+, will run under
Odin ut the video is messed up, so I am hopeful for the future, anyway I
just got a KVM, so I can run this on my other 'puter, AI is a major
advance, and the sceneario editor is a vast improvement, shame the DBase
is the M$ Office one (forgot the name)



> Downsides are that the AI isn't all that smart and carriers have an
> infinite supply of fuel and armaments for their aircraft. When I'm
> feeling down it's kind of fun to put 4 CVBGs in the Indian Ocean
> surrounded by vast arrays of enemy everythings and then light up all the
> radars and hum "If you want it, here it is, come and get it . . ." while
> creating massive mayhem.

Ahhh, a man after my own heart.... use 50+ Backfires to give cruise
missile saturation, and things get lively...

I also use the quirk that if you launch aircraft as a ferry to another
base, you can get the aircraft up and moving under your control
immediately, whereas the regular launch you have to wait for the launch
to complete before you have control....

anyway, I am hoping H4 will live up to its hipe...

Missiles away..!

Morenga

unread,
Jan 5, 2003, 6:24:27 PM1/5/03
to
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:33:28 GMT, life...@XXvol.com wrote:

>"Morenga" <free...@no.net> said:
>
>>despite the Press recently announced OS/2 demise (again, and
>>again and ...) IBM would "support OS/2 indefinetely". Well those
>>are pretty big words. Can we built our trust in them?
>
>That's just the point some folks miss entirely. I started using OS/2
>while Warp 3 was relatively new. Since not long after Warp 4 came out,
>IBM hasn't given us any real reason not to fear the props wouldn't be
>knocked out from under us.
>
>There are, of course, those who insist that OS/2 has always been strong.
>But IBM has not always told us that - in fact told us they wanted us to
>drop it on at least one occasion - so we have always had a degree of
>trepidation associated with our use of OS/2.


>
>I think the only reason a lot of us have stuck with OS/2 is merely that
>Windows is such crap. OS/2 gives us security regarding our data, but no
>security that we won't have to completely replace it at some point - who
>knows how soon. That feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop
>comes directly from IBM and I, for one, would like to do some major
>kicking of blue shins.


True words indeed. Indeed true words.

Morenga


PS: What's the difference between the boy who cried "wolfe" and G.W Bush
shouting "Saddam Hussein"? - Who says there's a difference?!!


Morenga

unread,
Jan 5, 2003, 6:31:31 PM1/5/03
to

>The only problem is living with OS/2 is it is a slow death via
>a thousand little cuts. I guess I like pain. My recent experience
>is spending all day trying to get SMP working on the 4.52 setup
>I have. When I stopped I realized there *is no* SMP support for
>4.52 unless you have the WSEB version (even though installing SMP
>support is an option on the selective install menu). Enabling SMP
>in Windows 2000 is a simple right mouse click. I hate M$ but facts
>is facts.

That only works if you got the W2k server or Pro version and do you also
like the price tag that comes with that?

I can install most of my WSeB components on as many systems as I like
(only the server core is "restricted" - but no copy protection).
With its new licensing scheme, you even have to get a new MS$ key if you
just upgrade your CPU ! Not to talk about changing machines or selectivly
installing seperate components. Ah, and yes the most important part.
ABOUT 99% OF YOUR WINDOZE DRIVERS FOR OLDER VERSIONS DON'T
WORK ANY MORE UNDER 2K. Neither does SW written specifically for XP.

So you bought all those Windoze printers and WinModems that you can't use anywhere
else but with Windoze and now you can't get an updated driver (-> e.g. HP 1000c).
Ergo, you throw all your current hardware out the window.
I can still use mice I bought 15 years ago with WSeB. That's "protecting investement".

Think about it !
Morenga


USB Guy

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 12:04:56 PM1/8/03
to
David T. Johnson wrote:

>
> No. VCU works for both primary and logical partitions. Also, I have
> not seen any bugs in it.
>

Well nope it has a bug, If you have an extended type F Partition it
gets converted to a Type 5 by VCU and/or LVM and that can create havok
on windows system when dualbooting who select LBA/CHS gemetry conversion
based on the type.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages