Advantages of OS/2?
Kent Radek
currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
with it to know its strengths.
Is it faster/more responsive?
Is it a better/more stable development environment? (I'm a programmer/net
admin here.)
Anything you can think of you can do with OS/2 that you can't do with
Windows (not NT)...
Does it work better with a network? (it HAS to...)
Please e-mail responses (as well as posting) and I will summarize back to
this group -- I don't want to miss anything.
Thanks!
goo
James A. Dahl
: I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
: currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
: of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
: of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
: with it to know its strengths.
: Is it faster/more responsive?
Not usually, on some rare configuration peopel will try to tell you that
their Windows progs run faster, but in general its about 10% slower.
: Is it a better/more stable development environment? (I'm a programmer/net
: admin here.)
Yes, I do a lot of DOS programming under OS/2, it's very nice! I leave my
editor running, recompile the code, switch to a different virtual DOS machine
to run it, it crashes, kills the machine, so I just shut down that VDM and
go back to the editor. When I used to do the same things under Windows
it required rebooting (since there aren't real VDM's in Windows).
: Anything you can think of you can do with OS/2 that you can't do with
: Windows (not NT)...
Yes, above described programming benefits as well as other general
multitasking benefits such as: background printing, background communications
(I often do high speed downloads in the background while doing other things,
including compiling and testing programs), improved multimedia performance
(I can get a few AVI's running on the desktop at the same time), generally
it's a MUCH better multitasker and really does (usually) protect your VDM's
pretty well from each other, the benefits are endless :)
: Does it work better with a network? (it HAS to...)
It's not as easy (IMHO) but it works just as well (better) in most cases
(depends on your network setup, of course, more details would help)
: Please e-mail responses (as well as posting) and I will summarize back to
: this group -- I don't want to miss anything.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dahl | da...@cs.und.nodak.edu
University of North Dakota | jad...@badlands.nodak.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kay
: Is it faster/more responsive?
If you have heavy disk i/o yes it will be faster due to 32 bit disk access
and/or HPFS dependant on circumstances.
Memory management is better, and some programs run faster because of this.
eg DOOM.
Windows differs between -10% and +10% dependant on the program. Seamless
programs will always be slower, but thats understandable.
: Is it a better/more stable development environment? (I'm a programmer/net
: admin here.)
Yes, it is very stable. Single sessions may die, but its difficult to crash
the whole OS.
: Anything you can think of you can do with OS/2 that you can't do with
: Windows (not NT)...
: Does it work better with a network? (it HAS to...)
Yes. It can run Netware 4.0 as a task under the OS I believe. The
integration of the WPS (the graphical shell) into the network is excellent -
drag and drop direct to a network printer.
Anything OS/2 can do that Windows cant?
erm multitask, run many more DOS programs, protect Windows programs from one
another.
: Please e-mail responses (as well as posting) and I will summarize back to
: this group -- I don't want to miss anything.
: Thanks!
: goo
Make sure your hardware is supported before you buy and make sure you have
at least 8MB (shouldnt be a problem should it?)
No problem.
____oooo______ooooo________oo____ooooo_____________________________________
__oo____oo___oo___oo______oo___oo____oo___ Peter Kay, IT Institute, _
_oo______oo___oo_________oo__________oo___ Salford University, Salford. _
_oo______oo_____oo______oo__________oo____ Beginner OS/2 WPS programmer _
__oo____oo___oo___oo___oo_________oo______ P.J...@iti.salford.ac.uk _
____oooo______ooooo___oo________oooooo_____________________________________
Jeff Kirvin
: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
: : with it to know its strengths.
: : Is it faster/more responsive?
: Not usually, on some rare configuration peopel will try to tell you that
: their Windows progs run faster, but in general its about 10% slower.
He didn't specify Windows programs. DOS programs are much more responsive
under OS/2 than under Windows, and my OS/2 apps don't even run under Windows.
And if he was talking about the shell, the WPS under the Performance Beta
is almost as fast and a helluva lot more powerful than Program Manager.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Jeff Kirvin | Proud member of Team OS/2! | lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil
"You are a lunatic. Go away. Pester someone else." Londo Mollari
Disclaimer: I do _not_ speak for the United States Air Force...
Kirk A. Severtson
>James A. Dahl (da...@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu) wrote:
>: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
>: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
>: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
>: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
>: : with it to know its strengths.
Better yet... Is there anyone in this group honest and realistic enough to
discuss its weaknesses? Or has the blind rage vented against MS blinded you
all to reality?
Kirk Severtson |
TeamQuest Corporation | In search of a truly
Clear Lake, IA 50428 | original tagline
k...@teamquest.com |
Christopher Hayashida
k...@teamquest.com (Kirk A. Severtson) writes:
>In article <2tcibp$e...@hq.hq.af.mil> lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil (Jeff Kirvin) writes:
>>James A. Dahl (da...@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu) wrote:
>>: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>>: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
>>: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
>>: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
>>: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
>>: : with it to know its strengths.
>
>Better yet... Is there anyone in this group honest and realistic enough to
>discuss its weaknesses? Or has the blind rage vented against MS blinded you
>all to reality?
I think that OS/2's biggest weakness is that it isn't supported by a
huge Microsoft-type company. IBM is big, but it doesn't control the
market like Microsoft does. It's not good that MS got its stranglehold
on the computer industry, but it seems that it's the way it is.
OS/2 2.x has few disadvantages when compared to Windows 3.1. I think
one of the only ones I can think of is the problems of Windows
compatibility. OS/2 will run 99.9% of all applications out there, but
right now it doesn't run all of them. Specifically, applications which
use Win32s code and VxD's are not supported. Big deal, you say. It is
a minor point, but I want *all* of my applications to run when I change
completely to OS/2. That would include MathCAD, Mathematica, and my
Gravis Ultrasound drivers.
Other than the fact that OS/2 isn't the standard, there isn't much that
can be said. For a while, speed was an issue; OS/2 running a DOS or a
Windows program was slower than the program in its native environment.
While this is to be expected, apparently the rest of the world didn't
see it coming. However, I hear that the new "slimmed-down" code will
run software as fast/faster than their native environments.
The crash protection, the multitasking, and the just the operating
system in general is so vastly superior to a DOS environment that I
can't justify Windows, other than the fact it has become a standard.
When OS/2 2.2 comes out, and Win32s code (and hopefully the VxD's) will
be supported, I will migrate over to OS/2 completely. For now, I'm
going to have to stick with Boot Manager.
I don't think that it would be fair to compare Windows to OS/2. They
aren't exactly equal. I think that since Windows is a DOS add-on, it
will have a greater user base simply because no one has to give up DOS.
When Chicago comes out, I think that a comparison will be much more
valid.
Christopher Hayashida
Only you can prevent forest fires. Don't flame on the Internet.
David Hockenberger
>In article <2tcibp$e...@hq.hq.af.mil> lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil (Jeff Kirvin) writes:
>>James A. Dahl (da...@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu) wrote:
>>: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>>: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
>>: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
>>: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
>>: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
>>: : with it to know its strengths.
>
>Better yet... Is there anyone in this group honest and realistic enough to
>discuss its weaknesses? Or has the blind rage vented against MS blinded you
>all to reality?
>
I think I can reasonably discuss OS/2's weaknesses without venting
my rage at microsoft. (I would take issue with the assumption that
this rage is blind :-) )
1) OS/2 requires more reasorces in terms of memory and DASD than
windows/dos
2) It is harder to troubleshoot/Fix major system problems in OS/2
vs Windows/Dos
3) Lack of availability of mainstream applications written for OS/2
4) Complex and sometimes confusing Installation procedures
5) Lack of mainstream support from vendors (ie: call up to report a problem
with a Windows app and listen to the response when you tell them
you are running OS/2. Even if it is a known application problem)
6) Lack of support among some workplace system support groups.
7) IBM Marketing
8) IBM Support (Though I don't tink it is much worse than Microsoft's support
when you are trying to gain market share it should be better)
That said I think the benefits gained by running OS/2 more than outweigh
the bad. I have been running OS/2 off and on since 1.2 but the 2.1 release
has been the best desktop environment I have experienced. I would not
trade it for anything I have seen yet from any other vendor. I also think
the Team OS/2 concept is the reason that OS/2 has succeeded as well as it has.
Items 7. and 8. on my list have threatened to kill OS/2 on multiple occasions.
If it hadn't been for the screaming and shouting done by teamers over the
last few years I doubt we would be having this discussion.
David Hockenberger Team OS/2
Network Systems Administrator
Hematology / Oncology
Duke University Medical Center
hock...@mc.duke.edu
DH...@aol.com
Alan S. Mazer
Christopher Hayashida <chaya...@ms.asucla.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>OS/2 2.x has few disadvantages when compared to Windows 3.1. I think
>one of the only ones I can think of is the problems of Windows
>compatibility.
You might also add difficulty of installation, boot time and application
startup time. This isn't a flame on OS/2, but I think these are legitimate
disadvantages. Everyone else will tell the advantages :-).
--
-- Alan # Mountain Dew and doughnuts...
al...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov # because breakfast is the most important meal
# of the day.
michael schievelbein
>In article <2tcibp$e...@hq.hq.af.mil> lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil (Jeff Kirvin) writes:
>>James A. Dahl (da...@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu) wrote:
>>: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>>: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
>>: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
>>: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
>>: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
>>: : with it to know its strengths.
>
>Better yet... Is there anyone in this group honest and realistic enough to
>discuss its weaknesses? Or has the blind rage vented against MS blinded you
>all to reality?
SURE... I'll volunteer to talk about OS/2's WEAKNESSES .....
1) It takes 20 minutes to re-install OS/2 versus 5 minutes for DOS and 15 minutes for DOS/WINDOZE.
I reinstall about once a month since I am constantly beta testing and messing with setting
and need to ocassionaly restore everything to it's defaults, of course this is compared to
WEEKLY with DOS/Windoze.
2) OS/2 still locks up on me ocassionaly (about once a day) compared to about 15-20 times a day
with dos and windoze. So this is a 15-20 times improvement.
3) There is still a limited number of companies that are releasing hardware WITH DRIVERS.
But this is similar to what I went through with windoze 3.0 when it came out.
4) whenever I am working in a window or a full screen, I had to relearn some of
the command line options like |more, so I could slow down directories and the likes.
5) I can still go faster in the command line mode for alot of my actions,
ie. 'copy *.ini c:\backup' and the likes. In the GUI, it still takes too long to
sort and then tag and then do the move. Of course this is also true with Windoze.
6) OS/2 overall is not as advanced as it could of been, of course this is mainly
due to Billy Gates' army of lawyers and his desire to keep all the technology he
can to himself. If he would instead just release all of his silly patents and
get rid of all of the FRIVILOUS lawsuits he has out to curb competition away
from his 8QuadrillionBillion/year company, then all of us would be able to
progress into the future without the fear of his crying little tantrums and
the retuributuin that comes with them.
7) The biggest weakness of OS/2 is IBM, but that is coming around.
Of course it could be WORSE, OS/2 could still be part of MICROSUCKS !!!!!
Michael Schievelbein
TEAM OS/2
Paul Floyd
[chomp]
> I think I can reasonably discuss OS/2's weaknesses without venting
> my rage at microsoft. (I would take issue with the assumption that
> this rage is blind :-) )
>
> 1) OS/2 requires more reasorces in terms of memory and DASD than
> windows/dos
This is only an issue if you cannot afford disk space. Disks cost
< $0.60/Mbyte, hardly a great cost, 30Mbytes of extra space costs
$18.
> 2) It is harder to troubleshoot/Fix major system problems in OS/2
> vs Windows/Dos
Not in my experience.
> 3) Lack of availability of mainstream applications written for OS/2
Not much choice, but they are there.
> 4) Complex and sometimes confusing Installation procedures
FDISK is a bit unpleasant to use. The rest is simple but not very pretty.
> 5) Lack of mainstream support from vendors (ie: call up to report a problem
> with a Windows app and listen to the response when you tell them
> you are running OS/2. Even if it is a known application problem)
>
> 6) Lack of support among some workplace system support groups.
>
> 7) IBM Marketing
What does that have to do with OS/2?
> 8) IBM Support (Though I don't tink it is much worse than Microsoft's support
> when you are trying to gain market share it should be better)
>
> That said I think the benefits gained by running OS/2 more than outweigh
> the bad. I have been running OS/2 off and on since 1.2 but the 2.1 release
> has been the best desktop environment I have experienced. I would not
> trade it for anything I have seen yet from any other vendor. I also think
> the Team OS/2 concept is the reason that OS/2 has succeeded as well as it has.
> Items 7. and 8. on my list have threatened to kill OS/2 on multiple occasions.
> If it hadn't been for the screaming and shouting done by teamers over the
> last few years I doubt we would be having this discussion.
>
> David Hockenberger Team OS/2
> Network Systems Administrator
> Hematology / Oncology
> Duke University Medical Center
> hock...@mc.duke.edu
> DH...@aol.com
--
Paul Floyd, Information Storage Research Group, Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
University of Manchester, Dover St., Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. FAX 061 275 4512
mbh...@hpc.ee.man.ac.uk You know the shit has truly hit the fan
Hwyl fawr i bob un. when you start calling it a sewage pump.
Bob Dehnhardt
>In article <1994061403...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>,
>Christopher Hayashida <chaya...@ms.asucla.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>>OS/2 2.x has few disadvantages when compared to Windows 3.1. I think
>>one of the only ones I can think of is the problems of Windows
>>compatibility.
>
>You might also add difficulty of installation, boot time and application
>startup time. This isn't a flame on OS/2, but I think these are legitimate
>disadvantages. Everyone else will tell the advantages :-).
Well, I'd go along with "potential difficulty of installation". The couple
dozen times I've installed OS/2 (each time on a different machine), they've
all gone flawlessly and with no difficulty. That includes installs from all
media - 3.5", 5.25" and CD-Rom. And it includes PCs ranging from a 386SX/20
with 8MB RAM up to a 60MHz Pentium with a 1.2GB SCSI drive (the whole bloody
drive is one huge HPFS partition, and the user =loves= it). Oh, I have to
take back the note about "each time on a different machine" - when I upgraded
the motherboard on the SX/20, I reinstalled there.
Long boot time? You've never worked with *nix machines, have you?
