Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OS2 Discussion Forum Volume 9204 Issue 02
************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum Mon, April 13, 1992 Volume 9204 Issue 02
Relevant addresses :
submissions : OS2@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
OS2@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
subscriptions : LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
LISTSERV@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
moderator : OS2MOD@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
os2mod@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
************************************************************************
Today's topics:
New files on LISTSERVer
Better DOS than DOS?
TCP/IP for OS/2 and X Window Terminals ?
Re: OS/2 2.0 (GA)
Feed from the Listearn OS2-L OS/2 Non-Editored Discussion List :
2.0 and disk MB
Re: 2.0 and disk MB
First Impressions of GA OS/2 2.0
Why is Microsoft still advertising PMWord?
Re: DOS Device Drivers
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
OS/2 news in 4-7 WSJ
News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Re: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
An open letter to PC Magazine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 12:00:00 +0200
From: Moderator of OS/2 Discussion Forum <OS2MOD@BLEKUL11>
Subject: New files on LISTSERVer
This is a list of new or updated OS/2 related files available from the
LISTSERV of the OS/2 Discussion Forum at BLEKUL11.
* File donated by Greg Roelofs (Info-ZIP) <roe2@midway.uchicago.edu>
filename filetype Remarks
-------- -------- -------------------------------
UNZIP42 PACKAGE Official UnZip 4.2 source distribution
* Files distributed via comp.os.os2.misc
filename filetype Remarks
-------- -------- -------------------------------
DOS_SET2 ZIPXXE Settings for DOS programs under OS/2 2.0
* Files distributed via comp.binaries.os2
filename filetype Remarks
-------- -------- -------------------------------
4OS295 PACKAGE Enhanced Command Processor
ABSSHARE PACKAGE File encryption utility & viewer
CK5A179B PACKAGE C-Kermit version 5A(179)
COM3-24 ZIPXXE Fix for COM problems (OS/2 v2 304)
FOTO102 ZIPXXE Screen snapshot of Character FS OS/2
FREELPAL ZIPXXE New Freelance/G palettes for OS/2 v2.0
J_OS2 PACKAGE J (dialect op APL - uses ascii charcters)
LH2_213 ZIPXXE LH2 version 2.0
MSE304 ZIPXXE Mouse driver replacement for OS/2 2.0 6.304E
PMDRAW3 PACKAGE OS/2 PM Bitmap Creation Tool
PMFRMT15 ZIPXXE PM disk Format utility
PS-UP210 ZIPXXE PM program to convert text to postscript output
SCANGS1 ZIPXXE Software for GS4500 hand scanner
TRIOS220 PACKAGE TVGA 8900C/9000 PM Display Drivers for OS/2 2.0
VC132 PACKAGE Visual (file) Compare version 1.32
VDMA304 ZIPXXE SoundBlaster VDMA replacement for OS/2 2.0 6.304E
VGASYNC ZIPXXE Sets & Keeps VGA sync polarities negative
WPS6307 PACKAGE The Unofficial Guide to the Workplace Shell (6.307)
XLST2266 PACKAGE VM/CMS Filelist clone
ZAPPED2 ZIPXXE Simple PM Game
Some of the available files come in - what is called - a package. If
you request such package you will automatically receive all necesarry
files. The zipxxe (XXencoded ZIP) files that you will receive must be
concatenated into one large ZIPXXE file by means of the COPY command.
(example : copy x.zipxxe1 + x.zipxxe2 x.zipxxe)
To use this large ZIPXXE file you must first XXdecode (We recommend our
own version of XXdecode which works under OS/2) and UNZIP (We recommend
PKZIP also under OS/2) it.
Note: Use PKUNZIP -d to unzip !!
These files are distributed AS IS, we can not guarantee anything about
their working.
************************************************************************
* For a complete list of all OS/2 files available at LISTSERV@BLEKUL11 *
* get the OS2INDEX PACAKGE. *
************************************************************************
We still welcome all OS/2 related files for distribution on our LISTSERV.
Send your files to OS2@BLEKUL11.BITNET / OS2@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
we will arrange everything for distribution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 12:38 MET
From: Hans Schoone, Consul Risk Mgmt <CRMASCH@HDETUD2.TUDELFT.NL>
Subject: Better DOS than DOS?
Thinking about upgrading our LAN server 1.3 network, I find the
following incompatibility with OS/2 2.0 and ES/2:
Most of our DOS packages can be reached by 2 batch files that
issue the NET USE commands necessary to give access to the package
(the user limit is set to the number of licenses we have).
1 batch file in everbody's path and 1 in the application definition.
When I upgrade to OS/2 2.0, all these batch files fail to operate,
since the NET command is not recognized in DOS boxes by ES/2.
Even if I copy to a CMD file, it won't work, since the (DOS)
applications do not seem to see the environment symbols that are
set in the (OS/2) batch file.
So I need to rewrite *all* batch files for an OS/2 network.
I would definitely *not* call this 'compatible' and
'better DOS than DOS'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 11:56:30 EDT
From: Joey Maxie <JOEY@UTCVM>
Organization: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Subject: TCP/IP for OS/2 and X Window Terminals ?
Has any one done any comparsions with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2 and FTP's Software
PC/TCP for OS/2? I just noticed that IBM's version includes (optional
feature) X Window System Server. My question is does any one know of any
X Window Terminal software for OS/2?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue Apr 14 10:50:55 BST 1992
From: Mike O'Carroll <mike@elec-eng.leeds.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 (GA)
> --> WIN-OS/2
> If you start a WIN-OS/2 full-screen session, you need to close it
> down from the Workplace Shell rather than from the Program Manager,
> otherwise you'll have a hard time getting rid of it. If you do,
> the screen goes blank with no disk activity, and ctrl-esc gets you back
> to the WPS. The WIN-OS/2 full-screen icon is still there. If you try
In my case, Ctrl-Esc does not get me back to the WPS - only ctrl-alt-del
will do.
Related to this (I think). If I run a "bad" program from Quick C for
Windows in WIN-OS/2, the WIN-OS/2 session crashes out. (Presumably
real Windows would too). Sometimes I get the WPS back, sometimes I'm left
with the blank screen again. This kind of defeats the object of
a "crash-proof" OS ...
--
Mike O'Carroll, Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering,
The University, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
E-mail: mike@ee.leeds[.ac.uk]
UUCP: ...uunet!mcsun!uknet!lena!mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed from the Listearn OS2-L OS/2 Non-Editored Discussion List :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:32:00 MET
Reply-To: "OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: Rob van Hoboken <RCOPROB@HDETUD2.TUDELFT.NL>
Subject: 2.0 and disk MB
We tried OS/2 2.0 rel 304 on an HP vectra 16S with a 40 MB harddisk.
The standard edition installed wonderfully and works OK. It takes about 16MB
with just the necessities installed. Of course I wouldn't run ES on such a
small disk :-)
There is this problem that the DOS box bombs the first time you start it but it
does work correctly and smoothly from then on... This Vectra also had a problem
running DOS 5.0: all basic programs made it stop dead in its track. Normally I
would grin, but DOS EDIT is written in BASIC :-) So now I have formally and
fully given up on DOS and discarded it.
We tried to currently run ES on a 60MB partition of a 8580-111, includin
swapper.dat. It works with enough MBs to spare.
Do not try to install ES in anything less than 50MB, the installation procedure
produces no error messages when one of these UNZIPs has insufficient disk space,
and 15 minutes later in the install process you find you lack some files.
Rob van Hoboken
"I'm hooked on 2.0"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:13:02 EDT
Reply-To: "OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: Jay Thierry HAN <HAN@FRECP12>
Subject: Re: 2.0 and disk MB
Don't forget to do a shutdown first thing after installation. I've had
numerous problems on my first attempt to installing 6.304 because
I didn't do it, and especially with full screen DOS boxes. I think
that even for the GA release a shutdown right after installation is
strongly recommended. Hell, 5 minutes more to wait to escape tons of
hair-tearing, that's worth the trouble.
Jay Han.
