yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) (05/08/91)
I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS???????????? Give me a break. OS/2 with the 32 bit mode probably runs some applications faster, given that the applications are re-compiled to 32 bit mode. It's the applications that sell the software. Say, give a 32 bit Excel vs. Windows 16 bit Excel and we probably know who will win the speed test. They (or somebody) better stress the REAL pluses of OS/2 which is memory management and TASK switching. Machines have grown to the point of trying to run several applications at once. This is just baby stuff to try to outbeat Excel by 30 seconds. I just can't believe. To make OS/2 sell: must be cheaper, upgradable, and stable. Alot of people had problems with OS/2 1.x and not enough printer drivers that gave it a bad reputation. At least they (IBM) will allow multiple DOS boxes under OS/2. I think 1.x you could run only 1 dos application at once, that IS *NOT* good for multi-tasking. I am willing to give OS/2 2.0 a chance for the right budget, and maybe try out a demo first. Microsoft did something wonderful with Windows, and maybe IBM is following that path. What do I use windows for? Multi-tasking communications, applications, and doing program development. I would like better application protection. -- -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet)
jfv@cbnewsk.att.com (j.f.van valkenburg) (05/08/91)
In article <j.8ggna@rpi.edu>, yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: > I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO > really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS???????????? > wonderful with Windows, and maybe IBM is following that path. > > What do I use windows for? Multi-tasking communications, applications, > and doing program development. I would like better application protection. > > > -- > -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) > Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet) From your use for windows, it sounds like you are describing an older operating system - UNIX. Its been multi-tasking,multiuser for 20 years. It also has been available for every cpu from the 808x -> ?? Why reinvent the wheel? ------------------------ James F. Van Valkenburg a.k.a. "van" AT&T Attmail: !jfv jfv@cbnewsk.att.com Atlanta, GA. Voice 404-873-7920 =============================================================================== ---- Standard Disclaimers included -- Just another grunt at AT&T ---- ===============================================================================
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/08/91)
From article <1991May8.123348.18697@cbnewsk.att.com>, by jfv@cbnewsk.att.com (j.f.van valkenburg): > > From your use for windows, it sounds like you are describing an older > operating system - UNIX. Its been multi-tasking,multiuser for 20 years. > > It also has been available for every cpu from the 808x -> ?? > > Why reinvent the wheel? 'cause as materials change, so, possibly, does the optimized shape of the wheel. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (05/09/91)
In article <j.8ggna@rpi.edu> yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: >To make OS/2 sell: must be cheaper, upgradable, and stable. Alot of people >had problems with OS/2 1.x and not enough printer drivers that gave it a I had FAR less problems with OS/2 1.3 than I had with Windows 3.0 (I have purchased both environments and use both of them, OS/2 more often). Just yesterday I spent 4+ hours on finding a bug with Windows why it said "Program group main corrupted or invalid - recreate it" and it turned out to be a wrong setting on bus waitstate in the '386 c&t setup of my board - the same setup worked before for over a year. It was really near that I removed Windows from my disk ... I just can't understand why a system couldn't say that it has problems accessing the disk with a clear error message rather than fooling a user that it's files are corrupted. A few weeks ago, the system said that it could not find a file when I tried to start a DOS session in Windows's 386 enhanced mode - the solution: disable the Super VGA's BIOS shadow RAM. Can anyone tell me why to call such a system "satisfactory" - compared to this, OS/2 1.3 is wonderland - it simply ran always. >bad reputation. At least they (IBM) will allow multiple DOS boxes under >OS/2. I think 1.x you could run only 1 dos application at once, that IS >*NOT* good for multi-tasking. I am willing to give OS/2 2.0 a chance for Most of the time I am using OS/2 1.3 I do not even need *ONE* DOS application. And when I use the DOS box, it runs most often only the Norton Commander. I just use OS/2 applications. All I need is there. >the right budget, and maybe try out a demo first. Microsoft did something >wonderful with Windows, and maybe IBM is following that path. Windows and wonderful, are you serious? (see above :-) >What do I use windows for? Multi-tasking communications, applications, >and doing program development. I would like better application protection. Oh yes. ALl Windows apps using only one local descriptor table is not what I call "protected mode". Also, I have timed the "multitasking" of Windows and compared this to OS/2's results when running an program editor and a compiler in the background. Windows performed very poorly and was rather instable. (BTW, I am not against Windows. I have bought Windows and the SDK and I am doing much Windows development in a network environment. It's just my experiences what makes me very angry about Windows. As soon as OS/2 2.0 comes out, it runs on my machine and can do what it is said to be able to do, I will throw away the whole Windows stuff forever.) Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams (MS)
yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.193731.15929@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >have purchased both environments and use both of them, OS/2 more often). >Just yesterday I spent 4+ hours on finding a bug with Windows why it >said "Program group main corrupted or invalid - recreate it" and it >turned out to be a wrong setting on bus waitstate in the '386 c&t setup >of my board - the same setup worked before for over a year. It was >really near that I removed Windows from my disk ... >I just can't understand why a system couldn't say that it has problems >accessing the disk with a clear error message rather than fooling a user >that it's files are corrupted. A few weeks ago, the system said that it >could not find a file when I tried to start a DOS session in Windows's >386 enhanced mode - the solution: disable the Super VGA's BIOS shadow >RAM. Can anyone tell me why to call such a system "satisfactory" - >compared to this, OS/2 1.3 is wonderland - it simply ran always. Agreed that Windows 3.0 has serious problems as a Operating System. However Windows isn't really a OS, it's a application that is interfacing the OS with other programs. I hate Windows crashes as much as you do, and the Cryptic error messages, maybe in future releases they will fix that. Another fundamental question about OS/2 upgrades is really going to be whether it will cost alot to upgrade the current system to a decent system. I'm talking about x386, 4-6 meg of RAM, 100 meg hard disk, etc.. If someone ONLY has a x286 system he is left out in the cold unless he ugrades the CPU and other hardware. Cost is a big factor. >Most of the time I am using OS/2 1.3 I do not even need *ONE* DOS >application. And when I use the DOS box, it runs most often only the >Norton Commander. I just use OS/2 applications. All I need is there. Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? Games, utilities, application packages. Another thing is that it takes time for developers to get products out.. In the meantime, you can only issue a compatible release (like Lotus 1-2-3 for Widnows), which doesn't take advantage of OS/2.> >Windows and wonderful, are you serious? (see above :-) Yes, Microsoft did a GREAT job promoting Windows, something like a $10 million dollars advertising budget and low cost upgrades ($49 with existing Windows) AND packaging Windows with almost every computer hardware you buy. At least Windows RAN in the Enhanced mode to take advantage of multiple DOS boxes. >Oh yes. ALl Windows apps using only one local descriptor table is not >what I call "protected mode". Also, I have timed the "multitasking" of >Windows and compared this to OS/2's results when running an program >editor and a compiler in the background. Windows performed very poorly >and was rather instable. I thought the point of my comment was we shouldn't try to judge OS/2 on the ability to beat Windows running the same application. Most end users probably don't care about speed test, I think it's more of a programmer's thing about speed. I am a programmer, and speed really is deceptive. > >(BTW, I am not against Windows. I have bought Windows and the SDK and I >am doing much Windows development in a network environment. It's just my >experiences what makes me very angry about Windows. As soon as OS/2 2.0 >comes out, it runs on my machine and can do what it is said to be able >to do, I will throw away the whole Windows stuff forever.) Well, it seems that Microsoft said, if you program to the Windows Interface, you should be just port it over to OS/2 Presentation Manager. It might be better to write the application code tigher in OS/2 and not have to worry about the PM interface. I see a future in which IBM hopes that every OS/2 program is going to write and read from the PM...... So everybody's program better behave themselves. > >Kai Uwe Rommel > >/* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ > >DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt >handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams (MS) > -- -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/09/91)
From article <q18gr0f@rpi.edu>, by yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger): > Agreed that Windows 3.0 has serious problems as a Operating System. However > Windows isn't really a OS, it's a application that is interfacing the OS > with other programs. This is precisely why OS/2 is better. > fundamental question about OS/2 upgrades is really going to be whether > it will cost alot to upgrade the current system to a decent system. I'm > talking about x386, 4-6 meg of RAM, 100 meg hard disk, etc.. If someone ONLY > has a x286 system he is left out in the cold unless he ugrades the CPU and > other hardware. Cost is a big factor. Realistically, OS/2 and MS-Windows requirements are the same. Sure, you can run MS-Windows on a 286, but you won't realistically run more than one DOS application anyway. > Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us > aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some > shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. > If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? This is a mute point. I have OS/2 equivalents to most of the shareware available for MS-DOS. This includes terminal programs, bulletin board systems, games, disk utilities, ports of Unix utilities, PC-Anywhere clones, editors, programmers development tools, archivers, gif viewers, ... I defy you to name a category of application that cannot be downloaded as shareware from my BBS at (306) 966-4857 HST-DS modem. > Yes, Microsoft did a GREAT job promoting Windows, something like a $10 > million dollars advertising budget and low cost upgrades ($49 with existing > Windows) AND packaging Windows with almost every computer hardware you buy. > At least Windows RAN in the Enhanced mode to take advantage of multiple DOS > boxes. Based on experienced they learned from their OS/2 development most likely. As for the low cost upgrades ... I purchased OS/2 1.0 for about $250, and I haven't paid a cent since. I'm currently running OS/2 1.3, and the upgrade to 2.0 is free as well. The new price structure makes OS/2 cheaper to buy than MS-DOS and Windows. > I thought the point of my comment was we shouldn't try to judge OS/2 on > the ability to beat Windows running the same application. Most end users > probably don't care about speed test, I think it's more of a programmer's > thing about speed. I am a programmer, and speed really is deceptive. But the question is WHY is there a speed increase? The answer is a more efficient multi-tasking kernal on an operating system built from the ground up to support multitasking, instead of a system bolted onto the side of a single tasking system. > Well, it seems that Microsoft said, if you program to the Windows Interface, > you should be just port it over to OS/2 Presentation Manager. It might be > better to write the application code tigher in OS/2 and not have to worry > about the PM interface. I see a future in which IBM hopes that every > OS/2 program is going to write and read from the PM...... So everybody's > program better behave themselves. Yes, but you won't get the best out of the software. It's still limited to the DOSisms of MS-Windows. A true OS/2 port would run better because it wouldn't have an extra "compatibility" layer to navigate through. - Kevin Lowey
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (05/09/91)
In article <q18gr0f@rpi.edu>, yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: > Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us > aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some > shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. > If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? > Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware > developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? > Games, utilities, application packages. You might want to scan the contents of the various OS/2 archives that exist. There is probably more shareware for OS/2 than you think. Editors, paint programs, communications programs, games, UNIX utilities that have been ported to OS/2... And if you count the DOS shareware that runs in the compatibility box...
cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) (05/09/91)
I think we can see the fate of OS/2 if we look at its hardware analog,
the MCA machine. When IBM introduced the PS/2, it touted its bus as
superior to the ISA bus, and it was. And the PS/2 line has been moderately
successful--at least, it's still here, unlike the PC Jr and the PC
Convertible. But what share of the PC market did the PS/2 line obtain when
competing against the ISA bus? And with the EISA bus becoming more available,
what share will the PS/2 have in the future? IBM has argued that the MCA is
technically superior to the EISA bus. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But
technical superiority, real or imagined, is not giving IBM an overwhelming
edge in the market.
I think we can read the fate of OS/2 and Windows in the fate of the MCA
and ISA/EISA buses. OS/2 probably won't dry up and blow away. But I
doubt it will supplant DOS/Windows; in fact, I'd guess DOS/Windows will be
more popular, for similar reasons: price (do you really think Microsoft
won't compete in price against IBM?), relative ease of upgrading (you don't
have to install an OS and reinstall all your apps to install Windows), the
availability and price of add-ins (OS/2 apps are the software equivalent of
MCA cards: scarce and overpriced), and the perceived return on investment
by developers (if you wanted to make bigger bucks faster, which would you
develop, a Windows app or an OS/2 app?).
** _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize. **
Karl Boyken, Project Analyst | "It's so easy to slip, it's
State Health Registry of Iowa | so easy to fall and let your
Iowa City, IA | memory drift into nothing
Internet: cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu | at all." -- Lowell Georgetok@slammer.UUCP (Terry Kane) (05/09/91)
> Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us > aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some > shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. > If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? > Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware > developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? > Games, utilities, application packages. Well, you might think that the affordability of shareware is a good reason to stick to dos, BUT some of us aren't ignorant of the growing wealth of shareware products for OS/2. Granted, there aren't fifty bulletin boards in every major city carrying the good stuff, and there probably aren't fifty bbses nationwide that do; but there are several excellent bboards (e.g. OS/2 Shareware? fuzzy on the name but: +1-703-385-4325,0931) that carry much free|share-ware that meets or exceeds dos equivalents. Meeting or exceeding dos functionality and performance is the easy part. Why? OS/2 is a superior base for applications - that's why! I use perl, TeX and related apps, byacc, flex, many unix workalikes on my home OS/2 machine - all FREEware! There are really great shareware products out there, and I think that local OS/2 bbses will start popping up as the word gets out that OS/2 is a *good* thing. IMHO you won't be needing many classes of dos shareware if you make the change because base OS/2 makes many of those tools redundant. Terry
bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) (05/09/91)
In article <12934@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) writes: >You might want to scan the contents of the various OS/2 archives that exist. >There is probably more shareware for OS/2 than you think. Editors, paint >programs, communications programs, games, UNIX utilities that have been >ported to OS/2... And if you count the DOS shareware that runs in the >compatibility box... Is there a better FTP site in the U.S. than umich?? I find myself going to Finland all the time, and suffering from the slow transfer times. The readme on Finland mentioned that most of their stuff comes from the U.S. BTW, I'm still looking for a decent shareware terminal app, something on the lines of WinQVT for OS/2. I'm currently playing with Pmcomm, but it's buggy (vr. 1.04). Thanks. -- Bill Chin internet:bchin@umd5.umd.edu PC/IP, Computer Science Center NeXTmail:bchin@is-next.umd.edu U-Maryland, College Park *Standard Disclaimers Apply*
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/09/91)
In <j.8ggna@rpi.edu>, yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: > >I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO >really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS???????????? This is the typical hacker attitude. Remember, that there are more of the "other people" that use OS/2 than hackers, and these "other people" want good performance from their machine. 30 seconds to a business executive is a lifetime to him/her and if it came down to choosing between one system that saved him/her 30 seconds EVERY TIME THEY USED THEIR APPLICATIONS and another system, they will GUARANTEED choose the former. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (05/10/91)
In article <940@slammer.UUCP> tok@slammer.UUCP (Terry Kane) writes: >I use perl, TeX and related apps, byacc, flex, many unix workalikes >on my home OS/2 machine - all FREEware! These are all available for MSDOS as well from simtel... What someone needs to do is write a killer app for OS/2 that can't be easily done on MSDOS or MSDOS/Windows. Hmmm... How about GNU EMACS for OS/2? -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
fdq@athena.mit.edu (Fred D Quintana) (05/10/91)