Seriously, I have seen DOS-based PCs that had so many device drivers loading
in their AUTOEXEC that they took about as long as OS/2 to load, but not
many. I'd grant that OS/2 takes longer to boot than DOS/Windows, maybe by as
much as 30-45 seconds. Personally, I don't see this as much of a
disadvantage, particularly since I don't have to reboot over and over again
once I've started my PC.
I will definitely grant that Windows apps take a lot longer to start up from
the icon-click than they do under Windows, simply because OS/2 has to load
Windows first. The OS/2 Utility Disk that's available for WordPerfect for
Windows 6.0a comes with a program called QuickLaunch that loads a WinOS/2
session in the background, and keeps it there for any Windows-based programs
to use (as long as they're not set to use their own VDM). This speeds
Windows app load times to the same or maybe a little faster than under
Windows itself - a lot of this depends on the machine. You can do the same
thing as QuickLaunch simply by placing the Windows clock (or any other
Windows program) into your startup group.
- Bob
=== | Here is your =FREE= disclaimer!
Bob Dehnhardt - TEAM OS/2 | Opinions expressed are my own, and do not
U.S. Geological Survey | reflect those of the USGS, Federal Government,
Water Resources Division | anyone else. (Nobody else wants 'em.)
David Hockenberger
>[chomp]
>>
>> 1) OS/2 requires more reasorces in terms of memory and DASD than
>> windows/dos
>
>This is only an issue if you cannot afford disk space. Disks cost
>< $0.60/Mbyte, hardly a great cost, 30Mbytes of extra space costs
>$18.
>
in order to run an OS this is a weakness. I think these things are
being fixed by A: less resource intensive versions of OS/2
B: More resource intensive versions of DOS/Windows
C: The general upward trend of the users hardware base
>> 2) It is harder to troubleshoot/Fix major system problems in OS/2
>> vs Windows/Dos
>
>Not in my experience.
>
You have probably been very lucky. Ever had a video upgrade go bad on you
while running stacker on your system drive :-)
>> 3) Lack of availability of mainstream applications written for OS/2
>
>Not much choice, but they are there.
>
Unfortunately in some cases there is no choice other than to run
DOS or Windows apps (Quicken, AOL ect)
>> 4) Complex and sometimes confusing Installation procedures
>
>FDISK is a bit unpleasant to use. The rest is simple but not very pretty.
>
Exit from migrate, single printer install, DSPINST, CDROM install problems ....
[stuff deleted]
>>
>> 7) IBM Marketing
>
>What does that have to do with OS/2?
>
One wonders if IBM Marketing has anything to do with OS/2 :-)
but unfortunately the reality is without a critical mass of users
a desktop OS cannot survive. I have been a small part of a group of
enthusiastic OS/2 supporters who have decided that OS/2 was worth
marketing to the masses despite what IBM thought. But it was this
volunteer effort that (IMO) kept OS/2 alive during the early days
when the hardest question we had to answer at TEAMOS/2 events was
"What is this OS/2 stuff anyway". Trust me if OS/2 goes on to become
a predominate desktop system it will be despite the best attempts
of IBM to screw it up. (Check out the new support structure if you
don't beleive me :-( )
hu...@smtc.engr.scarolina.edu
#1 - Hardware Utilization
Of all the Intel-based personal computers in the world, some portion will
not run Windows 3.1, let's say it is 30%. This includes 8088-based machines
and the like. Of these same personal computers, a slightly larger portion
will not run OS/2 2.1, let's say it is 40%. This is because the rock-bottom
minimum configuration for running OS/2 2.1 at all is somewhere around 4MB
of memory and 40MB of disk and a '386 CPU. It is in theory possible to run
Windows 3.1 in 2MB and 20MB of disk (more or less).
Of all the add-in cards you can put in an ISA- or EISA-bus personal computer,
a computer running Windows 3.1 can probably access 99% of the functionality
of those cards. With OS/2 2.1, that number is closer to 50% than 90%, mostly
because many add-in vendors don't consider it worth their time to supply
OS/2 drivers for their products.
What this sums up to is that more computers are good enough for running
Windows 3.1 than are good enough for running OS/2 2.1 at this time and for
the forseeable future. If you want to use OS/2, buy "good enough" hardware.
#2 - Software Utilization
There are a few software products written for DOS and/or Windows that won't
work under OS/2's versions of DOS and Windows. There are ways of booting
a "real" copy of DOS from OS/2, but in general this isn't very useful for
routine work.
More importantly, using DOS and/or Windows software negates one of the very
big advantages of OS/2. The High-Performance File System (HPFS) in OS/2 2.1
allows useful file names (i.e. greater than 8.3 characters). No DOS or
Windows software can support this feature. For this reason, native OS/2 apps
are very desirable. Alas, the selection of such native apps is very poor at
this time and for the forseeable future.
#3 - Availability of Informal Support
Most people can probably scare up a friend or coworker who knows enough to
fix simple problems under DOS and/or Windows. OTOH, most people are unlikely
to find someone at hand who understands anything about OS/2. However, many
of the problems which take an "expert" to solve in DOS (I'm thinking mainly
of memory management issues) never occur in OS/2. Likewise, it is somewhat
harder to find mass-market books and magazines discussing OS/2, but this is
changing daily and may soon no longer be a disadvantage at all.
#4 - Setup Time Requirements
You can buy DOS/Windows preloaded on new systems. As a matter of fact, you
damned near can't buy a PC without it, like it or not. It is much harder to
buy your PC with OS/2 2.1 preinstalled. This is made more of a disadvantage
in that the OS/2 installation can be daunting for novices and in some cases
(involving non-OS/2-compatible hardware) can even fail, leaving the buyer
with a new computer that won't boot. I would argue that any "serious" user
of a computer probably will be using that computer long enough to make it
worthwhile to learn enough about whatever operating system he/she uses to
do an installation. Many computer buyers don't feel this way, though.
ADVANTAGES OF OS/2 2.1 (VS. WINDOWS 3.1)
#1 - Overall Quality
OS/2 2.1 is an operating system. It is not a single-tasking poor imitation
of a Macintosh (Windows) on top of a file system masquerading as an operating
system (DOS). OS/2 2.1 is the only way, short of using some flavor of Unix,
to unlock the potential inherent in modern personal computer hardware.
#2 - The Work Place Shell (WPS)
The WPS, while not easy to learn (neither is the Windows 3.1 GUI for that
matter), has a consistent set of conventions for manipulating resources and
files. I contend that OS/2's user interface is as close to a Macintosh in
terms of a well thought-out GUI as you can get while still having a powerful
command-line shell *and* robust multitasking. It is interesting that Microsoft
seems to be positioning the look and feel of their future GUI(s) as a ripoff
of the WPS rather than a ripoff of the Macintosh like the Windows 3.1 GUI.
#3 - Multitasking
Anyone who has used a powerful operating system such as Unix or VMS on a
workstation of minicomputer finds the single-tasking environment implicit
in DOS and/or Windows 3.1 to be very limiting. OS/2 2.1's multitasking,
while perhaps not up to the level of technology of mature multiuser systems,
allows the user to mix and match virtually any number of applications at
one time with no penalty in the performance of each application (other than
the fact that they are actually sharing one CPU, set of disk, memory array,
and so forth).
#4 - Why I Use OS/2 2.1
I have never been willing to put up with any computer which does not offer,
at minimum, the following baseline capabilities.
A) A flat memory address space up to or beyond how much ever physical RAM
I wish to purchase and put in the hardware.
B) Actual many-programs-at-once multitasking that enables me to choose what
mix of programs to run at what time.
C) The ability to name files with meaninful tags. This typically means at
least 20-30 characters of file name length with at least a handful of
non-alphanumeric characters available for use. And not case-sensitive
although case-retaining is nice.
D) A command line for when I need to get up close and personal with my files
and/or the operating environment.
E) The computer hardware/software combination should cost no more than
$2,000-$4,000 including basic word processing, spreadsheet and drawing
software.
For years, I considered passing up requirement D) and buying a Macintosh.
As a matter of fact, if OS/2 2.0 had not become available when it did, I
would perhaps be using a Macintosh today. If not, I would be running some
form of Unix on Intel-based personal computer hardware. DOS/Windows 3.1
fails on each of the first four requirements A) through D), so that I never
considered that as a viable option.
Then a friend showed me OS/2 2.0 running on some PS/2 systems. I took one
home and played with it over a long weekend and made my decision. Since I
was buying everything from scratch, it was easy to ensure compatibility
between my hardware and OS/2. For instance, I bought a CatsEye XGA-2 video
controller because its driver ships built in to OS/2. I had no pre-existing
DOS software, so my OS/2 2.1 system run in "PROTECTONLY" mode. I use the
DeScribe word processor and some freeware and shareware products for other
uses, enabling me to have a policy of only using software which supports
HPFS long file names. Oh, and I use the OS/2 version of SAS for my school
work. All I need at this point is a spreadsheet. An excellent one should
be available later this summer.
IN SUMMARY
Overall, I think that "moving" to OS/2 2.1 from the Windows 3.1 world is
a tough decision and not a path that I would encourage everyone to take.
Some Windows users may find the robustness of running Window software under
OS/2 worth the (inexpensive) purchase price. Many others may find the cost
in terms of incompatible hardware and so forth not worth paying for the
additional "Crash Protection".
For a person with no personal computer platform presently and with not big
software-compatibility requirements, I suggest reading my requirements
labeled A) through E), above. If any of these are strong expectations that
you share with me, then buy OS/2 2.1, check on this newsgroup and elsewhere
to make sure your hardware works well with OS/2 2.1 and then use it and be
happy. You may want to change in a few years, but for now, it's the best
game in town. Don't let promises of the next Windows-of-the-week con you
into wainting forever. OS/2 2.1 let me get my work done, and that's the
bottom line.
-----------------------------
Brent Hutto
hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu
James A. Dahl
: In article <2tcibp$e...@hq.hq.af.mil> lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil (Jeff Kirvin) writes:
: >James A. Dahl (da...@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu) wrote:
: >: Kent Radek (g...@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
: >: : I would like to justify purchasing OS/2 for my computer (486/33), which
: >: : currently runs Windoze VOT (Very Old Technology). What are the advantages
: >: : of OS/2 that I can use as selling points for the switch? I'm assuming most
: >: : of you that read this newsgroup are OS/2 users and would be familiar enough
: >: : with it to know its strengths.
: Better yet... Is there anyone in this group honest and realistic enough to
: discuss its weaknesses? Or has the blind rage vented against MS blinded you
: all to reality?
Kirk, why did you cut off my response? I notice you quoted the question
from my response but cut my response off. My response was full of factual
information about OS/2, including answers to the strength and weaknesses
questions.
k.ro...@genie.geis.com
In article <1994061403...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, <EZB...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
writes:
> OS/2 will run 99.9% of all applications out there, but right now it doesn't
> run all of them. Specifically, applications which use Win32s code and VxD's
> are not supported. Big deal, you say. It is a minor point, but I want *all*
> of my applications to run when I change completely to OS/2. That would
> include MathCAD, Mathematica, and my Gravis Ultrasound drivers.
FYI - MathCAD is being ported to OS/2, as well as Mathmatica. There are also
GUS drivers on FTP.CDROM.COM (2 different ones).
> For a while, speed was an issue; OS/2 running a DOS or a
> Windows program was slower than the program in its native environment.
I have had DOS programs run FASTER in OS/2 than in native DOS. It depends on
many factors, such as HPFS vs FAT, text vs graphics, DOS_Settings, other tasks
running concurrently, etc.
As far as Windows programs, I have had them run about as fast as native
windows. To me, the *minor* slowdown is worth the price when you consider
just the crash protection, and true multitasking that OS/2 gives you.
Kevin Royalty, Certified OS/2 Engineer
Team OS/2
k.ro...@genie.geis.com <-- E-Mail only here. No Usenet access.
Owen Lynn
Alan S. Mazer <al...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <1994061403...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>,
>Christopher Hayashida <chaya...@ms.asucla.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>>OS/2 2.x has few disadvantages when compared to Windows 3.1. I think
>>one of the only ones I can think of is the problems of Windows
>>compatibility.
>
>You might also add difficulty of installation, boot time and application
>startup time. This isn't a flame on OS/2, but I think these are legitimate
>disadvantages. Everyone else will tell the advantages :-).
Security or lack therof. But if you're the only one who uses your machine,
who cares?
32ms minimum time quantum. Single message queue. Lack of, poor, or no device
drivers.
--
Owen fnord Lynn +---------------+ I think you hear me knocking Bill, and I'm
ly...@magneto.physics.auburn.edu | coming in with Lee Reiswig, David Barnes,
lyn...@eng.auburn.edu +--------+ John Soyring and a copy of OS/2, and we're
Finger for PGP23a Key | going to play Neko the Cat until you release Chicago.
Christopher Hayashida
al...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Alan S. Mazer) writes:
>In article <1994061403...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>,
>Christopher Hayashida <chaya...@ms.asucla.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>>OS/2 2.x has few disadvantages when compared to Windows 3.1. I think
>>one of the only ones I can think of is the problems of Windows
>>compatibility.
>
>You might also add difficulty of installation, boot time and application
>startup time. This isn't a flame on OS/2, but I think these are legitimate
>disadvantages. Everyone else will tell the advantages :-).
Yes to the first one, maybe to the other two...
I'll admit that the installation is a pain (though by now, I think I
have it down to a science =) but I'm not so sure about boot time and
application startup time. Granted that DOS will boot much quicker, but
DOS+Windows takes about the same amount of time as booting OS/2 for me.
I do have a fast machine, though (66 w/8MB). I'll time it and see the
difference.
Application startup time? Hmm... With my experience, the stuff I load
up (excluding the first Win-OS/2 session) takes about the same amount
of time. I think that I tend to forget things like speed of loadup,
since I upgraded from a 386-33 to a 486-66...
Christopher Hayashida
R S Rodgers
> FYI - MathCAD is being ported to OS/2, as well as Mathmatica.
Really? Hmmm. Are you _sure_ that Wolfram isn't just porting the
Mathematica kernel and leaving the front end a Windows 3.1 program?
And that Mathsoft is porting MC? Any sources for this?
----
(All pre-6/12 email recently tragically destroyed. Sorry--please remail if
possible.)