Ecole Centrale Paris, France
HAN@FRECP12.BITNET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:40:19 EST
Reply-To: "OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: John K Gotwals <GOTWALS@PURCCVM>
Subject: First Impressions of GA OS/2 2.0
I have been using GA code of OS/2 2.0 for several days now on my 16MHz
PS/2 Model 80, and I would like to share some of my early observations.
o The memory management is SUPER compared with the earlier drops. The
"resource leakage" when I run PMWord is no longer present. I am
running with 16MB of real memory, and the swap-file size now stays
rock-steady at 2MB.
o Although the system has crashed, I have NOT had to reinstall the OS.
The crash occurred when I was running PM Excel and I selected the
Help Index with the mouse. (The Read Me file says to "avoid using"
this function.) Previous drops of OS/2 2.0 have also occasionally
crashed from inside Excel, and this may be related to the fact that
I am using an XGA adapter. In summary, the system is far more
stable than the pre GA releases.
o I am using a PostScript printer, and the printout of various
sections of the on-line Help is superbly formatted. Even the graphic
portions print correctly.
o Borland's C++ no longer crashes, although you still must select
"enabled" for the DPM_DOS_API entry in the DOS Settings section.
o M$'s QuickC 2.5 runs fine under DOS Full-Screen.
o When using OS/2's restore command to restore files to the HPFS
volume, the restore seems to go agonizingly slow when the restored
files have extended attributes. Has anyone else noticed this?
o Since I do not have any Windows based applications, I am not able to
comment on this feature of OS/2.
The bottom line for me is that at work I have replaced OS/2 1.3 with 2.0
for production. I still have DOS 5.0 present on the same FAT volume, and
use the dual-boot feature for the few times that I want to run Norton's
utilities. Similarly at home, I have Boot Manager and DOS 5.0 on my
first physical drive and OS/2 2.0 is on my HPFS based second physical
drive. At home and work I NEED a reliable system, and I would not have
removed 1.3 from my systems unless my testing had shown 2.0 GA was
meeting this criterion. As always, TINAR.
-- John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 21:00:30 EST
Reply-To: "OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: John K Gotwals <GOTWALS@PURCCVM>
Subject: Why is Microsoft still advertising PMWord?
On pages 136 and 137 of the April 6, 1992 issue of INFOWORLD, there
are 12 1/6 page advertisements for OS/2 software products. Much to my
amazement, one of the ads is by Microsoft for their PMWord product.
The bold faced header is "It's easy to see why Microsoft Word is the
top-selling OS/2 word processor." The final sentence of the ad is
"Visit your nearest reseller today to see for yourself why ease of use
has made Microsoft Word for OS/2 the leading OS/2 word processor."
Would someone please enlighten me on why MS is STILL advertising an
OS/2 based product?!? Several possibilities are:
o MS wants to "hook" someone on Word. But, IMO, the customer's
blood pressure will rise dangerously when he finds out that
there is no OS/2 upgrade path for Word except via the Windows
route.
o MS WILL be shortly bringing out an upgrade (single threaded) for
PMWord.
o MS is just "hedging its bets".
o The ad is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left
hand is doing, and the person responsible for placing the ad has
already been fired.
What do you think?
-- John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 09:57:42 EDT
Reply-To: "OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12>
Subject: Re: DOS Device Drivers
On Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:47:25 +0200 Andreas Toenne
<atoenne@MPI-SB.MPG.DE> had said:
>Hope that helps. I do not know where to install DOS devices for the DOS box.
>At least you can install them when booting DOS.
>
Andreas: As crazy as it may sound, just put your DOS device driver (let's
say it's called DRIVER.SYS) into THE config.sys file of OS/2, as if it
were an OS/2 device driver. The thing may look like:
DEVICE=C:\SOMEWHERE\DRIVER.SYS
OS/2 detects it's a DOS driver, and won't load
it until you click and start a DOS box. It is then loaded transparently,
for that DOS box. Regards, -turgut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: oleg@watson.ibm.com (Oleg Vishnepolsky)
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:36:21 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
In <92101.083335JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
James Justice <JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:
>
> (2) If you have an NFS disk mounted and go into Windows, BANG OS/2 GA
> is gone! The only solution is RESET of POWER ON/OFF. This *must*
> be fixed...
You need to get different nfs.ifs for OS/2 2.0 - nfs200.ifs. This is
included in latest CSDs and 1.2.1 refresh.
Oleg Vishnepolsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal)
Subject: OS/2 news in 4-7 WSJ
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:28:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
I just noticed a little OS/2 news in todays WSJ. Their was a little note that
said IBM has signed a deal with Time to be the sole sponsor of a special issue
of TIME coming out in September. The OS war will be in full swing and I'm sure
that their will be some OS/2 ads, and WordPerfect has 3 full page ads. The
first saying they are sticking with DOS, the 2nd saying they are moving to
Windows, and the 3rd saying they are ready for OS/2. Each page has a quote and
the OS/2 one is that OS/2 will blow the doors of the industry, it is a clean
sheet of paper, not a thing on top of a thing, like Windows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA. USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:58:34 GMT
I just got back from the OS/2 rollout at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown
L.A.
Surprises:
Windows 3.1 compatibility is done!! I didn't catch whether the CSDs were
done, or iff all currently-printing copies of OS/2 will have the Windows
3.1 version of WinOS2, but Reiswig demonstrated running multimedia apps
under a 3.1 version of WinOS2.
OS/2 multimedia: demonstrated was a non-CDROM animation and sound sequence
(playing from hard drive). QuickTime was not mentioned, but from the
description given, it sounded very similar.
Networking: Reiswig showed the LAN-aware features of the WPS. He had 4
drive windows open: a Lan Manager, Banyan Vines, Novell 3.11, and Novell-
for-OS/2 server (!) mounted drive. He moved files around, to and from the
desktop. Four servers, three different protocols, and everything went fast
and transparent. Nice.
Novell: the Novell-for-OS/2 shown was a 32-bit LAN server application running
under OS/2. Pretty neat.
Demonstrations:
Highlights of the Lee Reiswig's demonstrations --
Difference between 16-and 32-bit applications: one application
showed a 40% speedup, just be recompiling. the two versions
were run side-by-side on the same screen.
DOS compatibility: 14 various DOS applications running in windows
on the desktop, including DesqView with several programs,
Space Quest IV, WordPerfect, a couple of serial comm programs,
Quattro Pro 3.0, two drawing programs, etc.
Windows compatibility: I think 12 windows programs running on the
desktop with PM. MS Word-f-Win, WP-f-Win, 123/Win, others.
Also, DDE and even OLE was shown, working.
Workplace: various direct-manipulation and integration features shown,
such as transparent printing over networks (drag a file from
the Banyan Vines mounted drive over to a Novell-served
printer). Workplace was instantaneous compared to my LA
release, and I'm on a 486-33/8Mb.
Multimedia: Lee tried to show what happened when you ran the OS/2
from-disk animation, the soundtrack, and starting up a new
application at the same time. The new application never
started. It looked like he only single-clicked.
(or, the person running the demo. He just made commentary).
Personal Notes:
Everything is MUCH quicker; even floppy accesses seemed to be quicker on
the GA version.
It's amazing that they got Windows 3.1 running. And Lee almost forgot to
tell us.
This is personal opinion, but I think many people will agree: Lee was
contrasting last april's demonstration to GA. The screens he showed had
MUCH more appealing icons, and the progress graph for the graphical install
was much more attractive. I think the diamond-shaped OS/2 logo (which has
been retained and is on the GA box) should have been retained, instead
of rotating it to be a square. On the other hand, 256-color icons
are PRETTY. Or, at least, the 256-color icons that don't come with OS/2.
Would it be so wrong to break tradition and make it pretty?
It was stressed that OS/2 was the only environment available that will support
ALL PC applications (with the exception of certain DOS-extended programs
and 386-mode Windows programs). It was effective, as was the demonstrations
to this effect. The two men sitting next to me were snickering and making
jokes at first about the announcement and demonstration's at times hokey
humor...
