jfarley@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Jens Farley) (10/13/90)
Hello OS/2 users (and abusers, I'm sure): I am interested in hearing what real OS/2 users would like to see, but haven't, in OS/2. I'm talking about base functionality that can be changed or added by an OEM to the base OS/2, like base device drivers and utilities -- but keeping it non-vendor-specific. I'm not talking about the availability or quantity of PM applications, or about rewriting the kernel, or about modifying the API, or about changing the direction of OS/2's evolution. Do you wish OS/2 had features that you think Microsoft will never offer? Are you happy with the installation program? Dual boot? Other utilities? I have looked at three OEM's OS/2s, and most of the modifications they make are to support propriety hardware. Are OEMs stuck doing only what they *must* do to support their hardware? Do any of you see other things OEMs can do to increase user appreciation of their OS/2? I'm looking for as many ideas as possible so I can see how they might fit into HP's adaptation of OS/2, probably starting with 2.0. Regards, Jens Farley jfarley@hpspcoi.hp.com
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (10/19/90)
There are a few things which I would like to see in OS/2: - support for 720k (80 tracks, 9 sectors) 5.25" floppies in a 1.2M drive - more support for tape streamers (especially for popular ones, I have a Colorado Jumbo) but that's better to be told to the manufacturers of those drives - support for mouse in highres modes in the DOS box (800x600) and switching between that mode and protected mode display - support for harddisks with more than 1024 cylinders (there are lots of drives with 1224 cylinders) - free definable keyboard tables (as user-definable extensions to keyboard.dcp) - If one has two display adaptors, only the active one is updated. The inactive one is frozen even if there is a session running on that screen. It would be nice if that were updated too, because that would allow, for example, to let a compiler running on the second display while working on the primary one and view the progress of the compiler without switching to that session regularly. - A desktop manager like the Windows one with all the groups in one main window instead of having them all separate. Kai Uwe Rommel -- /* Kai Uwe Rommel * Munich * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
cfreas@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) (10/21/90)
In article <4979@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >There are a few things which I would like to see in OS/2: > >- support for 720k (80 tracks, 9 sectors) 5.25" floppies in a 1.2M drive Good idea. I have a program called FormatMaster that can create 800K diskettes from 360K diskettes in a 1.2M drive for MS-DOS. I'm not sure the same thing couldn't be provided the same way under OS/2. >- support for mouse in highres modes in the DOS box (800x600) > and switching between that mode and protected mode display If that kind of support is included, with no way for dynamic application self-redraw in the Dos-box, the memory usage is just to much for task switching. >- A desktop manager like the Windows one with all the groups in one main > window instead of having them all separate. Actually, I think v1.3 will provide this feature along with other interface portions of Windows OS/2 doesn't yet have. In addition, it will include other features *not* included in Windows. Microsoft seems to be having the two programs (Windows & OS/2's PM) leap-frog each other at every release. >Kai Uwe Rommel >-- >/* Kai Uwe Rommel > * Munich > * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de > */ oo \/ Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu -- oo oo \/ Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu \/
ulnie@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Ulf Niesar) (10/22/90)
jfarley@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Jens Farley) writes: >Hello OS/2 users (and abusers, I'm sure): >I am interested in hearing what real OS/2 users would like to see, >but haven't, in OS/2. I'm talking about base functionality that >can be changed or added by an OEM to the base OS/2, like base >device drivers and utilities -- but keeping it non-vendor-specific. Jens, if you are looking for an idea of a new product you may wish to look at an discussion on this newgroup a few weeks ago named "HPFS and cache controllers" or similar. Close to the end of this discussion I came up with the idea of adding support for an UPS. I think it wouldn't cost so much if the standard power supply would be replaced by a battery buffered power supply (capacity just for a few minutes). It would be great if a"watchdog device driver" or something similar could give an alarm or terminate message to the active applications before the machine goes down. The capacity for UPS should be sufficient to make a smooth shutdown possible. There would be no need to supply power for the display. Of course, this would only be a little bit of extra security but that may be of great value. Just in *the* special case... What about New Wave for OS/2 ? That looks to me quite nice, too. Ulf Niesar bitnet: ulnie@dfrruf1.bitnet internet: sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de