James VanMorgan Keller
: In article <1994061403...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>,
OK, but let's remember that OS/2 2.xx isn't for the same people. Well
it is and isn't. If you've ever seen unix from the admin side, you can
see that it takes very long to set up, since it's designed more for
continuous work. Very much like os/2. It's better designed to run
24-7 without a having to reboot except to load drivers. Now DOS is very
simple in comapason to os/2 and unix, unlike them dos dosn't take
advantage of the processor changes in the last 10 years. It's very much
the same thing as it was when Bill Gates bought it and contracted to IBM
low these many years ago.
Now windows is the same way, it was build to run on a 286 cpu on top of
dos. Ie it isn't taking advantage of the cpu- since dos can't -- it
can't.
Now the other thing is that trying to list non full windows compatablity
as a disadvantage is like critisising a great orator because he cannot
speake fluent Latain. Granted Latain got alot of the way here in terms
of language, but it's old -- out of date -- and can not take advantage
of the nuiounces of todays world.
Same with os/2 and windows..... hell I'm just impressed Os/2 bothered to
learn dos/win.....<g>
-James
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The future has |jke...@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu| Some say that those |
| been forseen, --------------------------------- who seek a distopia |
| and the technology is here. | future are not working for the best |
| NightCity was founded on May | interests of man. You're Dam stright!
| 1994. | I'm here to look out for myself. |
|_________________________________________________________________________ |
|########## "Jack in, logon, and ride the waves of Cyberspace" ############|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
k.ro...@genie.geis.com
> Really? Hmmm. Are you _sure_ that Wolfram isn't just porting the
> Mathematica kernel and leaving the front end a Windows 3.1 program?
> And that Mathsoft is porting MC? Any sources for this?
I'll just include my source here:
========== original post begins =========
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.announce
Path:
cisdfl01!meaddata!babbage.ece.uc.edu!news.kei.com!eff!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.e
du!ames!news.Hawaii.Edu!news
From: in...@wri.com
Subject: UPDATE: Mathematica for OS/2 plans
Message-ID: <Cqt42...@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.apps
Sender: ne...@news.Hawaii.Edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 05:47:13 GMT
Approved: tho...@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu
Lines: 28
Submitted by: in...@wri.com
Source: in...@wri.com
Date received: 1994 June 2
Date posted: 1994 June 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a lot of discussion about native versions of math
software for OS/2.
Wolfram Research has been working for some time on porting the
Mathematica kernel to OS/2. A native version of Mathematica for
OS/2 is currently being tested internally at Wolfram Research.
If everything goes according to plan the native version of
Mathematica for OS/2 will ship in the third quarter of this year.
For further information about Mathematica contact Wolfram
Research at
1-800-441-MATH (+44-(0)993-883400 in Europe)
or by email at
in...@wri.com (info...@wri.com in Europe).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tholen moderator for comp.os.os2.announce
Institute for Astronomy Internet: tho...@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu
2680 Woodlawn Drive
Honolulu, HI 96822 Astronewsbyte: four more transneptunian objects
========== original post ends ===========
Kevin Royalty, IBM Certified OS/2 Engineer
Dave Tholen
> Now windows is the same way, it was build to run on a 286 cpu on top of
> dos. Ie it isn't taking advantage of the cpu- since dos can't -- it
> can't.
Nonsense. Before Windows became version 3.0, you may recall hearing about
Windows 386, which required a 386, because it did take advantage of the CPU.
Only when Windows calls upon a DOS service is it unable to take advantage
of the 386 because DOS can't.
Joe Landman
>In article <2tl20n$15...@cisdfl01.cis076.square-d.com>, k.ro...@genie.gei wrote:
>> FYI - MathCAD is being ported to OS/2, as well as Mathmatica.
>
>Really? Hmmm. Are you _sure_ that Wolfram isn't just porting the
>Mathematica kernel and leaving the front end a Windows 3.1 program?
>And that Mathsoft is porting MC? Any sources for this?
>
Well, just the text of their message to sci.math.symbolic a few weeks ago
(I saved it somewhere). They claim to be testing the kernal and a PM
front end now (alpha or beta I am not sure).
However, I will believe it when I see it. Maple (Waterloo Inc) claimed
to be doing a native port to OS/2, then they were bought out by
a big windows app producer, and all of a sudden that statement becomes
"our OS/2 port will be certification that it runs under WinOS/2
as a supported platform..." Not exactly what I had hoped for (we own and
use Maple here), so if MMA comes out with a native OS/2 product, I will
purchase it for my own home use.
In a previous message you asked where all the good OS/2 software companies (in
your response to my analysis which I think you got mostly correct), I reply
Live Wire Communications, VacNat, GNU (well they never really made money on
any platform), the fellow who wrote Pluma (very very nice start at a WP...
reminds me terribly of AmiPro for win...), EWS from IBM (I love ExCal),
the company that makes FM/2 (I think I am ready to register... havent
found anything better... and it is pretty damn good), the person who
made adu (best text based file management I have ever seen on ANY platform),
etc.
All of them small upstarts with little overhead, and much to gain
from good market exposure.
You see that was the target of my analysis, pointing to the small
developers. Though I do not intend to make any money on it, I myself
am beginning the task of porting some visualization code I
wrote for 32 bit dos to OS/2. I know the benefits of the PM programming
model after comparing the win model GDI (ha!) and the OS/2 GDI.
Eventually (2-3 months) I will make it available for people to play with,
and hopefully have hooks into POV Ray to generate 3D rendered systems
of atoms and molecules.
(its vapor ware right now... so hopefully soon it will wind up being
real aloha level code...)
But then again, "maybe the horse will learn to sing" and there will be
some market for this (since I am not supported by any public money
in the form of grants etc, I have no gumption about making a proift
off of work I do... the knowledge is in the public domain, but not
my code...)
Ok, yes it is 94 degrees outside, I have no airconditioner in my car
and I have to drive in in 15 minutes (1/2 hour trip) for a group meeting....
(eg: I am not happy puppy right now...)
Joe
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
VacNat Software,
Alan S. Mazer
James "VanMorgan" Keller <jke...@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> wrote:
>
>Now the other thing is that trying to list non full windows compatablity
>as a disadvantage is like critisising a great orator because he cannot
>speake fluent Latain. Granted Latain got alot of the way here in terms
>of language, but it's old -- out of date -- and can not take advantage
>of the nuiounces of todays world.
Ah, but almost no one speaks Latin and almost everyone uses Windows. Bad
analogy. I don't think OS/2's Windows compatibility is that bad. But since
OS/2 has almost no applications of its own (which may be _because_ of the
Windows compatibility) it had better execute Windows applications or it's
useless.
John Michael Martz
>OS/2 has almost no applications of its own (which may be _because_ of the
>Windows compatibility) it had better execute Windows applications or it's
>useless.
Gee, given that the only Windoze app I run with any regularity (defined as
at least once a month) is CompuServe's WinCim, I guess all the statistical
analyses I do with SAS for OS/2 (3-4 times a week), all the time I spend
on my university's supercomputer and mainframe via ZOC (every day), the
OS/2-based game I've been beta testing (Galactic Civilzations; more time
than I care to admit), the writing I do with WordPerfect for DOS
(including my dissertation, and several journal submissions in the works;
less time than I care to admit :-) ), etc., etc. are all useless?
JOHN
--
* John M. Martz: Psychology Dept, UNC-CH * *
| CB# 3270, Davie Hall | B = f(P,E) |
| Chapel Hill, NC 27599 | --Kurt Lewin |
* JOHN_...@UNC.EDU * *
Paul Hostetler
John Michael Martz <jma...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <2tpmj3$q...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Alan S. Mazer <al...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Gee, given that the only Windoze app I run with any regularity (defined as
>at least once a month) is CompuServe's WinCim, I guess all the statistical
>analyses I do with SAS for OS/2 (3-4 times a week), all the time I spend
>on my university's supercomputer and mainframe via ZOC (every day), the
>OS/2-based game I've been beta testing (Galactic Civilzations; more time
>than I care to admit), the writing I do with WordPerfect for DOS
>(including my dissertation, and several journal submissions in the works;
>less time than I care to admit :-) ), etc., etc. are all useless?
Try Golden Compass for OS/2. You could drop WinCIM and delete
Windows support from your system if you like GC.
--
ms_hos...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
phos...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
at...@cleveland.freenet.edu
70004.3540 (CIS)
Robert J. Manley
: In article <1994061403...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, <EZB...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
: writes:
: > of my applications to run when I change completely to OS/2. That would
: > include MathCAD, Mathematica, and my Gravis Ultrasound drivers.
: FYI - MathCAD is being ported to OS/2, as well as Mathmatica.
: There are also GUS drivers on FTP.CDROM.COM (2 different ones).
I believe he/she (hate those account names) is referring to getting the
Windows GUS drivers to work in WINOS2. Since Gravis insist on using a
Windows virtual device driver (VxD), this will not work under the current
version of OS/2 nor will it work in NT. I'm currently working on a
solution for Ultrasound owners to at least use there external synths
under Windows through an MPU-401 VDD. I will post when it is ready for
beta testing.
Robert.
--
# Robert J. Manley, r...@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca #
# NTT Systems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA #
# OS/2:OSs :: 92,93 Blue Jays:MLB :: Canada:World #
R S Rodgers
> In article <3Sr$jO9Rto...@wam.umd.edu>, <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> > Really? Hmmm. Are you _sure_ that Wolfram isn't just porting the
> > Mathematica kernel and leaving the front end a Windows 3.1 program?
> > And that Mathsoft is porting MC? Any sources for this?
>
> I'll just include my source here:
[edited]
> Wolfram Research has been working for some time on porting the
> Mathematica kernel to OS/2.
Kernel.
> A native version of Mathematica for
> OS/2 is currently being tested internally at Wolfram Research.
In this, the only other detailed line, the question of whether Wolfram
is porting the full Mathematica or just the kernel is ambiguous.
No evidence at all for Mathcad, eh?
Alan S. Mazer
>
>I don't think OS/2's Windows compatibility is that bad. But since
>OS/2 has almost no applications of its own (which may be _because_ of the
>Windows compatibility) it had better execute Windows applications or it's
>useless.
Let me amend this. It's not useless. Without Windows applications, IMO, it's
not commercially viable. How's that?
Joris Zwart
Dave Tholen <tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
>Nonsense. Before Windows became version 3.0, you may recall hearing about
>Windows 386, which required a 386, because it did take advantage of the CPU.
>
>Only when Windows calls upon a DOS service is it unable to take advantage
>of the 386 because DOS can't.
>
because it runs on DOS. This is also the reason why it can't preemptively
multitask. If Windows would have preemptive multitasking, it would have been
possible for two applications to call DOS at the same time. Since DOS is
non-reentrant, this would crash the machine.
The only 386 features Windows takes advantage of are the virtual-86 mode,
demand paging, and the use of memory above 1 Mb.
--
----------------------------God is a comedian playing to an audience too
Joris Zwart afraid to laugh - Voltaire
jo...@stack.urc.tue.nl
*** Member of Team OS/2 ***---------------#include <standard.disclaimer>
Dave Duling
[ discussion of multitasking OS ]
Perhaps you dont truly understand multitasking. As one of the three
fundamental laws of physics, a CPU (or anything else) cannot ever do (or be)
more than one thing at a time. A pre-emptive multitasking OS cleverly
adjusts the priority of tasks that it sends to the CPU (including the OS itself)
based on an estimate of the need of the task, system interrupts, etc....
[ discussion of Windows 3.1 ]
It actually is pre-emptive with respect to each VM that is launched. One
VM contains all the win 3.1 programs, so they are not pre-emptive with respect
to each-other. Each DOS program or command line is another VM, so they are
pre-emptive w/respect to the rest of the system. You can easily test this.
Start two windowed dos sessions. In each one enter: dir c:\ /s/-p. watch.
Each window will continue to scroll as the entire disk directory is displayed.
Switch to a Win 3.1 program, both windows still scroll. However, this is the
limit Win 3.1. The system does not dynamically adjust the priority of each
VM based on changing requirements. The system does not protect the memory space
of each application, so one bad C++ programmer can kill File Manager, for instance.
( Ive done it many times ). It doesn't respond to system interrupts very well....
In the Windows model, this cannot be done on a 286, only a 386 or better. So yes,
Win 3.1 does (mostly) use the full features of the 386. Having DOS underneath as
"non-reentrant" limits the efficiency and security of multitasking. Thats why
Win 3.11 has its own disk driver so DOS isn't needed for that one task.
[ OS/2 ]
OS/2, of course, does have dynamic reallocation of priority and some measure of
VM memory protection; so it works much better. I almost think OS/2 would be better
off without any Windows compatibility at all.
anyway, enough almost totally useless trivia for now.
- dave duling
dul...@hippo.niehs.nih.gov
michael schievelbein
>>I don't think OS/2's Windows compatibility is that bad. But since
>>OS/2 has almost no applications of its own (which may be _because_ of the
>>Windows compatibility) it had better execute Windows applications or it's
>>useless.
> ^^^^^^^
What do you mean almost no applications ???
I run a MicrosoftLESS machine with NO MS products.
For every application THAT I USE, there is an OS/2 version as good or better...
But I realize that there are people that have needs CURRENTLY only filled by windoze products..
>
>Let me amend this. It's not useless. Without Windows applications, IMO, it's
>not commercially viable. How's that?
Michael Schievelbein
TEAM OS/2
k.ro...@genie.geis.com
> No evidence at all for Mathcad, eh?
Um, if I could pin down where I got the information, I'd post it for you. A
collegue of mine owns the Mathcad for Windows, and called them about an OS/2
verison. They replied that it was in Development. I believe that this was
also reported in either OS/2 Professional or OS/2 Magazine.
R S Rodgers
> In article <LHD0kO9R...@wam.umd.edu>, <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> > No evidence at all for Mathcad, eh?
>
> Um, if I could pin down where I got the information, I'd post it for you.
If you find it, please CC to email.
> collegue of mine owns the Mathcad for Windows, and called them about an OS/2
> verison. They replied that it was in Development. I believe that this was
> also reported in either OS/2 Professional or OS/2 Magazine.
You can't trust developers. The examples of OS/2 1.x, 2.x and NT
should tell you that.
Dave Tholen
top of DOS, and DOS can't use the 386.