(the start of the announcement showed Cavianno (sp?) skiing down a
mountain, amid clips from the Winter Olympics and a fake announcer. He was
doing a downhill, almost slapstick-like. He comes down a hill, to a jump...
Oh, no, Windows! [a see-through of the Windows 3.0 graphic is shown on the
screen] Can he break through them? [he crashes through the window graphic,
and it shatters, peices of glass flying] Yes!...)
.were reduced to oohs and aahs by the end of Reiswig's demo. One cringed
at the requirement of 15-32Mb, but soon forgot about it when he saw everything
it did.
No shrink-wrap upgrades given out, just upgrade forms. A few lucky people
were given GA shrink-wrap code.
-Dave
--
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:03:15 GMT
In article <1992Apr7.225834.5596@cheshire.oxy.edu>
rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes:
>I just got back from the OS/2 rollout at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown
>L.A.
One more thing:
Not a tie to be seen. Everyone who presented wore rugby shirts/sweaters
and trousers.
Cavianno even wore ski-boots out onto the stage.
-Dave
--
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:38:04 CDT
Richard E. Hodges asked me to repost this letter on comp.os.os2.misc and CIS.
Richard hopes others will voice an opinion to PC Magazine. He does not desire
to be a lone voice.
Bert Moshier
AN OPEN LETTER TO PC MAGAZINE
Richard E. Hodges
University of California, Los Angeles
and
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Disclaimer: These are my personal views and do not reflect the official
position of my employer. I am not an employee, consultant or
stockholder of IBM Corporation. I do not have any financial interest in
DOS, Windows or OS/2, or in any applications programs designed for
use on these systems.
INTRODUCTION
I have just read the April 29 issue of PC Magazine and strongly
disagree with the observations and conclusions of Michael J. Miller in
comparing Windows and OS/2. This letter provides a point-by-point
rebuttal to the main points that I have found objectionable in two
articles by Mr. Miller. This will be addressed below.
In contrast, the article "OS/2 2.0: Does It Fulfill the Promise" by Joe
Salemi provides a fair and honest appraisal of OS/2 2.0. Joe Salemi
has done a masterful job learning the facts and presenting a useful
overview of OS/2. His feature article and additional sidebars, "Guided
Tour of the Workplace Shell" and "Debunking the Myths of OS/2" are
refreshing in that they directly report the facts without introducing
personal preferences and bias. It is indeed rare to find a journalist
that maintains his objectivity when evaluating operating system
software.
Another highlight of this issue is the short piece by William F.
Zachmann, "32-bit GUI Alternatives." Mr. Zachmann has clearly and
accurately delineated the key reasons that OS/2 is more appropriate
on the desktop than any currently available versions of Unix. As a
person that uses Unix based systems frequently, I can personally
confirm that Mr. Zachmann's evaluation is correct. It is useful for this
information to be summarized for those who may have heard of Unix
but do not have first hand experience with the system.
Finally, Charles Petzold's piece on Windows NT holds some academic
interest, but seems inappropriate in an issue devoted to currently
available desktop operating systems. This article is particularly
inappropriate in view of Microsoft's statement that NT is a server
operating system, not a desktop system. Furthermore, Microsoft's
abysmal track record on meeting an announced delivery date with
systems software causes one to seriously question the credibility of
statements such as, "Microsoft is predicting the retail release by the
end of 1992." This credibility is stretched even further by the fact that
to this date, Microsoft has not yet produced a reliable multitasking
operating system.
WINDOWS ENTERS ITS PRIME;
OS/2 IS A FASCINATING TECHNOLOGY BUT A DUBIOUS CHALLENGER
My complaint with Michael J. Millers article is primarily centered on
his general recommendation of Windows 3.1 over OS/2 2.0. I can
appreciate that Windows 3.1 is useful to people with relatively modest
requirements or low end systems which cannot run OS/2. However, for
those of us who have more capable hardware, there is no need to be
stuck with the limitations of Windows. Thus, rather than make a
blanket recommendation as Mr. Miller does, it would be more
appropriate to recommend the system that is best for a particular
class of hardware. It appears that Mr. Miller feels compelled to try to
justify his dubious recommendation. In what follows, I will identify
some comments that appear to be designed to support a prejudiced
conclusion.
I wonder why Mr. Miller says, "... developers can write 32-bit
applications, which theoretically can be faster than 16-bit applications
normally created for Windows or OS/2 1.x." THEORETICALLY? This is
not a theoretical hypothesis: it has already been proven with 32-bit
DOS extenders and with beta versions of 32-bit OS/2 applications that
32-bit flat memory model programs are from 50% to 100% faster than
16-bit segmented memory model programs. One would expect the
editor-in-chief of PC Magazine to be well aware of this fact. From the
context of his statement, it appears that Mr. Miller is attempting cast
some shade of doubt on the established fact that 32-bit applications
run faster and thereby cast doubt on the potential of OS/2.
Mr. Miller observes that, "From a technical standpoint, OS/2 2.0 does
appear to be a 'better DOS than DOS.' Of course, the same can be
said of DESQview, which is simpler to install, or Windows." This is
complete nonsense! Does DESQview or Windows allow one to boot
different versions of DOS simultaneously? Virtualize device drivers?
Multitask sessions under the control of a preemptive time slice
multitasking system? Provide true protection between DOS sessions?
Can either DESQview or Windows truly be called a "better DOS than
DOS" as PC Magazine concludes OS/2 is? Of course not! The
statement that DESQview is "simpler to install" also needs
examination. I have known Ph.D electrical engineers who specialize in
writing complex computer software who spent days setting up
DESQview and QEMM and getting all the device drivers plugged into
the correct holes in memory. OS/2 automatically handles all of this
tedious setup. The statement about installation is false.
Finally, I question the basis for Mr. Miller's conclusion that, "General
users probably will not find OS/2 a compelling environment because of
the complexity and size of the environment (a full installation requires
about 30MB), the relative difficulty of installing and maintaining it, and
the lack of many applications native to OS/2." I wonder if Mr. Miller
even reads the articles that appear in PC Magazine? OS/2 is inherently
designed to be easy-to-use, as explained in the article by Joe Salemi.
Even if it takes 30MB of disk space (Mr. Salemi's article states that,
"Realistically, OS/2 will eat up about 18MB to 20MB on a average
system.") if one wants an easy-to-use, high performance and rock solid
system then the price is greater disk space. Many people are willing to
get a larger hard disk and some additional RAM if it makes the
computer easier to use. And where is the basis for the claim that OS/2
is difficult to maintain? There is no justification given for this
statement. In my experience, I find exactly the opposite is true. You
just turn it on and it works. And it keeps working. OS/2 is more
complex than DOS in the same sense that a Ford Taurus is more
complex than a Model T Ford. More complex does not imply more
difficult to use and maintain.
Mr. Miller suggests Windows as an easy-to-install, easy-to-maintain
and easy-to-use system. He states, "Windows 3.1 makes it safe to
jump in the water." Question: If Windows is so easy to maintain, then
why does PC Magazine run a Windows column covering all kinds of
nitty-gritty details of memory managers, PIF files, special config.sys
settings to avoid UAE's, and the like? Evidently, it takes alot of fine
tuning just to make the system work. OS/2 doesn't require all this
constant tweaking - it just works. If Windows is so easy to install, then
why is PC Magazine compelled to devote pages 195 to 235 to all kinds
of special "tips" to help people get Windows 3.1 working as they
undoubtedly expect? Apparently, Windows is no simple matter to get
up and running reliably, but Mr. Miller makes no mention of this fact. In
the article on OS/2, Joe Salemi states that everything you need to know
is a mouse click away on the Workplace Shell desktop. Does OS/2
require special "tips" on avoiding system crashes (UAE's) as PC
Magazine feels is necessary for Windows? Obviously not. On the
contrary, Joe Salemi reports, "We tried to test OS/2's protection
capabilities by deliberately inducing a UAE (Unrecoverable Application
Error) in a Windows window. But our attempt failed completely with all
of the Windows applications on the test system, including some that
will crash when running under Windows 3.0. This is testimony to
OS/2's stability."