In article <q18gr0f@rpi.edu> yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: > Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us > aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some > shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. > If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? > Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware > developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? > Games, utilities, application packages. Another thing is that it takes time > for developers to get products out.. In the meantime, you can only issue a > compatible release (like Lotus 1-2-3 for Widnows), which doesn't take advantage of OS/2.> Well, first of all, with the BCL (binary compatible layer) OS/2 should be able to run most well-behaved Win 3 applications. True, these won't take advantage of the true OS/2 stuff but it is an option. Second, try taking a look at the large quantity of win3 software available at cica.cica.indiana.edu. There are ~150 programs listed in the utilities directory (not including all the other directories). Win 3 has only been out for ~13 months. Considering the advantages OS/2 has over win 3 (such as the fact that OS/2 actually runs for extended periods of time without crashing) I have no doubt that os/2 will have its share of shareware applications. Fred -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Fred D. Quintana @ (617)225-7116) \ | | Internet: <fdq@athena.mit.edu> \ Never put off till tomorrow what | | UUCP: mit-eddie!mit-athena!fdq \ you can avoid all together. | | USnail: 362 Memorial Drive \ | | Cambridge, MA 02139 \ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
merrill@cs.arizona.edu (Darren J. Merrill) (05/10/91)
In article <5978@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: [much deleted stuff about how MCA failed] > >I think we can read the fate of OS/2 and Windows in the fate of the MCA >and ISA/EISA buses. OS/2 probably won't dry up and blow away. But I I think the analogy you are implying is offbase. MCA "failed" because it forced Joe user to buy (sometimes) expensive and relatively unavail- able hardware (MCA incompatibility with ISA). OS/2 2.0 is not incompat- ible with existing software and doesn't force the user to buy strickly OS/2 apps (referring to the Windows BCL and DOS boxes). >doubt it will supplant DOS/Windows; in fact, I'd guess DOS/Windows will be >more popular, for similar reasons: price (do you really think Microsoft >won't compete in price against IBM?), relative ease of upgrading (you don't What, what did they say... something like $150 for OS/2 2.0 (education discount less than that). What did you pay for Windows? $80? Not to mention DOS (which comes with systems anyway). I think $60 dollars for a much much more stable OS/Environment is nothing to the user that is paying $3000 for a quick 386. Watch, I bet they start bundling it with new systems just like Windows. >have to install an OS and reinstall all your apps to install Windows), the So when Windows ver 3.0 came out, you didn't have to reinstall Windows? and all the non-3.0 apps? Come on. >availability and price of add-ins (OS/2 apps are the software equivalent of >MCA cards: scarce and overpriced), and the perceived return on investment OS/2 apps are not the EQUIVALENT of OS/2 apps (See above). And if they were, what OS/2 apps are more expensive (I mean grossly) than the same-name Windows apps? All the ones I know are relatively the same. >by developers (if you wanted to make bigger bucks faster, which would you >develop, a Windows app or an OS/2 app?). OS/2 2.0 runs Windows apps => if you write Windows app, you automatically have an "OS/2" app. Sure it might not take advantage of the 32 bit OS, but it still works. > > ** _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize. ** >Karl Boyken, Project Analyst | "It's so easy to slip, it's >State Health Registry of Iowa | so easy to fall and let your >Iowa City, IA | memory drift into nothing >Internet: cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu | at all." -- Lowell George -------------------------------------------------------------------- // I'm a student -> I don't have a boss to piss off with my views ;) Darren Merrill University of Arizona merrill@cs.arizona.edu
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/10/91)
In article <3888@d75.UUCP> woan@cactus.org writes: >needs to do is write a killer app for OS/2 that can't be easily done >on MSDOS or MSDOS/Windows. Hmmm... How about GNU EMACS for OS/2? Well, I really hate all of the speculation based on OS/2 2.0, partly because I'm still running OS/2 1.3 on my fastest machine - a 10mhz286, but When OS/2 2.0 comes out things like Emacs will be easier t port to OS/2 for the simple reason that you can ignore segments and access HUGE data spaces. I know I've been thinking I'd love to do that some with my programs not so much to use lts f space, but t simply nt have t wrry abut near r far pinters. I think I read that the reasn Emacs had nt been ported t Os/2 was because it seemed too hard to deal with segments. Wim. -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | The Loft BBS | 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu | (509)335-4339 | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com | USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/10/91)
If OS/2 v 2.0 can be to dos, windows and OS/2 v 1.x what the 386 is to the 286 and 8086, then I would predict the same great success for OS/2 v 2.0 that the 386 is having. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feustel@netcom.com