I said:
>> Nonsense. Before Windows became version 3.0, you may recall hearing about
>> Windows 386, which required a 386, because it did take advantage of the CPU.
>>
>> Only when Windows calls upon a DOS service is it unable to take advantage
>> of the 386 because DOS can't.
Joris Zwart replied:
> Not entirely true. Windows is never able to take full advantage of the 386,
> because it runs on DOS.
I never said "full" advantage. All I said was that Windows can and does use
the 386, even though the underlying DOS doesn't, and I stand by that statement.
> The only 386 features Windows takes advantage of are the virtual-86 mode,
> demand paging, and the use of memory above 1 Mb.
I gather you do agree with me after all.
Olaf Scherdin
On Jun.14.1994 you wrote:
> 1) OS/2 requires more reasorces in terms of memory and DASD
> than windows/dos
PF> This is only an issue if you cannot afford disk space. Disks
PF> cost < $0.60/Mbyte, hardly a great cost, 30Mbytes of extra
PF> space costs $18.
This is not an fair argument because you have to buy a full drive, not only
18MB, right ?
> 2) It is harder to troubleshoot/Fix major system problems in OS/2
> vs Windows/Dos
PF> Not in my experience.
ever tried to fix a system on which setvga failed ? :-)
> 3) Lack of availability of mainstream applications written for OS/2
PF> Not much choice, but they are there.
True.
> 4) Complex and sometimes confusing Installation procedures
PF> FDISK is a bit unpleasant to use. The rest is simple but not
PF> very pretty.
installing new drivers for your brand new XY-card is anythig else but easy. In
fact, it's RISKY. IBM should work on that point very hard.
> 5) Lack of mainstream support from vendors
that is changing rapidly.
> 7) IBM Marketing
sigh .. :-)
CU/2
Olaf [Team OS/2]
Terry Poot
In article <CrJwK...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schi...@cs.nps.navy.mil
(michael schievelbein) writes:
>What do you mean almost no applications ???
>I run a MicrosoftLESS machine with NO MS products.
>For every application THAT I USE, there is an OS/2 version as good or
>better...
>But I realize that there are people that have needs CURRENTLY only
>filled by >windoze products..
Sadly enough...
If you're talking about OS/2 competing against Windows across the full
windows user base, I'm afraid Alan is right. I've yet to see any OS/2
software oriented towards children. If you don't have that, and can't
run what is there, DOS and Windows apps, you can't sell into the home
market.
I've got OS/2 for Windows. It's booted up to DOS/Windows all the time
except when I'm using it, because I haven't yet been able to get my
daughter's stuff to run properly from OS/2. That means I can't run uucp
in the bckground yet, one of the main reasons I got OS/2 (I've seen
Windoze try to multi-task...). Also I'm a programmer, and I don't like
the atrocities committed upon the C language to handle the screwed-up
8086 architecture DOS/Windows lives in (near, far, huge, blech!).
For my wife, I needed to get a simple word processor, spreadsheet, etc.
Cheap! I got Spinnaker 8-in-1 for Windows, which fits the bill nicely,
for $20 at the local Software, Etc (bargain bin). I don't need DeScribe
or Lotus or WordPerfect, nor do I want to pay for them. (Nicely enough,
8-in-1 seems quite happy under OS/2.)
In short, OS/2 meets all _my_ needs by itself. I'm a unix/VMS
programmer, and would use it for programming, communications, etc. But
without Windows & DOS compatibility, it doesn't meet the needs of my
daughter, and only expensively meets the needs of my wife. So it's only
that compatibility that enabled me to even consider it. And for that
matter, since that compatibility isn't nearly as great as I've seen
described here (at least _I_ have yet to achieve it), only the fact that
I am a programmer and experienced computer user leads me to believe that
I'll ever be able to make it a viable setup. It's only worth the effort
because I don't want to be restriced to DOS/Windows for my own usage. I
heartily agree that installation problems are a major disadvantage, and
from what I've seen, most of that comes down to drivers. They aren't
there, or don't work, or are hard to find, etc...
BTW, most of that software is equally available on the Mac. When OS/2
achieves that level of market penetration, to where the software is just
about as available on OS/2 as DOS/Windows, THEN that compatibility will
cease to be a major issue, though it will still be a major sales edge.
--
Terry Poot <t...@mccall.com> The McCall Pattern Company
Phone/Fax: (800)255-2762, (913)776-4041 615 McCall Road
Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
Paul Gronke
1) Windows compatibility is oversold.
In message <2tl20n$15...@cisdfl01.cis076.square-d.com> -
k.ro...@genie.geis.com writes:
>As far as Windows programs, I have had them run about as fast as native
>windows. To me, the *minor* slowdown is worth the price when you consider
>just the crash protection, and true multitasking that OS/2 gives you.
I run OS/2 - Windows on a 486/25 with 12 meg RAM. I do not have an oddball
setup. Windows/DOS run without a hitch. I have had problems running Windows
programs since I installed OS/2, The CSD did not resolve these problems. I
have seen consistent comments on the Internet indicating that Win/OS2
sessions runs poorly under the OS/2-Win release. This would be my major
complaint about OS/2 -- the Windows compatibility is oversold. Programs are
noticeably slower in most operations, and lockups are common. Full screen
Win/OS2 have *neverr* worked, and IBM tech support never helped.
2) Lack of a good mailing program. LaMail doesn't quote replies properly,
doesn't support MIME or UUEN/DEcode, and requires too many system resources.
3) System requirements are too high. I ran Windows just fine with 8 meg; now
I want to increase my 12 to 16. The main hogs are WPS (I run MSHELL now,
*much* more responsive system) and LaMail (1.5 meg swap space for a
mailer?!). I wish IBM would encourage the author of MSHELL to add some of
the functions in PC/2 or FileBar and include this as a slimmed down version
of WPS. This may be addressed in the new release.
4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
excellent).
Why I continue to use OS/2? Dos programs run faster. I *must* have
multitasking. With WPS removed, my system is very responsive. SAS/OS2 blows
away the Windows version. I don't use Windows apps anymore (except for
Excel), and have learned to save my work frequently.
I suspect that most of the disadvantages I cite would disappear if 1) I had a
system w/ 16 meg RAM and 2) I was using OS/2 GA.
---
Paul Gronke
Department of Political Science
Duke University
k.ro...@genie.geis.com
In article <2u9hpk$l...@news.duke.edu>, <gro...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
Paul,
> Disadvantages:
> 1) Windows compatibility is oversold.
According to your comment below, this _may_ be true for OS/2 for Windows,
but might not be true for the full version of OS/2. I have the full version of
OS/2, not OS/2 for Windows.
> In message <2tl20n$15...@cisdfl01.cis076.square-d.com> -
> k.ro...@genie.geis.com writes:
>
> >As far as Windows programs, I have had them run about as fast as native
> >windows. To me, the *minor* slowdown is worth the price when you consider
> >just the crash protection, and true multitasking that OS/2 gives you.
>
> I run OS/2 - Windows on a 486/25 with 12 meg RAM. I do not have an oddball
> setup. Windows/DOS run without a hitch. I have had problems running Windows
> programs since I installed OS/2, The CSD did not resolve these problems. I
> have seen consistent comments on the Internet indicating that Win/OS2
> sessions runs poorly under the OS/2-Win release. This would be my major
> complaint about OS/2 -- the Windows compatibility is oversold. Programs are
> noticeably slower in most operations, and lockups are common. Full screen
> Win/OS2 have *neverr* worked, and IBM tech support never helped.
Remember, it is running _your_ windows code. Of course it will run slower. In
the Full OS/2 package, IBM recompiled the Windows code using the Watcom
compiler and got a smaller, faster version of Windows that had been _optimied_
for OS/2. Comparing win-os2 from the full os/2 and comparing it to the win-os2
from OS/2 for Windows is like comparing a ripe apple with an unripe apple.
On another point, when running Windows programs under OS/2 in low-memory
situations, you might want to 'tune' the Win-os2 settings of the appropriate
applications. Remember that _all_ DOS/Windows programs get 2 Meg of EMS, 2 Meg
of XMS, and 4 or 64Meg of DPMI memory. Turn off what the applications don't
use and you will improve performance. You can also turn on INIT_DURING_IO and
OS/2 will automagically multithread the IO for DOS and Windows programs, giving
you improved response time in IO operations. Try some of these out. They are
also documented in the OS/2 2.1 Unleashed book by Moskowitz and Kerr. There is
a newer release called OS/2 2.11 Unleashed.
> 2) Lack of a good mailing program. LaMail doesn't quote replies properly,
> doesn't support MIME or UUEN/DEcode, and requires too many system resources.
LaMail isn't the only thing out there. Have you made suggestions to the
appropriate people about your LaMail complaints? You do realize that you can
extend a lot of this with REXX. According to a friend of mine that uses TCP/IP
for OS/2, the LaMail program uses the Enhanced Editor for editing, so you could
actually use REXX to do these conversions that you want. If it ain't there,
add it yourself, or buy another package. There are more appearing all the
time.
> 3) System requirements are too high. I ran Windows just fine with 8 meg; now
> I want to increase my 12 to 16. The main hogs are WPS (I run MSHELL now,
> *much* more responsive system) and LaMail (1.5 meg swap space for a
> mailer?!). I wish IBM would encourage the author of MSHELL to add some of
> the functions in PC/2 or FileBar and include this as a slimmed down version
> of WPS. This may be addressed in the new release.
>
> 4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
> DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
> hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
> excellent).
I heard that there is a shareware TCP/IP for OS/2 already out there. I haven't
seen it tho.
> Why I continue to use OS/2? Dos programs run faster. I *must* have
> multitasking. With WPS removed, my system is very responsive. SAS/OS2 blows
> away the Windows version. I don't use Windows apps anymore (except for
> Excel), and have learned to save my work frequently.
I don't have hardly any Windows programs (just shareware stuff), so I get great
response from my DOS and OS/2 programs.
> I suspect that most of the disadvantages I cite would disappear if 1) I had a
> system w/ 16 meg RAM and 2) I was using OS/2 GA.
I agree on both points, but if you try what I suggested above, it may help.
Also, use 1 file system (if you are not already), HPFS or FAT, until you get
more RAM This will help from having two diskcaches in RAM.
Note that none of this is meant to attack you in any way. Just friendly
suggestions.
Mike West
> Disadvantages:
<much deleted>
> 4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
> DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
> hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
> excellent).
This is something I just don't understand. As mentioned here DOS/
Windows has *free* TCP/IP. Linux and NetBSD also have free TCP/IP.
Yet in OS/2, where IBM is supposedly trying to push it as hard as
possible, TCP/IP costs $250. And they can't even give PPP support
at *any* price. That is completely absurd. I am about ready to
believe the nay-sayers who claim that IBM really *doesn't* care
whether OS/2 succeeds or not.
The reason I complain about this is because I like using OS/2, would
like to continue to use OS/2 and would like to see it succeed. But
I am not going to pay $250 for something that I should be able to get
for free, or, at the very least, for a *lot* less money. I will be
forced to just move on to Linux, or, assuming it is ever released
(yeah, right!), Windows 4.0. I hate MicroSux as much as anyone else
(even when stuck with a 286, I insisted on using DR DOS instead of
MS DOS), but if IBM continues to insist on gouging me, I don't really
have much choice.
I realize that no one really cares if one user quits using OS/2, but
this is so aggrivating, I wanted to get this off my chest.
Mike West
we...@esd.dl.nec.com
Ron Jones
>Paul Gronke (gro...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
>
>> 4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
>> DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
>> hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
>> excellent).
>
You can also pay big-bucks for MS Windows/DOS TCP/IP stuff.
e.g. FTP's PC/TCP (for OS/2 also) lists at >$500 and its no where near
as nice as IBM's! Those windows programs may look "snazzy" but don't
function like the OS/2 apps.
I paid $150 for IBMs TCP/IP base kit and think that's good value. I've
seen modem communication programs and WIndows shells for more than
that. There is a lot of decent PD and shareware that can utilize IBMs
TCP/IP also enhancing its value. IBM also supports it well with 2 FREE
CSDs (so far) and EWS. Maybe you think IBM is a not-for-profit company
(by design ;-) Let's cut out the free-lunch mentality.
--
Ronald Jones r...@osu.edu | Office: (614) 292-1665
The Ohio State University | FAX: (614) 292-7493
The Only Cow
I'm currently using a Mac LC (16 mhz 68020) and it seems like its runing
out of steam. (Wonder why.... =) ) Anyway, I'm a student developer, not
really tied to any particular system, and am looking into the possibility of
moving to a PowerPC or some Intel offering to run OS/2. What sort of person
would you need to be to move from Macintosh to OS/2? DO you think it'll
ever have the market that Mac has right now?
-Chris
>For years, I considered passing up requirement D) and buying a Macintosh.
>As a matter of fact, if OS/2 2.0 had not become available when it did, I
>would perhaps be using a Macintosh today.
<snip>
>Overall, I think that "moving" to OS/2 2.1 from the Windows 3.1 world is
>a tough decision and not a path that I would encourage everyone to take.
>Some Windows users may find the robustness of running Window software under
>OS/2 worth the (inexpensive) purchase price. Many others may find the cost
>in terms of incompatible hardware and so forth not worth paying for the
>additional "Crash Protection".
>Brent Hutto
>hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu
--
__________________________________________________________________________
"You're only guarenteed one life in this |Chris Harris / RAMP Productions
world, so you may as well make the most of| chha...@u.washington.edu
it.... Have a nice day or I'll kill you."|Finger me for my PGP public key
mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
If your reference 'PPP' is Peer to Peer, TCP/IP is Peer to Peer
by definition. If you are expecting something magical or mystical beyond
that it isn't there.
All the free TCP/IP you refer to is EXACTLY what it is worth. It
is a minimal implementation of dubious reliability and TOTALLY incapable
of dealing with the rigors of high traffic loads/industrial use let alone the
demands of multiple session to multiple machines with simultaneous TELNET,
FTP, NFS, SLIP, Domain Name Server, SNP(email), oh did I mention that it
must also be compatible with Netware, NETBIOS, X.25 and a couple other
protocols I can't remember at the moment. And, that OS/2 must be able
the have these protocol present and active without stepping on each other,
simultaneously on the same LAN, Ethernet or Token Ring, sometimes both.