>From what is written in PC Magazine, it is obvious that Windows
requires a considerable amount of fine tuning to make it work properly.
On the other hand, OS/2 is not difficult to install. The statement that
OS/2 is difficult to install is manifestly false.
Mr. Miller's remarks about lack of OS/2 applications is also
questionable when considered in the context of comparing OS/2 to
DOS/Windows. OS/2 provides better support for DOS programs than
Windows does. OS/2 supports Windows programs. OS/2 supports
OS/2 1.x programs, of which there are some very good ones. And there
are many genuine 32-bit OS/2 2.0 programs already under
development. These multi-threaded 32-bit programs will be far
superior to anything showing up in Windows, and they will be available
this year. Some major applications, such as Corel Draw!, Lotus 123/G
and Lotus Freelance Graphics, are expected within a few months. In
the light of these facts, does Mr. Miller conclude that Windows
provides more choices for software support than does OS/2? The way I
see it, OS/2 offers more choices, and better choices.
DECISIONS, DECISIONS
Perhaps the most unreasonable part of Michael J. Miller's article is
the insert on page 115. First of all, the "Five reasons to buy Windows"
should be ADDED to the list of reasons to buy OS/2. Look at what is
stated:
COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS TO BUY WINDOWS"
1. "You can create documents rich with fonts, graphics and more."
Same goes for OS/2. Soon you will even able to do it alot faster by
using 32-bit applications.
2. " You can run multiple applications." You can do it even better in
OS/2 because of the preemptive time sliced multitasking system and
Super Fat and High Performance File Systems.
3. "You can combine applications." Same goes for OS/2.
4. "If you do not like Windows, you can always remove it." Again,
OS/2's convenient selective install allows you to remove Windows
support - the advantage is that you don't have to sacrifice DOS
multitasking, improved network support, superior file systems and
other OS/2 improvements that are provided to DOS sessions.
5. "All of the major developers are focusing their resources on
Windows." Fine. OS/2 will run these programs. Note that many major
developers are ALSO focusing resources on OS/2 32-bit applications,
so you will have the option to run BETTER versions of their software
instead of the old 16-bit Windows stuff.
COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS TO BUY OS/2"
1. "You bought into IBM and Microsoft's hype the first time around,
and now you are stuck." HYPE? STUCK? This is nonsense. Those of
us who have ENJOYED two years of genuine high performance multi-
tasking (and are not accustomed rebooting our machines several
times daily) do not consider ourselves "stuck". We know that what IBM
has told us is not "hype". The "hype" was foisted on poor suckers who
got "stuck" with Windows 3.0 and suffered through nearly two years of
UAE's and deplorable performance.
2. "You need to develop a high-end application that requires 32-bit
processing and a real multitasking, multi-threaded environment."
WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO JUST WANT TO BUY AND USE
THESE "HIGH-END APPLICATIONS"? In other words, those of us who
want to make proper use of the hardware that we ALREADY OWN!
Lotus, WordPerfect, Borland, Corel, Micrografx, DeScribe and many
other vendors will provide this capability very soon. Don't you think this
is worth mentioning? And knock off the Windows NT smoke screen.
That is a SERVER operating system.
3. "You need an application that requires multiple communication
sessions." What does MULTIPLE mean? I just want to connect to a
network, be able to run applications, communicate on a modem and
format diskettes without my system crashing, balking or forcing me to
become a junior computer scientist. OS/2 has been doing this for over
two years. Windows has not, and still does not.
4. "You are an IBM-only shop." Oh, please. This is a veiled attempt to
propagate the old myth that OS/2 only runs on IBM hardware. I'm
writing this using OS/2 on a Toshiba portable! Why should IBM-only
shops have the exclusive rights to a reliable and easy-to-use
computer, while everybody else is relegated to use a system based on
16-bit real mode segmented junk left over from the CP/M days.