wbonner@eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct21.030554.20985@sbcs.sunysb.edu> cfreas@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes: >Actually, I think v1.3 will provide this feature along with other interface >portions of Windows OS/2 doesn't yet have. In addition, it will include >other features *not* included in Windows. Microsoft seems to be having the >two programs (Windows & OS/2's PM) leap-frog each other at every release. I was just wondering how much input Microsoft has on future OS/2? From my understanding, IBM walked in and said that they wanted complete control of OS/2, causing MS to give it up. With MS doing Windows, and IBM doing OS/2, what is MS going to put thier muscle into? And at the same time, will OS/2 be driven into the ground because of other interests such as advanced DOS and Windows? I like OS/2 and would like to see it improved and prosper, but how much can I really hope for with things like this? Wim. -- ---------- wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu 27313853@Wsuvm1.BITNET
cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct21.213925.21423@eecs.wsu.edu> wbonner@yoda.UUCP (Wim Bonner) writes: >In article <1990Oct21.030554.20985@sbcs.sunysb.edu> cfreas@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes: >>Actually, I think v1.3 will provide this feature along with other interface >>portions of Windows OS/2 doesn't yet have. In addition, it will include >>other features *not* included in Windows. Microsoft seems to be having the >>two programs (Windows & OS/2's PM) leap-frog each other at every release. > >I was just wondering how much input Microsoft has on future OS/2? From my >understanding, IBM walked in and said that they wanted complete control of >OS/2, causing MS to give it up. I'm not sure this is true. Microsoft is coding OS/2 3.0 (the portable future of OS/2). They have announced that the Windows API will be incorporated into the API set to allow for complete consistency (including run-time performance) for Windows programs under OS/2 as under Window 3.x. Still, MS has control over the SMK, the Windows BCL, and (I think) future HPFS enhanced capabilities. Also, (recent PC Week ad) they have announced new versions of Lan Man (2.0) and SQL Server (1.1) under there own label. And, of course, the ad has to (and does) glorify OS/2 as the advanced OS of the future. They also have control over TrueImage (just shipped to printer OEMs!) and TrueType (which IBM, even though they want Adobe PS also, has said they will include). And (tired yet?) MS by next year will bring out the first edition of the multimedia APIs. IBM just provides hardware on that one. It's MS that has spent more on multimedia than Apple. It's MS that is working on the complete object-ification of OS/2's file system. etc... >With MS doing Windows, and IBM doing OS/2, what is MS going to put thier muscle >into? And at the same time, will OS/2 be driven into the ground because of >other interests such as advanced DOS and Windows? Well, MS has said that Dos 5.0 is the last, but who knows. They also said that as of July of this year, PM programs would release before their Windows counterparts. This new IBM-MS deal has turned that around also as "OS/2 will run Windows, anyway", etc. MS is talking from both sides. They have an enormous OS/2 venture, yet avarice pulls them to milk Windows for another couple of years. >I like OS/2 and would like to see it improved and prosper, but how much >can I really hope for with things like this? Even if MS gives up (which I doubt (above :-)), IBM is fully behind OS/2. >Wim. >-- >---------- >wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu >27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu >27313853@Wsuvm1.BITNET -- oo - I live for the day earth becomes a domain name - oo \/ Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu \/
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/23/90)
How about a 32-bit version of OS/2 version 1.2? -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
brian@NCoast.ORG (Brian Keith Gaiser) (10/24/90)