You forget, IBM MUST be dependable so businesses can
depend absolutely on the proper operation of our products. How would you
like your bank to handle your bank accounts via some weenieware they
picked up free somewhere.
You get what you pay for. Review the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
and think for a moment. Yes some form of 50 cent weenie net should be
bundled into WARP, I don't know if it will be. But you aren't going to
get a complete industrial TCP/IP implementation that is required to be
as dependable as your dial tone. Comparing OS/2 TCP/IP to comparable
products (apples to apples) it is virtually free. $160 base product at
Indelible Blue will get you all you need to set up a workstation with the
exception of NFS. The $250 price includes everything including the
kitchen sink.
*
* NFSV20 PACKAGE for Network file system NFS
* PMXV20 PACKAGE for X-Windows server PMX
* XCLIV20 PACKAGE for X-Windows Client XCLI
* XNTV20 PACKAGE for Extended networking (formally X25)
* PGMGV20 PACKAGE for the Programmers Tool Kit
* DNSV20 PACKAGE for the Domain Name Server DNS
* DBOXV20 PACKAGE for DOS/Windows access
* APPSV20 PACKAGE for the Applications only kit
* NETBV20 PACKAGE for the NetBios kit
*
What is meant by TCP/IP apps in number 4) totally escapes me.
Apps shouldn't even know about networking if the network is done right,
it should be transparent and irrelevant. You can have 'network versions',
but that isn't necessary. They usually have some optimization to install
some minimal part of themselves locally but generally I have had just
as much success with the 'stand alone' version mounted totally remotely.
Network version are usually more a statement of licence rather than
network functionality.
Mark
David Derbes
>In article <2tkvc3$5...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
>
>I'm currently using a Mac LC (16 mhz 68020) and it seems like its runing
>out of steam. (Wonder why.... =) ) Anyway, I'm a student developer, not
>really tied to any particular system, and am looking into the possibility of
>moving to a PowerPC or some Intel offering to run OS/2. What sort of person
>would you need to be to move from Macintosh to OS/2? DO you think it'll
>ever have the market that Mac has right now?
>
>-Chris
>
I am banging this out on a Gateway running OS/2. I am six feet away from my
own antique LC, the same as your machine. I like the Macs very much, and my
employer is essentially a 100% Mac shop, so the vast majority of my work
requires me to use the LC.
That said, I fear that the 68XXX have reached pretty much the end of the
road. It seems to me that fewer and fewer Mac products are coming down
the pipeline; that a hell of a lot of Mac developers have jumped ship to
Windows 3.1. If the PowerPC's don't get a bunch of apps very soon now,
Apple will be in big trouble. Fortunately MetroWerks (sp?) have produced
what are said to be excellent compilers, so the apps may be coming soon.
I think for you (and for all Mac uses with the money) the PowerPC is the
way to go; moreover, OS/2 is enormously closer to the feel of the Mac
than Windows 3.1 is.
Best wishes, David Derbes [derbesuhuru.uchicago.edu]
Paul Gronke
writes:
>In <CrtBF...@esd.dl.nec.com>, we...@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West) writes:
>>Paul Gronke (gro...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
>>> Disadvantages:
>>
>>
>>> DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
>>> hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
>>> excellent).
> All the free TCP/IP you refer to is EXACTLY what it is worth. It
>is a minimal implementation of dubious reliability and TOTALLY incapable
>of dealing with the rigors of high traffic loads/industrial use let alone the
>demands of multiple session to multiple machines with simultaneous TELNET,
>FTP, NFS, SLIP, Domain Name Server, SNP(email), oh did I mention that it
>must also be compatible with Netware, NETBIOS, X.25 and a couple other
I disagree. NCSA Telnet is as bombproof as they come and supports
multiple telnet sessions. It does not support multiple ftp's, but I don't
find that a real constraint.
>bundled into WARP, I don't know if it will be. But you aren't going to
>get a complete industrial TCP/IP implementation that is required to be
>as dependable as your dial tone. Comparing OS/2 TCP/IP to comparable
Most users don't need a "complete industrial TCP/IP implementation", they
need telnet, ftp, mail, and newsreading. That's it. I can get an excellent
free implementation of this in Win/NT, Linux, UnixWare, or Dos/Windows. I
cannot for OS/2.
>What is meant by TCP/IP apps in number 4) totally escapes me.
>Apps shouldn't even know about networking if the network is done right,
Perhaps I was unclear -- I mean Internet access apps (I thought TCP/IP apps
meant that). IMHO, the Dos/Windows TCP/IP applications are superior to the
ones IBM released. Mail: Eudora or PMail or NuPop or even bloody PopMail is
as good or better than LaMail. I have to check my out box regularly to see
if Sendmail screwed up, something I never had to do with my Windows mailers.
cc:Mail for OS/2 lacks many features of cc:Mail for Windows. News: Trumpet
trumps NR/2. Telnet: Win/QVT is far better than telnet-PM (terminal
emulation is much better). FTP: Here I think OS/2 is better, but only
because of VX-FTP; the package that came with TCP/IP (FTP-PM) is a joke.
Paul Gronke
>
>In article <2u9hpk$l...@news.duke.edu>, <gro...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
Thanks for this advice. Maybe I need to get OS/2 Unleashed or some such
text. I *have* sped up the machine a lot by eliminating WPS. BTW, I have
one of those oldie goldie 586/25 *DX*'s.
>On another point, when running Windows programs under OS/2 in low-memory
>situations, you might want to 'tune' the Win-os2 settings of the appropriate
>applications. Remember that _all_ DOS/Windows programs get 2 Meg of EMS, 2 Meg
>of XMS, and 4 or 64Meg of DPMI memory. Turn off what the applications don't
>use and you will improve performance. You can also turn on INIT_DURING_IO and
>OS/2 will automagically multithread the IO for DOS and Windows programs, giving
>you improved response time in IO operations. Try some of these out. They are
>also documented in the OS/2 2.1 Unleashed book by Moskowitz and Kerr. There is
>a newer release called OS/2 2.11 Unleashed.
>
>> 2) Lack of a good mailing program. LaMail doesn't quote replies properly,
>> doesn't support MIME or UUEN/DEcode, and requires too many system resources.
>
>LaMail isn't the only thing out there. Have you made suggestions to the
>appropriate people about your LaMail complaints? You do realize that you can
>extend a lot of this with REXX. According to a friend of mine that uses TCP/IP
>for OS/2, the LaMail program uses the Enhanced Editor for editing, so you could
>actually use REXX to do these conversions that you want. If it ain't there,
This may be true, but isn't really a satisfactory solution. A basic mailer
these days should support either UU or Mime. Why should a user have to write
REXX scripts to do what IBM should be doing? I did pay $150 for the TCP/IP
package, after all... anyway, it's become clear that I need to learn Rexx.
Any good advice on a book? I'm a novice programmer but experienced user.
>I agree on both points, but if you try what I suggested above, it may help.
>Also, use 1 file system (if you are not already), HPFS or FAT, until you get
>more RAM This will help from having two diskcaches in RAM.
Another great piece of advice. I *do* have to file systems. The problem is
that I use Gnu_emacs, which requires HPFS.
>
>Note that none of this is meant to attack you in any way. Just friendly
>suggestions.
Thanks! Advice always taken in that spirit. I am an OS/2 booster as well,
just frustrated by the limits in what (I think) has become their leading
seller (os/2-windows).
Thomas M. Corrigan
tes:
>Perhaps I was unclear -- I mean Internet access apps (I thought TCP/IP apps
>meant that). IMHO, the Dos/Windows TCP/IP applications are superior to the
>ones IBM released. Mail: Eudora or PMail or NuPop or even bloody PopMail is
>as good or better than LaMail. I have to check my out box regularly to see
>if Sendmail screwed up, something I never had to do with my Windows mailers.
>cc:Mail for OS/2 lacks many features of cc:Mail for Windows. News: Trumpet
>trumps NR/2. Telnet: Win/QVT is far better than telnet-PM (terminal
>emulation is much better). FTP: Here I think OS/2 is better, but only
>because of VX-FTP; the package that came with TCP/IP (FTP-PM) is a joke.
>
all the time and never have any problems. Similarly, LA Times is a great
newsreader. All in all, I think the IBM TCP/IP stuff, especially when used
with some of the shareware stuff available, is much better than the
DOS/Windows equivalents. I was using Chameleon, and the OS/2 stuff is much
better !!
Tom Corrigan
corr...@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Mike Dahmus
>Paul Gronke (gro...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
>> Disadvantages:
>
> <much deleted>
>
>> 4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
>> DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
>> hundreds of dollars. (However, I think that the EWS version of Gopher is
>> excellent).
>
>This is something I just don't understand. As mentioned here DOS/
>Windows has *free* TCP/IP.
Stop right here, because the *free* TCP/IP you're talking about is not written
by Microsoft. There are reports they'll ship something included with Chicago;
then again, there are rumors IBM will do the same for the next release of OS/2.
--
Mike Dahmus Curator, rec.sport.football Hall o' Bait
mi...@gate.net also mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Please don't vote me new Kibo! "Something must be BROKEN here at IBM!"
Robert Craig Kerr
Paul Gronke <gro...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>I disagree. NCSA Telnet is as bombproof as they come and supports
>multiple telnet sessions. It does not support multiple ftp's, but I don't
>find that a real constraint.
>
Telnet has a "major violation of the tcp/ip protocol" in its latest version.
I don't know about other free tcp/ip products, but I certainly wouldn't use
NCSA telnet as a shining example of freeware. For that matter, I wouldn't
imagine that NCSA anything would be too popular in this circle.
Craig
Mike West
> I paid $150 for IBMs TCP/IP base kit and think that's good value. I've
> seen modem communication programs and WIndows shells for more than
> that. There is a lot of decent PD and shareware that can utilize IBMs
> TCP/IP also enhancing its value. IBM also supports it well with 2 FREE
> CSDs (so far) and EWS. Maybe you think IBM is a not-for-profit company
> (by design ;-) Let's cut out the free-lunch mentality.
I don't expect or even want a free lunch. However, the base
functionality that is becoming more and more necessary for the
home user should be free or damn close (and should be part of
the base package). I shouldn't have to spend $250 (which is what
I, a non-student, would have to pay) to be able to make a piddly
little SLIP connection to an Internet provider! (And, while the
rest of the world seems to be drifing to PPP, I can't get that
at *any* price.) I don't have to spend money like that for *any*
other OS out there. So why, when OS/2 is desperately trying to
find any sort of following, is OS/2 the exception?
And I certainly don't mind IBM making money. However, if they
continue to charge too much for important pieces of OS/2, they
will find themselves making *no* money from me. Even if I do
have to resort to the next pathetic offering from Microsux.
Mike West
we...@esd.dl.nec.com
Robert Thurlow
<mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> If your reference 'PPP' is Peer to Peer, TCP/IP is Peer to Peer
>by definition. If you are expecting something magical or mystical beyond
>that it isn't there.
PPP is the Point-to-Point Protocol, a more powerful solution to what
SLIP tries to solve. The poster was right, the market is moving away
from SLIP and towards PPP exactly so they can run stuff other than
just IP traffic over the serial link.
Rob T
--
.. stuck on the on-ramp of the Information Superhighway.
Joseph B Huber
>I disagree. NCSA Telnet is as bombproof as they come and supports
>multiple telnet sessions. It does not support multiple ftp's, but I don't
>find that a real constraint.
Well, I've been using NCSA Telnet for a long time, and it is certainly NOT
bombproof. In fact I've downgraded because of some severe bugs in the
current version. IBM doesn't need to be shipping programs that have as many
problems as NCSA Telnet with OS/2...
--
Joe Huber
(jbh...@iastate.edu) | Capt. James T. Kirk on the 2nd law of thermo:
Dept. of Mech. Egr. | "It's not a hundred percent efficient,
Iowa State University | but nothing ever is."
rob...@cms.gr.hp.com
>In <CrtBF...@esd.dl.nec.com>, we...@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West) writes:
>>This is something I just don't understand. As mentioned here DOS/
>>Windows has *free* TCP/IP. Linux and NetBSD also have free TCP/IP.
>>Yet in OS/2, where IBM is supposedly trying to push it as hard as
>>possible, TCP/IP costs $250. And they can't even give PPP support
>>at *any* price. That is completely absurd. I am about ready to
>>believe the nay-sayers who claim that IBM really *doesn't* care
>>whether OS/2 succeeds or not.
>>The reason I complain about this is because I like using OS/2, would
>>like to continue to use OS/2 and would like to see it succeed. But
>>I am not going to pay $250 for something that I should be able to get
>>for free, or, at the very least, for a *lot* less money. I will be
>>forced to just move on to Linux, or, assuming it is ever released
>>(yeah, right!), Windows 4.0. I hate MicroSux as much as anyone else
>>(even when stuck with a 286, I insisted on using DR DOS instead of
>>MS DOS), but if IBM continues to insist on gouging me, I don't really
>>have much choice.
>>I realize that no one really cares if one user quits using OS/2, but
>>this is so aggrivating, I wanted to get this off my chest.
> If your reference 'PPP' is Peer to Peer, TCP/IP is Peer to Peer
>by definition. If you are expecting something magical or mystical beyond
>that it isn't there.
PPP is "Point to Point Protocol," which is typically used in place of SLIP
for dialup Internet access.
>$160 base product at
>Indelible Blue will get you all you need to set up a workstation with the
>exception of NFS. The $250 price includes everything including the
>kitchen sink.
>*
>* NFSV20 PACKAGE for Network file system NFS
>* PMXV20 PACKAGE for X-Windows server PMX
>* XCLIV20 PACKAGE for X-Windows Client XCLI
>* XNTV20 PACKAGE for Extended networking (formally X25)
>* PGMGV20 PACKAGE for the Programmers Tool Kit
>* DNSV20 PACKAGE for the Domain Name Server DNS
>* DBOXV20 PACKAGE for DOS/Windows access
>* APPSV20 PACKAGE for the Applications only kit
>* NETBV20 PACKAGE for the NetBios kit
Let's see what it really adds up to. At the special promotional prices
(which I think are not available any more):
Base $140
NFS $100
PMX server $150
PMX client ~$150
X25 ~$170
Programmer ~$150
DNS ~$100
DOS ~$100
That's not everything and it's already over $1000. That is not free.