5. "You are ready to meet the future today." THE FUTURE! Get
serious. We have had 386 machines for over FIVE YEARS and are now
finally getting an operating system to take advantage of it. This isn't
THE FUTURE. This is just getting around to running the hardware we
already have at FULL SPEED. Why should I pay a premium to upgrade
from a 20 MHz 386 to a 33 MHz 386 when the software is running my
machine at HALF SPEED?
COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS NOT TO BUY OS/2"
1. "There are few applications." Excuse me, but more applications run
on OS/2 2.0 than on any other platform in existence. I am sure you are
not aware of it, but there are some EXCELLENT OS/2 applications. Try
out Freelance Graphics for OS/2. IBM's TCP/IP for OS/2 is as good as
it gets on ANY system. PMX (Presentation Manager X-Windows) works
great. Mr. Miller further states, "But the reason to choose an operating
system access to unique applications." Well, that is ONE reason. Of
course, as Windows users will tell you, it doesn't necessarily do you
any good if the system can't run these apps EFFICIENTLY and
RELIABLY. Also, some of us believe that multi-threaded 32-bit
applications qualify as being unique since they (1) Run the 386 at its
full potential and, (2) Minimize the appearance of the hourglass. The
fact that these will be available IN ADDITION to nearly all the apps that
run under DOS and Windows makes it even more unique when
compared to, say, Unix, Macintosh, or DOS/Windows.
2. "Unix already offers a 32-bit multitasking operating system." Does
Mr. Miller read PC Magazine? Try reading, "32-bit GUI Alternatives: No
Contest." on page 193. If you read that article, you will learn that Unix
costs over $1000, requires substantially greater hardware
requirements, does not run DOS and Windows apps effectively and
does not have a single standardized GUI. One could also mention the
steep learning curve for a DOS user and the fact that Unix applications
cost many times more than DOS, Windows or OS/2 apps - assuming
one is available. Unix is not an issue.
3. "You can only run some Windows applications." Well, that is also
true of Windows itself! OS/2 will run Windows 2.1 apps. Will Windows
3.0? OS/2 will run nearly all Windows 3.0 apps including (as I
understand it) all of the ones on the list of over 30 that Microsoft warns
will not run properly under Windows 3.1. Really, this should be listed
as a reason NOT TO BUY WINDOWS 3.1.
4. "The installation process is ridiculous." I totally disagree. If you can
figure out how to insert a diskette into a floppy drive, then you can
install OS/2. In my judgment, it is easier than installing DOS. It does
take longer, but that is because the system is doing things that I don't
have to do. A great deal of information must be loaded onto the disk in
order to make OS/2 easy for a human being to use. This takes time. So
what?
5. "You inherit the problems of three operating systems." Actually, you
inherit the ADVANTAGES of two operating systems (DOS and OS/2) and
three graphical environments (Windows, Presentation Manager and
Workplace Shell) while AVOIDING THE DISADVANTAGES associated
with all of them. Again, Mr. Miller has made a misleading statement
that misrepresents the situation.
COMMENTS ON "FIVE REASONS NOT TO BUY WINDOWS"
1. " You have to relearn your applications." Maybe not if you run OS/2!
Just run it AS IS and learn more later if you like. This is not always
possible with Windows.
2. "Windows is slower than DOS." With OS/2 you have a couple of
options. The OS/2 DOS sessions are darned good. Also, when the 32-
bit OS/2 versions show up, you can learn them at your leisure and
check to see if they are too slow. 32-bit OS/2 apps will narrow the
performance gap with character based DOS programs, and should
actually be an improvement over graphical DOS apps.
3. "There are still more DOS applications than Windows applications."
Of course, as PC Magazine observed, OS/2 is "better DOS than DOS."
Also, you can run DOS applications FASTER and MORE RELIABLY
under OS/2 than under Windows. So, if this is a reason not to buy
Windows, it could be a reason to consider OS/2.
4. "You do not have the hardware." I agree with Mr. Miller's comments
here. You get what you pay for.
5. "If you want multitasking, DESQview does a better job with DOS
applications." Not better than OS/2 - IF you have enough memory to run
OS/2 properly. Again, this is another reason to consider OS/2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920402
***********************************