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May10.033234.27707@netcom.COM> feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >If OS/2 v 2.0 can be to dos, windows and OS/2 v 1.x what the 386 is to >the 286 and 8086, then I would predict the same great success for OS/2 >v 2.0 that the 386 is having. Sure enough. I think they'd be smart to start spreading around a lot of beta copies to get people excited about it. Nothing like a little advance publicity. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (05/10/91)
In article <q18gr0f@rpi.edu> yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: >Cryptic error messages, maybe in future releases they will fix that. Another >fundamental question about OS/2 upgrades is really going to be whether >it will cost alot to upgrade the current system to a decent system. I'm >talking about x386, 4-6 meg of RAM, 100 meg hard disk, etc.. If someone ONLY >has a x286 system he is left out in the cold unless he ugrades the CPU and >other hardware. Cost is a big factor. It was noted more than once here that the system requirements of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3 and OS/2 2.0 are almost the same for the same throughput. This is also my experience. When you don't need the throughput of a machine that you mention, you probably are satisfied with Windows 3.0 on a 286. But note that using 386enhanced features like DOS programs in Windows and multi"tasked" requires a 386. Also, I found that development for Windows and OS/2 or even serious work with this environments is much nicer (if you have Adobe Type Manager like in OS/2 1.3, for example) with a machine even bigger than the configuration you mentioned. And such a machine is not that expensive if you don't by from Big Blue. >Well, you maybe able to afford all of the OS/2 applications, BUT some of us >aren't as rich or resourceful as you. Take shareware products, some >shareware are some of the best work of arts, rivaling commerical developers. >If you can't run your shareware in the OS/2, where can you run them in? >Probably mostly likely in the DOS compability box. Do I expect most shareware >developers to migrate to OS/2? Of course NOT!. What kind of shareware? >Games, utilities, application packages. Another thing is that it takes time >for developers to get products out.. In the meantime, you can only issue a >compatible release (like Lotus 1-2-3 for Widnows), which doesn't take advantage of OS/2.> I am not as rich as you may think - I'm still a student. But there are educational discounts (I got Word 5.0 with this) and sometimes one can get software from private persons who don't need it any more (I got Excel that way very cheap compared to the list price in Germany) and so on. Also, I use lot's of shareware/freeware, a lot of GNU code which I compiled for OS/2 etc. And I think that many shareware authors will switch to OS/2. For the reputation that OS/2 currently has, there is surprisingly much shareware available. >Yes, Microsoft did a GREAT job promoting Windows, something like a $10 >million dollars advertising budget and low cost upgrades ($49 with existing >Windows) AND packaging Windows with almost every computer hardware you buy. I wish their developers would be as good as their people who did the advertising :-) >>Oh yes. ALl Windows apps using only one local descriptor table is not >>what I call "protected mode". Also, I have timed the "multitasking" of >>Windows and compared this to OS/2's results when running an program >>editor and a compiler in the background. Windows performed very poorly >>and was rather instable. >I thought the point of my comment was we shouldn't try to judge OS/2 on >the ability to beat Windows running the same application. Most end users >probably don't care about speed test, I think it's more of a programmer's >thing about speed. I am a programmer, and speed really is deceptive. You are right, but *stability* is a much more important point. A system on top of DOS cannot be stable. And the bad performance is a symptom for the number of kludges they had to program to reduce the instability (it still cannot be called stable). Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (05/10/91)
Crimson Avenger <yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu> writes: > Agreed that Windows 3.0 has serious problems as a Operating System. However > Windows isn't really a OS, it's a application that is interfacing the OS > with other programs. I hate Windows crashes as much as you do, and the > Cryptic error messages, maybe in future releases they will fix that. Can anyone tell me whether OS/2 2.0 still has those horrible OS/360-style error messages in character mode? Do we have to wait for OS/2 NT to get non-obnoxious error messages? I guess a nice character-mode shell wasn't in IBM's plans, at least... :( [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) (05/10/91)