$250 is the normal price of the base TCP/IP.
I have the base kit, NFS, and X server. While quite good, they are
far from bulletproof. X doesn't even run on displays with more than
256 colors. FTPPM doesn't allow changes to fonts in the remote window,
nor does double clicking on directories and files work properly. X fonts
become corrupted on the display. The talk daemon should be a PM app that
displays a message when an incoming request is presented instead of beeping
in a minimized window.
Your tone was quite harsh for one who appears uninformed, especially
since you are posting from an IBM address.
Rob
Dave Tholen
> Disadvantages:
>
> 2) Lack of a good mailing program. LaMail doesn't quote replies properly,
> doesn't support MIME or UUEN/DEcode, and requires too many system resources.
UltiMail supports MIME.
> 3) System requirements are too high.
What has been variously called Personal OS/2, the OS/2 Performance Beta, and
OS/2 version 2.99 addresses this issue.
Marcus W. Bainbridge
> TCP/IP costs $250. And they can't even give PPP support
> at *any* price. That is completely absurd.
But PPP isn't really a standard. IBM would be happy to sell you connection
kits to any of their 3 co-existing completely incompatible network
standards :) It's just like the drivers - support nothing but your own.
Now how many times have IBM done this ?-)
--
Marcus Bainbridge | mar...@guitar.demon.co.uk
Gilbert...@yale.edu
>by definition. If you are expecting something magical or mystical beyond
>that it isn't there.
This has gone rather far afield, so I wouldn't normally followup if the
statement did not come from RTP. PPP (Point to Point Protocol) is
a quasi-standard from the same folks who brought you IP and TCP
(the Internet board). It supports most LAN protocols over asynch,
synchronous, and ISDN lines. It is not technically a standard, but then
neither is TCP/IP.
IBM RTP has jumped rather heavily on the Frame Relay bandwagon. This
seems reasonable as an SDLC replacement for corporate networks, but it
does not meet the light duty requirements of personal computing.
Microsoft is reworking its Remote Access Services (RAS) to conform to PPP.
In the Real Soon Now time frame, the "Daytona" Windows NTAS 3.5 will
act as a server for "n" lines of asynch or ISDN with remote clients based
on "Chicago" or a client component supposed to ship with NTAS 3.5 itself.
The one dialup will seamlessly support TCP/IP, NETBEUI, and IPX over the
phone. PPP makes this all work. Futhermore, it will interoperate with
dedicated devices.
IBM has a LAN Distance product that does all this now, but it uses a
proprietary protocol. The MS Software is all vapor. However, standard
interoperability is a ABSOLUTE requirement.
We need the function immediately, and we would install LAN Distance
today IF it used PPP. Otherwise, we hang tight and could end up with
MS software. This issue will have the greatest possible effect on
decisions to use MS or OS/2 software on machines at Yale.
The head of IBM TCP/IP development has declared that PPP is a
"known user requirement." That is not really good enough. It has
to be part of the Communications Blueprint.
k.ro...@genie.geis.com
> In message <2u9ps5$s...@cisdfl01.cis076.square-d.com> -
> k.ro...@genie.geis.com writes:
> >
> >In article <2u9hpk$l...@news.duke.edu>, <gro...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
>
> Thanks for this advice. Maybe I need to get OS/2 Unleashed or some such
> text. I *have* sped up the machine a lot by eliminating WPS. BTW, I have
> one of those oldie goldie 586/25 *DX*'s.
>
> >> 2) Lack of a good mailing program. LaMail doesn't quote replies properly,
> >> doesn't support MIME or UUEN/DEcode, and requires too many system
> >> resources.
> >
> >LaMail isn't the only thing out there. Have you made suggestions to the
> >appropriate people about your LaMail complaints? You do realize that you
> >can extend a lot of this with REXX. According to a friend of mine that uses
> >TCP/IP for OS/2, the LaMail program uses the Enhanced Editor for editing, so
> >you could actually use REXX to do these conversions that you want. If it
> >ain't there,
>
> This may be true, but isn't really a satisfactory solution. A basic mailer
> these days should support either UU or Mime. Why should a user have to write
> REXX scripts to do what IBM should be doing? I did pay $150 for the TCP/IP
> package, after all... anyway, it's become clear that I need to learn Rexx.
> Any good advice on a book? I'm a novice programmer but experienced user.
I hear that IBM _may_ bundle something in Enterprise OS/2 like this, but it is
probably too early to tell. I don't mind (personally) that IBM left some of
these features out. It will allow me to add the features that I want, how I
want, with REXX and external programs. For example, I can add a menu to the
Enhanced Editor that will Copy the text to a buffer, save it to a file, shell
out a command session that will run UUENCODE on the file and then load it back
in. Ta-Da! I could make it more pretty if I want, but I can control it.
There are some advantages to them not including things.
RE: REXX books
In the original OS/2 2.1 Unleashed there was a primer on REXX. I am assuming
that it is at least still there in OS/2 2.11 Unleashed. There are all kinds of
REXX files that I have accumulated that I look at to see how other people
handle things in REXX. I would say that if you can program in Basic, you can
pick up REXX fairly quickly.
> >I agree on both points, but if you try what I suggested above, it may help.
> >Also, use 1 file system (if you are not already), HPFS or FAT, until you get
> >more RAM This will help from having two diskcaches in RAM.
>
> Another great piece of advice. I *do* have to file systems. The problem is
> that I use Gnu_emacs, which requires HPFS.
You may want to ditch the FAT file system then to save 512K of RAM for the
cache and whatever the cache program used. After reformatting to HPFS, REM out
the DISKCACHE= line in CONFIG.SYS
Kevin Royalty, IBM Certified OS/2 Engineer
Team OS/2, President - Team OS/2 Cincinnati Users Group
Dave Tholen
>> All the free TCP/IP you refer to is EXACTLY what it is worth.
> I disagree. NCSA Telnet is as bombproof as they come and supports
> multiple telnet sessions.
I think you'll find that very few things in life are truly free. In
the case of NCSA, you almost certainly paid for it with your tax
dollars. The difference is that the government forced the development
cost to be distributed over all taxpayers, whereas a commercial software
vendor has to raise its revenue from a much smaller user base.
mi...@isi026.isi.kfa-juelich.de
>I think you'll find that very few things in life are truly free. In
>the case of NCSA, you almost certainly paid for it with your tax
>dollars. The difference is that the government forced the development
>cost to be distributed over all taxpayers, whereas a commercial software
>vendor has to raise its revenue from a much smaller user base.
What do you want to proof with this? The fact is that for DOS I can get a PD
TCP/IP package and for OS/2 not (yet). For OS/2 there is at least one commercial
offering that costs as much as the commercial DOS packages.
So lets hope that the OS/2 freeware TCP/IP project gets finished soon. At least
VXFTP is some orders of magnitude better than the IBM program.
---
Michael Bode
Robert Gammon
For MOST DOS/Windows users, the only TCP/IP that they have access to is
COMMERCIAL. In most corporations, freeware is NOT acceptable as a corporate
standard, support is a MAJOR issue. Commercial implementations of TCP/IP
for DOS/Windows will cost us (my estimate) $150-$350.
IBM's TCP/IP is not overpriced compared to its OS/2 commercial competitors.
Check the prices for TCP/2 from Essex Systems, PC/TCP from FTP S/W, and
Vantage/IP from IPSwitch, they are all priced well over two hundred dollars
(volume discounts may get you down to the sub-two hundred dollar level).
Now, if you absolutely insist on freeware, there is a project underway to
develop a freeware TCP/IP for OS/2. Check out comp.os.os2.networking.tcpip
to follow the status of its development.
--
Regards, =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Robert Gammon =* I speak only for myself, my *=
(713)-274-3299 (voice) =* opinions are my own. I am not *=
(713)-274-2324 (fax) =* acting as a spokesperson for my *=
rga...@rgam.sc.ti.com =* employer. RGG v1.1 *=
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
david brown s
from IBM Direct, TCP/IP is listed at $291, the licence at $267. (Canadian
$). Firstly, that's not a huge incentive to go with the licence. What is
stranger is when you go outside IBM. For example, Below Zero in Calgary
has TCP/IP priced at $196, but the licence is at $204. Software
Alternatives in London has the base kit at $212, and the licence at $280.
Now, as much as I'd like to save trees by not ordering extra, unnecessary
documentation, I'm not sure I can afford it. (I should point out that both
Below Zero and Software Alternatives find the situation as weird as I do,
and have promised to look into it).
My next step will be to contact someone at IBM about this, I
suppose. Or, in all of this, is there some law of marketing I have missed?
David Brown dbr...@mach1.wlu.ca Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
* my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers *
* too bad *
Tom Permutt
>In article <CrtBF...@esd.dl.nec.com> we...@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West) writes:
>>
>>This is something I just don't understand. As mentioned here DOS/
>>Windows has *free* TCP/IP.
>
>Stop right here, because the *free* TCP/IP you're talking about is not written
>by Microsoft. There are reports they'll ship something included with Chicago;
>then again, there are rumors IBM will do the same for the next release of OS/2.
What do we care who wrote it? The point is, if you work in a TCP/IP
shop, using, say, NCSA Telnet, and you go to OS/2, it's broken, and it
costs a couple of hundred dollars to fix it. From the standpoint of an
OS/2 user who wants the extra functionality of TCP/IP, maybe the price is
reasonable. From the standpoint of a DOS TCP/IP user thinking about
switching to OS/2, it's rather high.
The same applies to other networking software, and hardware, too. I've
bought TCP/IP and NetWare, and now I need PathWorks, which is reported to
cost close to $1000 and not to be available yet. This puts a real crimp
in the "better DOS than DOS" argument.
Understand my position. I don't choose the network software. I have some
discretion as to what I put on my client machine. Maybe I can get
somebody to pay for it, but it's a hassle, so I usually just buy it. It
was OS/2, and I would very much like it to be OS/2 again, and I had nearly
convinced several coworkers, too, when the network forced me into Windows,
which I don't like at all. So for us, the question is not at all, "We've
got OS/2; how much is networking worth?" It is, "We have to live with
this network; how much is it worth to try to do it under OS/2?"
--
Tom Permutt
perm...@clark.net
Jeremy Mathers
...
>I think you'll find that very few things in life are truly free. In
>the case of NCSA, you almost certainly paid for it with your tax
>dollars. The difference is that the government forced the development
>cost to be distributed over all taxpayers, whereas a commercial software
>vendor has to raise its revenue from a much smaller user base.
As another poster said, "What are you trying to proof [sic] with this?"
Seriously, what is your point (by saying that NCSA was developed by the
government) ?
Two things are relevant:
1) There are far worse things the gov does with my tax dollars.
In fact, most of the things the gov does are worse than
developing NCSA. I am more than pleased to hear about
anything they are doing with them (my tax $$$) that is
computer related.
2) Most people consider their taxes a fixed expense. And taxes
(at least on the middle class) never go down.
Followups to alt.politics.taxes (or something like that...)
************************************************************************
A: Northern Exposure and Microsoft Windows.
Q: Name two flakey things produced in Redmond, WA.
- py...@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
>multiple telnet sessions. It does not support multiple ftp's, but I don't
>find that a real constraint.
>
NFS drives mounted by other stations and in turn mount drives from other
stations? Have FTP sessions coming in and out at the same time? Control
two or more Token Ring & Ethernet cards in the same machine on multiple
LANs? Support multiple protocol stacks simultaneously? Have a SNA
package like Communications Manager operating, not to mention LAN
Network Manager supervising the networks? All at the same time.
IBM has customers that demand all this and more. By the way they pay
for it. We are in business to make MONEY, not social work. Why don't
you do for OS/2 what other NOT_FOR_PROFIT organizations and individuals
have done for the other Operating Systems you mention, define the package
and start writing. That's what David Singer did for the EWS Gopher you mention,
on his own time and at his own expense. If you are waiting for IBM to
produce freeware your going to WAIT A LONG TIME. I wonder how much
freeware M$ produces for community service.
>
>Most users don't need a "complete industrial TCP/IP implementation", they
>need telnet, ftp, mail, and newsreading. That's it. I can get an excellent
>free implementation of this in Win/NT, Linux, UnixWare, or Dos/Windows. I
>cannot for OS/2.
>
is in business to make MONEY, not social work. You want neat free TCP/IP
News Readers, Telenet sessions, etc, etc, etc, write them and put them out
for freeware like the packages you mention. Or better still pay IBM to do
it and we will sell it. How long do you think ANY business would stay in
business giving_away_their_product.
For those needing some light duty networks I have advocated that some
simple, possibly NETBIOS based, give away network be bundled in OS/2.
But you can see how much they listen to me.
>
>Perhaps I was unclear -- I mean Internet access apps (I thought TCP/IP apps
>meant that). IMHO, the Dos/Windows TCP/IP applications are superior to the
>ones IBM released. Mail: Eudora or PMail or NuPop or even bloody PopMail is
>as good or better than LaMail. I have to check my out box regularly to see
>if Sendmail screwed up, something I never had to do with my Windows mailers.
>cc:Mail for OS/2 lacks many features of cc:Mail for Windows. News: Trumpet
>trumps NR/2. Telnet: Win/QVT is far better than telnet-PM (terminal
>emulation is much better). FTP: Here I think OS/2 is better, but only
>because of VX-FTP; the package that came with TCP/IP (FTP-PM) is a joke.
>
improved. The two major releases that have come out have been progressive
improvements and will continue to be refined. IBM is not unlimited in its
resources and again cannot and will not attempt to outsell free products.
We will not plagiarize others creativity nor will adopt freeware for sale as
a product. Lord knows we arn't perfect and don't always get it right or
even good the first time everytime, but we have to start somewhere.
>
>
I guess what I am saying is what EXACTLY is your point & what do you
want?
mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
sorting me out on this. Please be aware I'm just a regular employee and
am not in the policy making end of the business. If I had a nickel for
everything I didn't know or never heard of I wouldn't need to work here.
I can and do relay matters of merit I find out here. At least I try.
Mark
T. Scott Thompson
>Most users don't need a "complete industrial TCP/IP implementation", they
>need telnet, ftp, mail, and newsreading. That's it. I can get an excellent
>free implementation of this in Win/NT, Linux, UnixWare, or Dos/Windows. I
>cannot for OS/2.
By "free implementation in ... Dos/Windows" I assume you are refering
to the packet driver based software, including NCSA telnet, Trumpet,
Minuet, etc. None of this software is included with DOS, provided for
free by any commercial DOS vendor, or supported by any commercial
firm. In fact support of any kind is minimal. However, it all runs
just fine under OS/2 (according to much testimony on the
comp.os.os2.networking.* newsgroups) provided you don't try to run it
on top of IBM's commercial TCP/IP package. So OS/2 _does_ have a free
implementation that is as good as any free DOS implementations.
>Perhaps I was unclear -- I mean Internet access apps (I thought TCP/IP apps
>meant that). IMHO, the Dos/Windows TCP/IP applications are superior to the
>ones IBM released. Mail: Eudora or PMail or NuPop or even bloody PopMail is
>as good or better than LaMail. I have to check my out box regularly to see
>if Sendmail screwed up, something I never had to do with my Windows mailers.
>cc:Mail for OS/2 lacks many features of cc:Mail for Windows. News: Trumpet
>trumps NR/2. Telnet: Win/QVT is far better than telnet-PM (terminal
>emulation is much better). FTP: Here I think OS/2 is better, but only
>because of VX-FTP; the package that came with TCP/IP (FTP-PM) is a joke.
I can't argue with this. However there are examples that go the other
way. I like IBM's EWS version of gopher as much as any other gopher,
and C-Kermit for OS/2 is one of the best telnet implementations IMO.
Both are free.
>---
>Paul Gronke
>Department of Political Science
>Duke University
--
T. Scott Thompson email: thom...@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics phone: (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota fax: (612) 624-0209
Matt Austern
> Fine, $160 at Indelible Blue will set you right up. IBM
> is in business to make MONEY, not social work. You want neat free TCP/IP
> News Readers, Telenet sessions, etc, etc, etc, write them and put them out
> for freeware like the packages you mention. Or better still pay IBM to do
> it and we will sell it. How long do you think ANY business would stay in
> business giving_away_their_product.
Dunno. Rumors are that Windows 4.0 will have some sort of networking
built in. Now, I realize that these are just rumors at this stage
(since, after all, Windows 4.0 is still vaporware), but let's suppose
for a moment that the rumors are true.
If they are, then OS/2 2.2 sure better have some built-in networking
too, or it'll have a hard time competing. This is especially true
since there are already easily available non-Microsoft free or cheap
TCP/IP products for Windows 3.1, and it's not too unreasonable to
expect that some of them will be ported to Windows 4.0.
Or, to turn this question around: how long can any business stay in
business if they *don't* give away the added value with their products
that their competitors do?
--
Matt Austern "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
Dave Duling
Duh. The MS 32 bit TCP-IP for Workgroups 3.11 is on ftp.microsoft.com. And the
16 bit TCP-IP for 286 Windows 3.1 is also free. How free do you want it ? :-).
- dave duling
dul...@hippo.niehs.nih.gov
Paul Carver
> TCP/IP costs $250. And they can't even give PPP support
> at *any* price. That is completely absurd.
Does Windows 3.1 or WfWG include PPP? I don't know anything about serial
protocols and I'm still using a VT102 emulation to access the internet via
modem because what little I've read about SLIP or PPP seemed incomprehensible.
If you can tell me how to get free PPP that doesn't require me to spend more
than ten minutes of setup time I would really like to hear about it.
Paul
ps. We are talking about modems right? I don't have acces to a LAN.
Steven Loranz
>In article <2uep5i$1r...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>> Fine, $160 at Indelible Blue will set you right up. IBM
>> is in business to make MONEY, not social work. You want neat free TCP/IP
>> News Readers, Telenet sessions, etc, etc, etc, write them and put them out
>> for freeware like the packages you mention. Or better still pay IBM to do
>> it and we will sell it. How long do you think ANY business would stay in
>> business giving_away_their_product.
>Dunno. Rumors are that Windows 4.0 will have some sort of networking
>built in. Now, I realize that these are just rumors at this stage
>(since, after all, Windows 4.0 is still vaporware), but let's suppose
>for a moment that the rumors are true.
Do you really think Microsoft will be giving away networking apps
with Windoze 4??? You're going to pay out your butt for that stuff.
The difference is that MS will probably just implement the _free_ stuff
that's out right now....sorry if that insults anyone at MS....but hey..
-Steve
Ron Jones
>>
>So lets hope that the OS/2 freeware TCP/IP project gets finished soon. At least
>VXFTP is some orders of magnitude better than the IBM program.
>
>---
I like vxftp but its hardly "better" than PMFTP. It still has a lot of
bugs (its a beta) and lacks some important features (for me) such as
remote host to remote host transfer and drag and drop. It also suffers
from the very slow load times of Visual Rexx programs.
The latest version of IBMs PMftp fixes a lot of the problems. Clicking
on directory names now is reliable on UNIX machines (it always was on
OS/2 ftp servers). Now if it would only simplify reading text files! You
have to drag these files to the desk top and invoke the editor.
--
Ronald Jones r...@osu.edu | Office: (614) 292-1665
The Ohio State University | FAX: (614) 292-7493
Todd Walk
>In article <CrHpH...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
>Dave Tholen <tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Nonsense. Before Windows became version 3.0, you may recall hearing about
>>Windows 386, which required a 386, because it did take advantage of the CPU.
>>
>>Only when Windows calls upon a DOS service is it unable to take advantage
>>of the 386 because DOS can't.
>>
>Not entirely true. Windows is never able to take full advantage of the 386,
>because it runs on DOS. This is also the reason why it can't preemptively
>multitask. If Windows would have preemptive multitasking, it would have been
>possible for two applications to call DOS at the same time. Since DOS is
>non-reentrant, this would crash the machine.
Windows could of had pre-emp MTing if it just would have put mutex blocks
around DOS call areas.
--
Todd Walk
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Dave Tholen
> Seriously, what is your point (by saying that NCSA was developed by the
> government) ?
The gentleman was complaining because he couldn't get a free TCP/IP
implementation for OS/2 like he could for DOS. I was simply pointing
out that the DOS implementation was not free; he'd already paid for it
with his tax pollars.
Marcus W. Bainbridge
slo...@antioch.acns.nwu.edu "Steven Loranz" writes:
> In <MATT.94Ju...@physics2.berkeley.edu> ma...@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt
> Austern) writes:
>
> >Dunno. Rumors are that Windows 4.0 will have some sort of networking
> >built in. Now, I realize that these are just rumors at this stage
> >(since, after all, Windows 4.0 is still vaporware), but let's suppose
> >for a moment that the rumors are true.
>
> Do you really think Microsoft will be giving away networking apps
> with Windoze 4??? You're going to pay out your butt for that stuff.
M$ are rumoured to be including PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol) rather than
a full-blown TCP-IP package. However, if Big Blue were to develop the
said PPP extensions and make then freely available in 2.2, then maybe
OS/2 will survive here. The Net connection here relies on dial-up PPP and
so far, only DOS has a *FREE* (well, $10) implementation in the shape of
KA9Q. Oh, and the latest Linux has it free, too.
--
Marcus Bainbridge | mar...@guitar.demon.co.uk
Marcus W. Bainbridge
> Can the station be a domain name server at the same time? Have
> NFS drives mounted by other stations and in turn mount drives from other
> stations? Have FTP sessions coming in and out at the same time? Control
> two or more Token Ring & Ethernet cards in the same machine on multiple
> LANs? Support multiple protocol stacks simultaneously? Have a SNA
> package like Communications Manager operating, not to mention LAN
> Network Manager supervising the networks? All at the same time.
> IBM has customers that demand all this and more. By the way they pay
IBM also has customers who demand a lot less. And those who would like one
networking "standard" from the same company...
> I wonder how much freeware M$ produces for community service.
I wonder how much >networking< freeware M$ has produced? Win 4 Wg is a
pretty decent FREE stab at peer-to-peer networking. Or is P-P networking a
sore point in IBM, since it still hasn't appeared in OS/2 nearly 2 years
after M$ dumped it into Windows and DR/Novell shoved it into DOS? Or
just a "our major corporate customers don't want P-P, so we'll ignore
all the small companies who've bought most of the OS/2 boxes" attitude?
You can't teach an old elephant new tricks, I suppose.
--
Marcus Bainbridge | mar...@guitar.demon.co.uk
R S Rodgers
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) wrote:
> >Not entirely true. Windows is never able to take full advantage of the 386,
> >because it runs on DOS. This is also the reason why it can't preemptively
> >multitask. If Windows would have preemptive multitasking, it would have been
> >possible for two applications to call DOS at the same time. Since DOS is
> >non-reentrant, this would crash the machine.
>
> Windows could of had pre-emp MTing if it just would have put mutex blocks
> around DOS call areas.
Uh, guys, Windows _does_ pre-emptively multitask DOS applications.
What, you think those DOS programs are calling yeild?
Tasked against one another pre-emptively:
[Windows] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] ...
Tasked cooperatively:
[Windows program Windows program Windows program Windows program]
There wasn't much MS could do in 3.x to make Win16 programs
pre-emptive, though they could have set the stage for a move to
pre-emption in the next version a lot better than they did.
--
Yippee for uqwk!
Tim Lambert
> You forget, IBM MUST be dependable so businesses can
> depend absolutely on the proper operation of our products. How would you
> like your bank to handle your bank accounts via some weenieware they
> picked up free somewhere.
I like the term "Weenieware". :) However, the statement about IBM being
dependable is a joke. I've got a problem with OS/2. I called IBM (UK)
on Tuesday, was given a job reference number and was told an "engineer"
would be calling me within 3 hours. Well, I'm still waiting. IBM,
dependable! Bah...
Cheers, Tim.
--
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Tim J. Lambert | t...@marinc.demon.co.uk |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Tim Lambert
> My next step will be to contact someone at IBM about this, I
> suppose. Or, in all of this, is there some law of marketing I have missed?
Not that my reply has anything to do with your question, but I hope
you have better result out of IBM than I have! IBM are to say the
least, sluggish and unresponsive when it comes to support. That is
of course my opinion.
Todd Walk
>Tasked cooperatively:
RS, I think that you're posting so much that you're not taking the time
to actually read what is posted.
Windows was made co-op MTing because the DOS INT calls are non-reentrant.
However *all* of Windows (not just the DOS sessions) could have been
made pre-emp MTing if MS would have spent the time to make mutex
(mutual exclusion) blocks around the DOS INT section calls.
(This has both positive and negative effects.)
--
Todd Walk
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Hans-Joachim Zierke
tho...@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) wrote:
> UltiMail supports MIME.
As far as I know, UltiMail does not support MIME-ISO-8859 and
MIME-quoted-printable. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Therefore it cannot send simple text mail in continental European
languages, from Norway to Portugal.
Can't believe IBM will sell a lot here, and <diabolic grin on> I'm sure
IBM France won't sell a single package. ;-)
hajo
Trevor Tompkins
OS/2? by R S Rod...@wam.umd.edu
>
> [Windows] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] ...
Maybe it was designed that way, but it certainly doesn't work that way.
I can never have more than one open at a time, and if I do an xcopy or
format command, I get that blue screen that offers me to close the
application or exit windows entirely. The only real way to run dos in
windows is to just exit windows.
--Trevor
============================================================================
Logic and Computation |Using OS/2 2.1 Since 2/13/93
Carnegie Mellon University |The most customizable operating system!
tt...@andrew.cmu.edu |Member of STAB! (Students and Teachers
against |Barney) Great anti-Barney T-Shirt
Eric Danforth Mudama
>Not that my reply has anything to do with your question, but I hope
>you have better result out of IBM than I have! IBM are to say the
>least, sluggish and unresponsive when it comes to support. That is
>of course my opinion.
I am surprised by this. When I was having a configuration problem with
OS/2, I called the Tech Support guy and left a message Friday afternoon after
they had closed. He called me back at 11:00AM Saturday morning to help me
out. I was impressed.
Eric
--
_______________________________________________
Eric Danforth Mudama Orion Instruments, Inc.
Technical Staff Menlo Park, CA 94025
edmu...@mit.edu (415) 327-8800
Robert D. Reynolds
value to OS/2. The problem is that Microsoft is going bundle TCP/IP
support into both Chicago and Daytona. SO, in a sense, users will get
$150, or more if you add PPP, for free from Microsoft. If IBM doesn't up
their anti, they will have to fold.
--
*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*
Robert D. Reynolds GO TEAM OS2 !!! rob...@netcom.com
TEL: (408)985-0603 ro...@cup.hp.com
I have not, I will not, and I do not speak for any employer of mine!
*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*
Robert D. Reynolds
industrial strength and can interoperate with all of the other network
types, you had better take a closer look at Daytona. It has TCP/IP,
NETBUI, SPX, IPX, and NetBIOS all bundled. NTAS will also be capable of
SNA and AppleTalk. This is the same TCP/IP networking that will be
avialable for Chicago. There is some advantage to having the same API
available on both your low and high client, as well as you server platforms.
I love OS/2. It has by far the best user interface around. I can have
the latest in OO stuff right next to a good commandline interface.
However, it was the underlying features of OS/2 that made me leave
Windows behind. Networking is more and more becoming an important
underlying feature of an operating system. IBM needs to realize this and
make networking, especially, point to point protocols like PPP and SLIP
part of their operating systems. Mobile business users and home users
will eat this stuff up.
Bill Poitras
: The problem isn't that IBM's TCP/IP does not add $150 dollars worth of
: support into both Chicago and Daytona. SO, in a sense, users will get
: $150, or more if you add PPP, for free from Microsoft. If IBM doesn't up
: their anti, they will have to fold.
Are you kidding? Have you seen what TCP/IP utilities come with OS/2?
Here are a few of the things that I thought were pretty good:
- SNMP (agent and monitor)
- Telnet (several emulations plus a server)
- FTP and FTPD
- RSH and RSHD
- REXEC and REXECD
- TALK and TALKD
There lots of other programs, but those impressed me. IBM TCP/IP for
OS/2 treats OS/2 like a real multitasking OS, and allows anybody else to
use your machine for computing (as long as they have permission). As I
understand it Chicago won't offer this kind of support. I haven't seen
anything for Windows that does. I think IBM has an impressive product.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Tel (617)229-9800 |
| bi...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617)229-9899 |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
|FTP Mail |mail ftp...@decwrl.dec.com | Offers:ftp via email |
| |Subject:<CR>help<CR>quit | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Matt Austern
> There lots of other programs, but those impressed me. IBM TCP/IP for
> OS/2 treats OS/2 like a real multitasking OS, and allows anybody else to
> use your machine for computing (as long as they have permission). As I
> understand it Chicago won't offer this kind of support. I haven't seen
> anything for Windows that does. I think IBM has an impressive product.