>How about a 32-bit version of OS/2 version 1.2? >-- I think this will be called OS/2 version 2.0. (Multiple DOS windows, and true 32-bit support!) -- --------- THE GIZZ ---------- | | | Brian Gaiser 216/464-2500 | | x2023 | | | |_______________________________|
TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) (10/24/90)
I think I wrote this before, then probably forgot to re-ask: is it true that you can't do graphics under OS/2 and MSC 6.0? I keep getting 'graphics.lib is for DOS only' messages during installation.. Thanks, -turgut
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/25/90)
brian@NCoast.ORG (Brian Keith Gaiser) writes: >>How about a 32-bit version of OS/2 version 1.2? >>-- > I think this will be called OS/2 version 2.0. (Multiple DOS windows, and > true 32-bit support!) What I was getting at is a 32 bit version of OS/2 that permits the use of 32 bit segments but retains the 1.2 system architecture. OS/2 version 2.0 eliminates segments as a useable feature. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
wbonner@eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (10/25/90)
In article <90297.130407TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes: >true that you can't do graphics under OS/2 and MSC 6.0? I keep getting >'graphics.lib is for DOS only' messages during installation.. There is no easy way to do graphics in OS/2. The only sanctioned way of doing graphics is to use PM. PM is not really that easy to get started from when you are used to direct hardware access, and I haven't done much more than the simple hello world program yet. There are other libraries available that allow you to do graphics in OS/2 full screen sessions, but MS doesn't supply any. If you want to do text graphics in OS/2 I believe the library you need to use is GRTXT.LIB. Wim. -- wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu 27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu 27313853@Wsuvm1.BITNET 72561.3135@CompuServe.com
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct22.135507.8837@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes: > > > Well, MS has said that Dos 5.0 is the last, but who knows. You may have misheard this - I doubt that Microsoft has said this, since it's not true. There will be significant releases beyond DOS 5 involving major new technology. I apologise for speaking so vaguely, but the changes will make DOS fit better into the Microsoft Windows/Network/OS2 strategy, yet will be very useful to "ordinary" DOS users, as well. gordon letwin microsoft
cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) (11/01/90)
In article <58639@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: >In article <1990Oct22.135507.8837@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes: >> Well, MS has said that Dos 5.0 is the last, but who knows. >You may have misheard this - I doubt that Microsoft has said this, since it's >not true. There will be significant releases beyond DOS 5 involving major >new technology. I apologise for speaking so vaguely, but the changes will >make DOS fit better into the Microsoft Windows/Network/OS2 strategy, yet will >be very useful to "ordinary" DOS users, as well. I culled from three sources (only one was a weekly) about 18 months ago, when both companies were all gung ho for OS/2, that indeed 5.0 was it. Now this. Major new technology was what OS/2 was for. A modern modular base upon which major new technology could be easily added. Let's see now..that's 2..4.. yup, 2 decades before OS/2 becomes viable in the eyes of users... > gordon letwin > microsoft -- oo - I live for the day earth becomes a domain name - oo \/ Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu \/
goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu (11/03/90)
In article <1990Oct31.180551.2555@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, cfreas@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Terry Freas) writes: > In article <58639@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: > > I culled from three sources (only one was a weekly) about 18 months ago, when > both companies were all gung ho for OS/2, that indeed 5.0 was it. Now this. > Major new technology was what OS/2 was for. A modern modular base upon which > major new technology could be easily added. Let's see now..that's 2..4.. > yup, 2 decades before OS/2 becomes viable in the eyes of users... > Gee, I hope you're wrong. I am a confirmed OS/2 believer: if OS/2 doesn't make it, I'm going to throw in the towel, throw out the PC's & throw my money at some system-7 compatible Macs. Adrian Goldman Adrian Goldman | Internet: Goldman@MBCL.Rutgers.Edu Molecular Biology Computing Laboratory | Bitnet: Goldman@BioVAX Waksman Insitute, | Phone: (908) 932-4864 Rutgers University, | Fax: (908) 932-5735 Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA |