mike@cside1.uucp (Mike Morris) (11/21/90)
Thanks to all who replied to my query re the latest version of
OS/2:
John Cowan - cowan@marob.masa.com
Parker B Waechter - parker@cs.ucla.edu
Dave Tholen - tholen@galileo.IFA.Hawaii.Edu
Michael D Mellinger - melling@server2.cs.psu.edu
Phil Fernandez - philf@metaphor.com
It seems the latest is 1.21, with 1.3 soon. V2.0 is still pre-beta;
consensus seems to be that it won't be released before 3Q91.
--
Mike | mike@cside1.UUCP
Morris | ...!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!cside1!mike
------------------------------------------------------
No left turn unstoned.olender@cs.colostate.edu (Kurt Olender) (11/27/90)
I have IBM OS/2 1.2 SE. I've seen lots of traffic on the net about OS/2 1.21, but have never had any announcement from IBM about upgrades. So I have two questions: 1. Should I just wait for OS/2 1.3? I've heard various rumors that this was an 'OS/2 Light' for smaller memory machines. Unfortunately, I don't know whether they have sacrificed some features to do this so that 1.21 and 1.3 will coexist for different hardware configurations, or that they've just found a way to optimize memory usage, so that 1.3 will become the "standard" version until 2.0 arrives (whenever that is). 2. Will I have to contact my dealer to find out about upgrades to either 1.21 or 1.3, or will IBM send me an announcement? So far they haven't with respect to 1.21. Are they just waiting for 1.3 before they put themselves through the 'hassle' of offering upgrades to their customers? Thanks in advance.
d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren) (11/28/90)
In article <OLENDER.90Nov27084629@sor.cs.colostate.edu> olender@cs.colostate.edu (Kurt Olender) writes: > >I have IBM OS/2 1.2 SE. I've seen lots of traffic on the net about OS/2 1.21, >but have never had any announcement from IBM about upgrades. IBM have never released an OS/2 version 1.21. The version you refer to is Microsoft OS/2 1.21. >1. Should I just wait for OS/2 1.3? I've heard various rumors that this was >an 'OS/2 Light' for smaller memory machines. Unfortunately, I don't know >whether they have sacrificed some features to do this so that 1.21 and 1.3 >will coexist for different hardware configurations, or that they've just found >a way to optimize memory usage, so that 1.3 will become the "standard" version >until 2.0 arrives (whenever that is). OS/2 1.3 will be more powerful than 1.2, and yet require less hardwarer. Mikael Wahlgren
lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.141751.6791@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren) writes: > >OS/2 1.3 will be more powerful than 1.2, and yet require less hardwarer. My SO's father (who works for IBM) uses OS/2 1.3. I asked him about the lower system requirements of 1.3. (I have a Dell laptop w/4MB RAM.) He wasn't too impressed. Said that although 2MB is sufficient just to run, loading the DB and Comm. Managers overloads the system. At least they're moving in the right direction. --kyler
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (11/29/90)
In article <1905@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes: >... asked him about the lower >system requirements of 1.3. (I have a Dell laptop w/4MB RAM.) He wasn't too >impressed. Said that although 2MB is sufficient just to run, loading the DB >and Comm. Managers overloads the system. Hey, don't make the mistake of equating OS/2 S.E. with OS/2 E.E. IBMers tend to think everybody is using E.E. The resource requirements for E.E. are *much* greater than those of S.E. For 1.2SE, 2MB would work, but about 6MB was what you really wanted. For 1.2EE, I think you needed about 4MB minimum, and I've heard indications 10MB was really necessary to use DB and Comm Mgr. 1.3 may have tightened things up quite a bit, but don't expect miracles. The claim of 2MB only applied to S.E. (i.e *no* DB or Comm Mgr.) I've run OS/2 1.2 S.E. in 2MB; it worked reasonably well. I haven't had a chance to try 1.3 yet, but since they are supposed to have reduced the memory requirements from 1.2, I wouldn't be surprised if it it could work quite nicely. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-228-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5 | Fax: 604-228-5116
robk@cpqhou.uucp (Rob Kiesler) (12/02/90)
in article <OLENDER.90Nov27084629@sor.cs.colostate.edu>, olender@cs.colostate.edu (Kurt Olender) says: > > > I have IBM OS/2 1.2 SE. I've seen lots of traffic on the net about OS/2 1.21, > but have never had any announcement from IBM about upgrades. > As far as I know, IBM has no plans to ship 1.21. This version is only being shipped by other vendors. Compaq OS/2 1.21 is shipping now, and I believe other vendors are shipping 1.21 as well. IBM is going straight from 1.2 to 1.3. Note that IBM OS/2 1.2 + CSDs (corrective service diskette upgrades) is ROUGHLY equivalent to OS/2 1.21. > 2. Will I have to contact my dealer to find out about upgrades to either 1.21 > or 1.3, or will IBM send me an announcement? So far they haven't with respect > to 1.21. Are they just waiting for 1.3 before they put themselves through the > 'hassle' of offering upgrades to their customers? > > Thanks in advance. I wouldn't count on IBM sending you an announcement. I would keep in close touch with your dealer and the media. I believe IBM 1.3 will be available within the next month or two. Rob Kiesler Compaq Computer "Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears(TM) poncho?" - FZ