Basically, I think that's true. IBM's TCP/IP for OS/2 really is
industrial-strength networking, and, for this kind of a product,
$150 is cheap.
However, and it's a big however, not everyone needs that sort of
elaborate networking product. For a lot of people, some sort of
minimal TCP/IP (like the simple Windows 3.1 products, or the
networking that supposedly will be included with Windows 4.0) is
adequate. For *those* users, $150 isn't at all cheap.
What I hope IBM will do, and what I think is really the only sensible
way to compete (assuming that the rumors are true, and that something
will be included with Windows 4.0) is to include some minimal TCP/IP
with OS/2 2.2: enough so that people can set up a SLIP line and pop up
telnet and ftp windows, say. Anyone who needs the sort of
full-featured implementation that IBM currently provides with its
TCP/IP add-on can buy it.
Steve Withers
Tim Lambert <t...@marinc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <CrwKt...@mach1.wlu.ca> dbr...@mach1.wlu.ca "david brown s" writes:
>
> > My next step will be to contact someone at IBM about this, I
> > suppose. Or, in all of this, is there some law of marketing I have missed?
>
> Not that my reply has anything to do with your question, but I hope
> you have better result out of IBM than I have! IBM are to say the
> least, sluggish and unresponsive when it comes to support. That is
> of course my opinion.
>
> Cheers, Tim.
If you buy the software direct from IBM it isn't counted in the various
software "hit parades" compiled by some publications. These sales are
effectively invisible.
But buying from Below Zero - or any other regular-channel vendor - may
see that product appear in the "best seller" list of PC Mag or
CompShopper - or whatever.
So...you get cheaper software and IBM gets the sale "counted". Either
way, IBM is making money.
(I have asked Tim in e-mail to give me details of his support problem.
Maybe I can help him out).
Steve
--
Steve Withers / Wellington, New Zealand
ste...@actrix.gen.nz (all night)
with...@delphi.com (weekly)
swit...@vnet.ibm.com (all day) One of these days I'll have to get a life.
Richard Ashton
t...@marinc.demon.co.uk "Tim Lambert" writes:
} In article <2ubump$17...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> you write:
}
} > You forget, IBM MUST be dependable so businesses can
} > depend absolutely on the proper operation of our products. How would you
} > like your bank to handle your bank accounts via some weenieware they
} > picked up free somewhere.
}
} I like the term "Weenieware". :) However, the statement about IBM being
} dependable is a joke. I've got a problem with OS/2. I called IBM (UK)
} on Tuesday, was given a job reference number and was told an "engineer"
} would be calling me within 3 hours. Well, I'm still waiting. IBM,
} dependable! Bah...
If you are complaining about IBM UK OS/2 Support please mail me the
PMR number nnnnX you were given and I will investigate. If you
have no such number it was not OS/2 support you called.
Regards {} {} {} Richard {} {} {} TEAM OS/2
--
ric...@corixia.demon.co.uk
This opinion belongs to the Company and is probably not my own.
Richard...@vnet.ibm.com I do not speak for IBM
Marcus W. Bainbridge
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu "Matt Austern" writes:
> What I hope IBM will do, and what I think is really the only sensible
> way to compete (assuming that the rumors are true, and that something
> will be included with Windows 4.0) is to include some minimal TCP/IP
> with OS/2 2.2: enough so that people can set up a SLIP line and pop up
> telnet and ftp windows, say. Anyone who needs the sort of
> full-featured implementation that IBM currently provides with its
> TCP/IP add-on can buy it.
Exactly. And can we have a good *off-line* newsreader too, please?
--
Marcus Bainbridge | mar...@guitar.demon.co.uk
Tim Lambert
ric...@corixia.demon.co.uk "Richard Ashton" writes:
> If you are complaining about IBM UK OS/2 Support please mail me the
> PMR number nnnnX you were given and I will investigate. If you
> have no such number it was not OS/2 support you called.
Quoted...
Matthew Edward Patton
domain of third parties. Everyone knows MS will do routinely try to
quash third party support for most anything. I believe there will be
several vendors who will do tcpip far better than MS will and offer
their packages for win4, just like they do now. IBM from what I've seen
likes to encourage 3rd parties and possibly the could bundle something
with v2.2. It's up to IBM marketing. I tend to agree that yes $150 for
the average Joe to get a slip session is a bit steep. I, on the other
hand, fully utilize tcpip on my machine and therefore require a full
industry grade implementation. For that I'll happily pay $150. (and
don't anyone give me that "students have no money" line, here's one who
attends a top notch school, is over his head in debt to the university
but works his ass off to pay for essential components like tcpip).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew E. Patton | FTP server: GeneralHQ.pc.cc.cmu.edu |
| Carnegie Mellon Univ. | AVI, BOOKS, BMP, EDM/2, ICONS, PUB, SOUND |
| Team OS/2 & OS/2 SIG Knight | e-mail: mp...@andrew.cmu.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Going to Chicago? Set your watch back 2 years." -W. Casey IBM, (paraphrase)
Matt Hucke
>If you buy the software direct from IBM it isn't counted in the various
>software "hit parades" compiled by some publications. These sales are
>effectively invisible.
I've also heard (on *.advocacy) that IBM does not count the sales of
liscenses that do not include disks - so if the Bank of _______ orders ten
thousand copies, the "number of copies shipped" figure (currently 5
million) is only increased by one. Can someone in a position to know
confirm this?
>So...you get cheaper software and IBM gets the sale "counted". Either
>way, IBM is making money.
When I bought 2.1, I called IBM directly. The person on the phone wanted
to sell me a copy, but I said no, I wanted to know who their local
redistributors were so that my sale could be counted in the total for
"top-ten lists". He seemed offended at the idea of trying to manipulate
sales figures...
--
____
/ \ "No one knows what it's like to be the bad man." (the Who)
| OS/2 | hu...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu * u30...@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
\____/ GCS d? -p+ c+++ l+ u+ e+ m+ s+/+ !n h+ f- g+ w+ t+(++) r(+) y+*
mi...@isi026.isi.kfa-juelich.de
>I like vxftp but its hardly "better" than PMFTP. It still has a lot of
>bugs (its a beta) and lacks some important features (for me) such as
>remote host to remote host transfer and drag and drop. It also suffers
>from the very slow load times of Visual Rexx programs.
I have no problems with ver. 0.41. The load time could be better but that's all.
Drag & drop would be nice.
>The latest version of IBMs PMftp fixes a lot of the problems. Clicking
I like to hear that. Where can I get *this* version. Note that there was a warning
on the net *not* to install the latest CSD.
>on directory names now is reliable on UNIX machines (it always was on
>OS/2 ftp servers). Now if it would only simplify reading text files! You
>have to drag these files to the desk top and invoke the editor.
It never worked on any ftp server I tried. Maybe there are not too many OS/2 servers
around :-)
Can one now read the remote directory listing? In my version the font in this window
is so ridiculously large that I have to scroll all the time from left to right
to read dir listings. And of course it's the only window where you can't change the
font. Also most of the time I when I tried to download files I got some message
about not beeing authorized to do that. Sure as hell I *was* authorized when I
did it using command line ftp or VXFTP.
So for me to say VXFTP is better than PMFTP is a gross understatement. One is
completely useless and the other is quite usefull.
---
Michael Bode
Robert L Maynard
ABSOLUTELY ! The current product is the "Industrial Strength" TCP/IP
solution. Now we need a "Home User" model.
Bob
William Guido Sohne
Robert Gammon <rga...@rgam.sc.ti.com> wrote:
>In article <CrtBF...@esd.dl.nec.com> we...@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West) writes:
>
> >> Paul Gronke (gro...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
> >>
> >> > 4) TCP/IP is overpriced and TCP/IP apps are not as good as their
> >> > DOS/Windows counterparts. Dos/Windows TCP/IP is free or shareware. OS/2 is
>For MOST DOS/Windows users, the only TCP/IP that they have access to is
>COMMERCIAL. In most corporations, freeware is NOT acceptable as a corporate
>standard, support is a MAJOR issue. Commercial implementations of TCP/IP
>for DOS/Windows will cost us (my estimate) $150-$350.
>
>IBM's TCP/IP is not overpriced compared to its OS/2 commercial competitors.
>Check the prices for TCP/2 from Essex Systems, PC/TCP from FTP S/W, and
>Vantage/IP from IPSwitch, they are all priced well over two hundred dollars
>(volume discounts may get you down to the sub-two hundred dollar level).
>
It's funny that you only compare TCP/IP solutions within the OS/2 market.
You might as well justify $2000 dollar vanilla ANSI C compilers for
mainframes by saying the competition is more expensive. TCP/IP is TCP/IP.
--
Guido
Kirk A. Severtson
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.misc: 25-Jun-94 Re: (Dis)Advantages of
>OS/2? by R S Rod...@wam.umd.edu
>> Tasked against one another pre-emptively:
>>
>> [Windows] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] [DOS VDM] ...
>Maybe it was designed that way, but it certainly doesn't work that way.
>I can never have more than one open at a time, and if I do an xcopy or
>format command, I get that blue screen that offers me to close the
>application or exit windows entirely. The only real way to run dos in
>windows is to just exit windows.
It *does* work that way. It must just be your particular configuration then
that doesn't work, as I have no problems like those you state. DOS works just
fine within Windows for me, and a lot of other people I know. I think yours
is the exception.
Kirk Severtson |
TeamQuest Corporation | In search of a truly
Clear Lake, IA 50428 | original tagline
k...@teamquest.com |
mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
Mark
mb...@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
> Email me the particulars and I will stick_it_to_em.
>
>Mark
>
a taxpayer supported organization. I am writting all the congressman
concerned with their funding, including my own and raise hell for the
NCSA to get of their duff and support OS/2.
Mark
Peter Deacon
MD> talking about is not written
MD> by Microsoft. There are reports they'll ship
I came across a 32-bit TCP/IP stack for workgroups wich I downloaded from
ftp.microsoft.com in the pub/peropysys/wfwg dir :) this one is a beta of the
one they are going to include in chicago (chicago will have it's own slip
interface for dialup Net services! MS also has another tcp stack out there
that is also free to download and even works with mosaic! They still have a bit
of work to do with their 32-bit stack..their older one should work
perfectly....I'm waiting to get IBM tcp/ip for os/2!!! I can't
wait....hopefully there will be a port of cello or ncsa's mosaic to OS/2.
-Papa Smurf
bly...@mitre.org
>Ron Jones (r...@osu.edu) wrote:
>> I paid $150 for IBMs TCP/IP base kit and think that's good value. I've
>> seen modem communication programs and WIndows shells for more than
>> that. There is a lot of decent PD and shareware that can utilize IBMs
>> TCP/IP also enhancing its value. IBM also supports it well with 2 FREE
>> CSDs (so far) and EWS. Maybe you think IBM is a not-for-profit company
>> (by design ;-) Let's cut out the free-lunch mentality.
>
>I don't expect or even want a free lunch. However, the base
>functionality that is becoming more and more necessary for the
>home user should be free or damn close (and should be part of
>the base package). I shouldn't have to spend $250 (which is what
>I, a non-student, would have to pay) to be able to make a piddly
>little SLIP connection to an Internet provider! (And, while the
>rest of the world seems to be drifing to PPP, I can't get that
>at *any* price.) I don't have to spend money like that for *any*
>other OS out there. So why, when OS/2 is desperately trying to
>find any sort of following, is OS/2 the exception?
>
>And I certainly don't mind IBM making money. However, if they
>continue to charge too much for important pieces of OS/2, they
>will find themselves making *no* money from me. Even if I do
>have to resort to the next pathetic offering from Microsux.
>
>Mike West
>we...@esd.dl.nec.com
You could consider calling Indelible Blue and buy the TCP/IP version 2.0
Base Kit for $150. This includes PM versions of common TCP/IP services
(ftp, telnet, tn3270, tn5250, LaMail, SLIP, LPR, LPD), server daemons
(ftp, tftp, rexec, rsh, telnet, route, talk, snmp), and support for up to 8
simultaneous LAN adapters. In addition to this support, you get by far the
user friendliest configuration tools that I have ever seen.
Additionally, you can add the following capabilities:
NFS kit (client and server): $100
X-Windows Server Kit: $140
X-Windows Client Kit: $140
DOS/Windows Access Kit: $ 60
Extended Network Kit: $140
NetBIOS Kit: $ 80
Applications Kit: $125
MultiMail (MIME Compatible): $ 75
OSF/Motif Kit: $140
Asia/Pacific Kit: $195
TCP/IP Programmer Toolkit: $395
Or you can opt for the "Total Kit" for $525.
Before you get up-in-arms over the cost, consider that I have purchased
FTP's TCP/IP support for DOS/Windows for $495 and up to $500 for separate
X-Windows packages for DOS/Windows. Therefore, I consider the "Total Kit"
a bargain for those users that require a little more than "some" TCP/IP
support and that the complete package required completely integrated tools.
However, I agree that IBM should provide "some" tools within the OS/2
mainstream GA release.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gary Blythe | OS/2 2.11 |
| The MITRE Corporation | Not Just Up and Coming |
| | Up and Running |
| The preceding opinions aren't even mine | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
bly...@mitre.org
If they are like NT, MicroSoft will provide ftp and telnet and little else.
For your $150, IBM provides MUCH more functionality (see my other post).
However, I would agree that IBM should provide SOME support within OS/2, the
question is how much.
Also,what does Win 4 WG talk to. We have a heterogeneous network with OS/2
based PCs, Windows based PCs, Macs, and UNIX workstations in various different
guises. We also have a Novell Server. Peer-to-Peer support (in order to
provide a SIGNIFICANT level of functionality) should integrate more than a
homogeneous environment. Merely providing connectivity between WFW systems
is hardly FREE if you must purchase a copy of WFW for each seat (I still
haven't figured out how to do this for other than Windows PCs).