In article <1498@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, merrill@cs.arizona.edu (Darren J. Merrill) writes... >I think the analogy you are implying is offbase. MCA "failed" because >it forced Joe user to buy (sometimes) expensive and relatively unavail- >able hardware (MCA incompatibility with ISA). You can run OS/2 2.0 on an 8088 machine? On a 286 machine? What percentage of PCs in use today are 386DX or 486 machines? >What, what did they say... something like $150 for OS/2 2.0 (education >discount less than that). What did you pay for Windows? $80? Not to >mention DOS (which comes with systems anyway). I think $60 dollars for a >much much more stable OS/Environment is nothing to the user that is >paying $3000 for a quick 386. Watch, I bet they start bundling it with new >systems just like Windows. And Windows and DOS will probably start being bundled together and priced even lower. I don't think Windows pricing and marketing are locked in concrete. >So when Windows ver 3.0 came out, you didn't have to reinstall Windows? and >all the non-3.0 apps? Come on. I didn't have to reinstall my whole system. My DOS apps stayed put. >OS/2 2.0 runs Windows apps => if you write Windows app, you automatically >have an "OS/2" app. Sure it might not take advantage of the 32 bit OS, >but it still works. So where's the incentive for a developer to write an app just for OS/2? And if OS/2 doesn't have apps that distinguish it from Windows, that make users want or need to buy OS/2, then why buy OS/2, when you can get by with Windows? Sure, you can argue technical superiority, but if everyone were interested only in that, we'd all have something different on or under our desks than PCs. And if someone wants a superior OS, they can buy Unix or Xenix now, with the bonus of greater portability if they ever change hardware. If you buy OS/2, then at least for the near future, you are locked into IBM. And we've all seen IBM's track record of yanking the rug out from under its captured markets to force them to upgrade to something incompatible. ** _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize. ** Karl Boyken, Project Analyst | "It's so easy to slip, it's State Health Registry of Iowa | so easy to fall and let your Iowa City, IA | memory drift into nothing Internet: cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu | at all." -- Lowell George
sc151111@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.160718.9381@watson.ibm.com> larrys@yktvmv writes: >In <j.8ggna@rpi.edu>, yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: >> >>I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO >>really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS???????????? > >This is the typical hacker attitude. Remember, that there are more of >the "other people" that use OS/2 than hackers, and these "other people" >want good performance from their machine. 30 seconds to a business *** FLAME ON *** Excuse me?!?!?!? Typical hacker attitude? I beg to differ! As a hacker myself, I can assure you that we are probably more concerned with performance than everyone else! After all, who else is better qualified to write optimized OS/2 programs? (How many people have books on OS/2 assembly language, huh?) *** FLAME OFF *** Anyway, someone else mentioned that the number of seconds saved is not as important as the percent difference. I agree. If 30 seconds is the savings from something that took a minute, then that means that OS/2 is twice as fast an Windows (in this one instance). I wonder if Windows apps running under OS/2's BCL will be any faster than under Windows itself. IBM claims that OS/2 2.0 will be a "better Windows than Windows". I also wonder if IBM will make OS/2 extensions to the Windows SDK. "Huh?" you ask? How about special Windows functions that work under OS/2 only. Or is this the same thing as the SMK (Software Migration Kit)? Imagine you have a Windows program, and you want to port it over to OS/2. You don't have the time or resources to rewrite it, but all you want is to include a few bells and whistles that make it run a lot smoother. Introducing: Windows 3/2 SDK. Includes a few SDK function calls that parallel the advanced stuff in OS/2, but are still Windows call. The only catch is they will only work under the BCL. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Time Traveler Sadder still to watch it die a.k.a. Timur Tabi Then never to have known it Internet: sc151111@seas.gwu.edu For you - the blind who once could see - Bitnet: HE891C@GWUVM The bell tolls for thee -- Rush
mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) (05/10/91)
OK, I'll give in to the temptation to add to this noise. I am surprized that
no one has mentioned what to me seems to be the best advantages of OS/2 (even
v 1.3).
The situation I am talking about, of course, is the one which elucidated the
famous presidential comment:
"Read my SIPPS; no new 386Maxes!"
I believe that under OS/2, we get rid of all those layers of kludges
called extended memory, conventional memory, expanded memory etc. Just
imagine, no more loading things high and loading things low and loading things
in midair. Just imagine a world where you can respond to "Out of memory" errors
by going out and buying more memory. None of this hullabaloo about trying to
find out if using certain range in high memory or upper memory is going to
conflict with shadow ram or extended video ram. No more "can't run anything
except twiddle-thumbs because network driver takes up 150 K".
Milan
.csl@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Lennox) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.024853.19971@serval.net.wsu.edu> wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes: > >I think I read that the reason Emacs had not been ported to OS/2 was because >it seemed too hard to deal with segments. > Now here's something I just don't understand about this segmentation controversy. MS-DOS lets me have as huge a ram disk as I want, so why can't I avoid the segemntation problem altogether without going to OS/2 by simply mapping all the memory my program needs onto a ram disk file? -- Be seeing you... Craig.
