wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) (04/21/91)
In article <COLIN.91Apr18115900@nbc1.ge.com> colin@nbc1.ge.com (Colin Rafferty) writes: >4. Brief by Solution Systems. This is what I'm buying. It has the > functionality of Emacs with the only real adjustment being > bindings. Don't do it!!! OS/2 2.0 is here and it's GREAT! Its 32 bit flat address space will make porting the real Emacs much easier for whoever is doing it. Unless of course you can't wait just a little longer for the Real Emacs. Here's a summary of the summary of OS/2 2.0 that was presented to the media last week. The unnofficial motto is "A better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows, and a better OS/2 than OS/2." They finally got DOS compatibility big time. You can run multiple DOS boxes simultaneously, and they can even be different versions of DOS! (Need to run an old spread sheet that only runs under DOS 1.1? No problem!) They can be run in full screen or in a window (just like Windows 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode), and in the demo each DOS box had 620K free *after* (yes, that's AFTER) a multitude of device drivers were loaded. And of course they can be cutted from / pasted to. Not enough? How about being able to run Windows 2.x and 3.x programs NATIVELY? (ie, *without* starting up a DOS box). And of course it runs them pre-emptively and makes them look like any other OS/2 2.0 application. And no more dreaded Unrecoverable Application Errors. This gives OS/2 access to the multitude of decent apps for Windows 2.x and 3.x. And with a decent, *efficient* scheduler. (Downloading at 9600bps on my 33MHz 386 takes 30% of my processor time under Windows 3.0! It shouldn't take more than 5%.) Not enough? How about being able to run OS/2 1.x 16-bit apps side by side with your 32 bit 2.0 apps (and the Windows and DOS apps)? Not enough? How about a price of $150 US for the standard edition? In a box about the size of MS-DOS (no more hernias carrying OS/2 home)? How about an upgrade price of $99 for registered DOS and OS/2 1.0/1/2 users? How about a FREE upgrade for registered OS/2 1.3 owners? Big Blue has finally come home with OS/2 2.0 Hope it stamps out Windows and DOS for good! In the demo given to the media, they had OS/2 2.0 running with multiple versions of DOS running a communications program doing a transfer, a midi program playing some music, a couple Windows 2.x and 3.x apps, a couple OS/2 1.x apps, and of course some 2.0 apps, all on a 2 Meg laptop! (I haven't seen the demo or the video of it, I've only seen it described. I presume only about half of the things mentioned above were running concurrently. But I could be wrong.) How do I know all this? I'm working as a Co-op student at IBM Canada this year (and yes, all the info above is public now so [I hope] I can broadcast it). Let me tell you it has some of OS/2's most vociferous critics INTERNALLY saying things like "I'm finally proud to be an IBMer again." IBM is admitting it's made some big blunders with OS/2 in the past, and they're really trying hard to change that. Most important is the real change that's happenining inside; but most critical to the business, it's trying to convince the world that these changes are real. Anyway, that was a cheap lead-in to tell you that Emacs should be quite portable to OS/2 now. (The REAL Emacs, GNU Emacs!) Go buy 2.0! -- 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
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.121436.27064@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > >Don't do it!!! OS/2 2.0 is here and it's GREAT! Its 32 bit flat address >space will make porting the real Emacs much easier for whoever is doing >it. Unless of course you can't wait just a little longer for the Real Emacs. > It isn't really here yet. 4th quarter of 91 is the expected ship time, from what I've been reading. But lots of beta test copies should be going out really soon. But for the original question, waiting for 2.0 and then waiting for somebody to port emacs might be a bit long. 1.3 is here now, as are the various editors mentioned. And some of us think they are better than emacs. >Let me tell you it has some of OS/2's most vociferous >critics INTERNALLY saying things like "I'm finally proud to be an IBMer >again." There seem to be a lot of people getting whiplash from the sudden U-turn they're making about the future of OS/2. I'm already seeing "Windows is dead" messages on Compuserve. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116
tok@slammer.UUCP (Terry Kane) (04/22/91)
Absolutely!
The announcement/demo was might impressive according to people who saw it.
I'm reporting what I've seen on IBM's NSC user group bbs:
Running three DOS apps, each requiring oddball devices/drivers
(MIDI, hand scanner, SatisFAXtion boards/devices) concurrently,
with NO Problem d00d!
A "bad program" written for DOS to crash under Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.0.
Windows had to reboot. OS/2 2.00 allowed termination of the failing ap
and you went on your merry way as if nothing had happened.
The DOS version of Microsoft Flight Simulator running under OS/2 2.0!
Windows apps scrolling much smoother due to preemptive multitasking!
Windows apps getting a head start under dos on the same app under OS/2
and the OS/2 instance finishing 25-30 seconds faster than the dos.
Well, *I* didn't see the tape, but these reports have got me fired up!
But wait, there's more!
The folks at the NSC are going to set up an add'l bbs to - get this -
allow commoners to download Beta versions and CSDs of version 2.00
for the cost of the phone call! It will (reportedly) take 5 hours
at 9600 baud, and will be a toll call to Atlanta, but I'm waiting
with bated breath! This might be a bit much to post, if the terms
of the download allow redistribution, but we'll see what happens.