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/11/91)
From article <8554@umd5.umd.edu>, by bchin@umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin): > In article <12934@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) writes: > > BTW, I'm still looking for a decent shareware terminal app, something > on the lines of WinQVT for OS/2. I'm currently playing with Pmcomm, > but it's buggy (vr. 1.04). How about PMQVT.ZIP version 1.00. It's available from my Fidonet BBS (sorry, no FTP sites that I know of). HST Dual Standard, (306) 966-4857. Fidonet node 1:140/43. I also have the PM version of Kermit which is NICE. It even provides TEK4014 terminal emulation, and lets you save the resulting image in a .MET file that can be manipulated by the PIC utilities in OS/2. This is available from Columbia University's FTP site. - Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/11/91)
From article <1991May10.114309.28926@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, by tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen): > > Can anyone tell me whether OS/2 2.0 still has those horrible OS/360-style > error messages in character mode? Do we have to wait for OS/2 NT to get > non-obnoxious error messages? Yes and no. The messages are still there by default, but you can add the line: AUTOFAIL YES which is supposed to disable the messages, and return the error code to the program for it to handle. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@Sask.USask.CA)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/11/91)
From article <1991May10.205710.18162@herald.usask.ca>, by lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey): > Yes and no. The messages are still there by default, but you can add > the line: > > AUTOFAIL YES Oops, forgot to say that is added to the CONFIG.SYS file, and works with OS/2 1.3 and higher. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@SASK.USask.CA)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/11/91)
cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes: >I think we can see the fate of OS/2 if we look at its hardware analog, >the MCA machine. When IBM introduced the PS/2, it touted its bus as You can prove anything by analogy, including how clueless you are and that you haven't got a better argument. -- The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (05/12/91)
In article <5978@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: >I think we can see the fate of OS/2 if we look at its hardware analog, >the MCA machine... >technical superiority, real or imagined, is not giving IBM an overwhelming >edge in the market. >I think we can read the fate of OS/2 and Windows in the fate of the MCA >and ISA/EISA buses. OS/2 probably won't dry up and blow away. But I >doubt it will supplant DOS/Windows; in fact, I'd guess DOS/Windows will be >more popular, for similar reasons: price (do you really think Microsoft >won't compete in price against IBM?), relative ease of upgrading (you don't >have to install an OS and reinstall all your apps to install Windows), the >availability and price of add-ins (OS/2 apps are the software equivalent of >MCA cards: scarce and overpriced), and the perceived return on investment >by developers (if you wanted to make bigger bucks faster, which would you >develop, a Windows app or an OS/2 app?). There's a qualitative difference between hardware and software being successful on the market; at least as important also is IBM's handling (read marketing) of the PS/2 vs OS/2 2.0. The qualitative difference is that OS/2 will run all your DOS applications; however you're PS/2 will not handle all your old AT-bus cards. Thus OS/2 is downward- compatible with all your old software; the PS/2 is NOT downward compatible with all your old hardware. The marketing difference is that the PS/2 costs about 3 times as much as a similarly equipped clone and, from the non-technical user's point of view, no obvious added function. IBM is notorious for very terse, technical marketing, and the masses don't go for the PS/2 because (and I'm simplying this argument, to say the least ;-) they couldn't care less about the technical mumbo-jumbo in PS/2 addvertisements. (I haven't seen a PS/2 advertisement in quite a while, mind you, but that's only because I don't read the trade rags all that often.) I don't really know all that much about the hardware differences myself; I *do* know that my 386/33 at home beats the pants off my 386/20 PS/2 at work. OS/2, on the other hand, has some pretty obvious and simple to explain benefits to the end user. The end user doesn't give a damn about 32 bit flat 4 Gig address spaces, task protection, pre-emptive multitasking, and the high- performance file system. The user *does* care, and understand, the equivalent phrases "your spreadsheet will run twice as fast" (since there's no more 64K segments to worry about and a 32 bit OS makes many other tasks faster); "your machine will never crash just because FinagoCalc crashed"; and "you can now have huge disks and files with far better performance". These are obvious benefits to the end-user. *This* is why OS/2 2.0 should take the market by storm whereas the PS/2 is only just dawdling along. -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (05/12/91)
In article <1991May10.114309.28926@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Can anyone tell me whether OS/2 2.0 still has those horrible OS/360-style >error messages in character mode? Do we have to wait for OS/2 NT to get >non-obnoxious error messages? The error messages in 2.0 are pretty descriptive; sometimes they're a bit *too* verbose for my taste, but for the end-user they should be pretty comprehensible. >I guess a nice character-mode shell wasn't in IBM's plans, at least... :( AH! Another thing I forgot to mention: the OS/2 2.0 command shell is *much* nicer than in 1.2. They finally put a decent command line editor and history buffer into it; and even some talk of... well, I probably shouldn't say too much more; I wouldn't want to get in trouble for divulging IBM's Sooper-Dooper Secret Plans To Make OS/2 The Best OS Since Sliced Time. ;-) -- NOTICE: Due to the complexity of nearly all topics, the opinions expressed above are in continual process of formation and may be changed without notice. Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May11.023152.29974@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes... >>I think we can see the fate of OS/2 if we look at its hardware analog, >>the MCA machine. When IBM introduced the PS/2, it touted its bus as > >You can prove anything by analogy, including how clueless you are and >that you haven't got a better argument. > Okay, how about these clues: 1) At last year's Software Development 90 conference in Oakland, two pre-conference seminars were offered: one in C++, and one on OS/2. The C++ conference sold out; the OS/2 conference had to be canceled due to lack of interest. During the rest of the week, the OS/2 sessions were very poorly attended. (If anyone was at this year's SD 91, I'd like to hear from them how OS/2 fared; a lot can change in a year.) 2) Until a couple months ago, I worked for one of the fastest-growing software publishers in the nation; I'm still in touch with the programming staff there. To date, they have no plans to develop OS/2 apps. To their knowledge, none of their competitors are developing OS/2 apps. 3) Out of all the programmers I know, across three commercial and one educational shop, only one is using OS/2, and that is as an environment to develop DOS apps. (Hi, Mark! :)) 4) A quick scan of this weekend's want ads in two papers turned up absolutely no ads for OS/2 programmers. If you have any clues, I'd be happy to hear them. ** _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize. ** Karl Boyken, Project Analyst | "Distant cousins, there's a limited supply, State Health Registry of Iowa | and we're down to the dozens, and this is why: Iowa City, IA | big-eyed beans from Venus--oh my, oh my!" cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu | Captain Beefheart
jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl) (05/13/91)
In article <j.8ggna@rpi.edu> yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) writes: >I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO >really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS???????????? > >Give me a break. OS/2 with the 32 bit mode probably runs some applications >faster, given that the applications are re-compiled to 32 bit mode. It's >the applications that sell the software. Say, give a 32 bit Excel vs. >Windows 16 bit Excel and we probably know who will win the speed test. If the OS is coded with a 32-bit instruction set, speed of task switching, memory management, file system, etc. will increase, regardless of the code requesting these services. In OS/2 2.0, this will apply to DOS, Windows, and 16- and 32-bit apps. This is the point IBM was trying to make. You will gain a significant increase in speed simply because the OS finally takes advantage of, until then, latent hardware. With 32-bit apps, the increase is very significant. -- Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May10.114309.28926@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Can anyone tell me whether OS/2 2.0 still has those horrible OS/360-style >error messages in character mode? Do we have to wait for OS/2 NT to get >non-obnoxious error messages? Oh, I would like to get exactly those error messages in Windows too. When customers get "Unrecoverable application errors" they almost never remember what they have done last. If they could write down the register dump one gets with OS/2 on segmentation faults, I would have a chance to track the bug down to the module/procedure where it occured. Do you really want such useless error message like in Windows under OS/2? Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May10.211140.18905@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >From article <1991May10.205710.18162@herald.usask.ca>, by lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey): > >> Yes and no. The messages are still there by default, but you can add >> the line: >> >> AUTOFAIL YES > >Oops, forgot to say that is added to the CONFIG.SYS file, and works with >OS/2 1.3 and higher. > OS/2 1.2 supports this too ... Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, co moderator for comp.binaries.os2 Real life: Steve Resnick. Chief Software Architect, Process Scientific, Inc Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (05/14/91)
>1) At last year's Software Development 90 conference in Oakland, two > pre-conference seminars were offered: one in C++, and one on OS/2. > The C++ conference sold out; the OS/2 conference had to be canceled > due to lack of interest. Quite understandable. All of these "clues" really relate to OS/2 1.X. I've always believed (or at least fervently hoped) that OS/2 1.X would fail miserably. The "Truly Brain Damaged" (TM) nature of the 80286 totally crippled this operating system. OS/2 2.0 could be a totally different thing. It's too soon to tell, since it isn't available yet. john nelson uucp: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn domain: jpn@genrad.com
Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock) (05/19/91)
In article <6021@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>, cmdbyk@pmvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes: |> If you have any clues, I'd be happy to hear them. How about Borland's announcement that they are now working with IBM on porting their range of compilers to the 32-bit OS/2 2.0 environment? -- Conrad Bullock | Domain: conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington, | or: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz New Zealand. | Fidonet: 3:771/130 | BBS: The Cave BBS +64 4 643429
wilf@niksula.hut.fi (Johan W. Wikman) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May13.084919.12527@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: In article <1991May10.114309.28926@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Can anyone tell me whether OS/2 2.0 still has those horrible OS/360-style >error messages in character mode? Do we have to wait for OS/2 NT to get >non-obnoxious error messages? Oh, I would like to get exactly those error messages in Windows too. When customers get "Unrecoverable application errors" they almost never remember what they have done last. If they could write down the register dump one gets with OS/2 on segmentation faults, I would have a chance to track the bug down to the module/procedure where it occured. Do you really want such useless error message like in Windows under OS/2? Kai Uwe Rommel /* Kai Uwe Rommel, Munich ----- rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */ DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams I would like a core dump and adb. Johan Wikman wilf@niksula.hut.fi