I'm going to snarf it... it's a local call for me. Perhaps someone
with an FTP site will send me diskettes...
So long Windows!!!"WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK" <flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu> (04/23/91)
Well, here are my two cents on the topic. I talked to our vender liason on campus today and he said that the people that he deals with at IBM said that the word in house is that OS/2 2.0 is DONE! (Is that a convoluted statement, or what!) In a nutshell, the people within IBM have apparently gotten notice internally that it is a finished product for all intents and purposes. He was also told that the official public announcement was due in the near future. (Who knows, maybe it will be tomorrow with the supposed price cuts on the PS/2 line.) He also told me that last May (yes, May, 1990) he saw a demo of OS/2 with virtually all of the veatures mentioned in the postings on this thread. That looks like about all I can write and stay within the boundaries of my two cents worth. Watchin' and Waitin' Bill Flusek, Indiana University Internet: flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu Bitnet: flusekw@iubacs
tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (04/23/91)
In article <932@slammer.UUCP>, tok@slammer.UUCP (Terry Kane) writes: > > Absolutely! > > The announcement/demo was might impressive according to people who saw it. > I'm reporting what I've seen on IBM's NSC user group bbs: > Running three DOS apps, each requiring oddball devices/drivers > (MIDI, hand scanner, SatisFAXtion boards/devices) concurrently, > with NO Problem d00d! > > A "bad program" written for DOS to crash under Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.0. > Windows had to reboot. OS/2 2.00 allowed termination of the failing ap > and you went on your merry way as if nothing had happened. > > The DOS version of Microsoft Flight Simulator running under OS/2 2.0! > > Windows apps scrolling much smoother due to preemptive multitasking! > > Windows apps getting a head start under dos on the same app under OS/2 > and the OS/2 instance finishing 25-30 seconds faster than the dos. > > > Well, *I* didn't see the tape, but these reports have got me fired up! > > But wait, there's more! > > The folks at the NSC are going to set up an add'l bbs to - get this - > allow commoners to download Beta versions and CSDs of version 2.00 > for the cost of the phone call! It will (reportedly) take 5 hours > at 9600 baud, and will be a toll call to Atlanta, but I'm waiting > with bated breath! This might be a bit much to post, if the terms > of the download allow redistribution, but we'll see what happens. > I'm going to snarf it... it's a local call for me. Perhaps someone > with an FTP site will send me diskettes... > > > So long Windows!!! when I start playing with the RELEASE version and not a beta version then I will believe it... tim international IS&DP 3M, Inc.
GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr22.225729.24613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu (WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK) writes: > > >Well, here are my two cents on the topic. I talked to our vender liason on >campus today and he said that the people that he deals with at IBM said >that the word in house is that OS/2 2.0 is DONE! Whoa - The past week's news has certainly been exciting, but let's not get carried away. From what I've been able to discern, OS/2 2.0 is far from done. Many of the latest features have not yet been integrated into a single package. For last week's demo, several separate systems were used to demonstrate the various new and exciting features because there's not yet a single copy of OS/2 that has them all. First word was that those who attended the NYC presentation were given a copy of OS/2 2.0 to take with them. Then it turned out that the boxes contained a blank manual and the recipients were told to contact their IBM rep for the program (this posted on IBM's Atlanta BBS). If I were a betting man, I'd wager that OS/2 2.0 will ship in 1991 the same way that OS/2 1.3 shipped in 1990, which is to say nominally. Sandy Rockowitz gd.sar@forsythe.stanford.edu
horker@milton.u.washington.edu (Rand al'Thor) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr22.225729.24613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu (WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK) writes: > > ) He (a campus liason vendor) also told me that last May (yes, >May, 1990) he saw a demo of OS/2 with virtually all of the veatures >mentioned in the postings on this thread. > Well, yes, all those features have been in OS/2 for a long time, even longer than May, 1990. I've seen many demonstrations of OS/2 2.0 in the last year or so and they were *very* unstable. At the Win 3 kick off in May '90, an IBM rep was there showing 2.0, but it crashed so bad the machine was down for the rest of the show. I have been waiting for a long time to throw DOS and Windows out the door, and replace them with OS/2 2.0. During this time I became adamantly anti-Microsoft with their intent to seemingly kill OS/2 in the market. I sure hope this is finally it. OS/2 2.0 - the only real os, besides Unix :>
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (04/24/91)
In <1991Apr22.225729.24613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu (WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK) writes: > >Well, here are my two cents on the topic. I talked to our vender liason on >campus today and he said that the people that he deals with at IBM said >that the word in house is that OS/2 2.0 is DONE! (Is that a convoluted >statement, or what!) In a nutshell, the people within IBM have apparently >gotten notice internally that it is a finished product for all intents and >purposes. He was also told that the official public announcement was due >in the near future. (Who knows, maybe it will be tomorrow with the >supposed price cuts on the PS/2 line.) He also told me that last May (yes, >May, 1990) he saw a demo of OS/2 with virtually all of the veatures >mentioned in the postings on this thread. Tell your campus to get another liason. He's wrong (as far as I know, and I'm 99% sure that my information is correct). 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.