Home | Gallery | Forum | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com Forum
OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum.
Index / OS/2 - General / Multimedia
author message
Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
41. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

zman (30 Nov, 2006 09:20):
if you buy a pentium d you'll have to -- oh i know this is so hard for most users -- PAY and get rid of that ancient patched version 4 or even the worse older stuff.

I know this is getting off-topic, but why will we have to?


virtual pc run windows xp

There is a VPC for OS/2?

Date: 30 Nov, 2006 on 21:47
rudi
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 35
since: 03 Oct, 2004
42. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (28 Nov, 2006 18:05):

What I saw was activity on the os2ddprog list. Some people were working on an accelerated driver based on GENGRADD. Looked like the main target was a Matrox card.


The only activity in the field of graphics drivers on the PDD list was a long time ago. It was not targeted to create an accelerated video driver, but to add motion video acceleration. In the end these efforts lead to the creation of WarpOverlay!, which is abandoned now. So I don't see any reason to be optimistic.

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 13:07
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
43. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

zman (30 Nov, 2006 09:20):
i suspect he means you can't do it cheaply with what most os/2 users are running.

Yes, exactly.

I have run RAID on OS/2 in the past. I could run it today by buying surplus hardware.

BUT I can't tell customers to buy surplus hardware.

What about even new home users!.

I talked to a guy yesterday that has a new Gateway brand system with Intel dual core (two 3 GHz cores), 1GB memory and two 230GB SATA drive. He won't consider eComStation until it can take advantage of most of his hardware.

You can't keep scrounging parts forever.
Dual core and RAID are very inexpensive today compared to the past.

There are newer SATA disk controllers chipsets coming. eComStation and OS/2 might lack a driver. Again another wait.

Always waiting.

With QEMU, eComStation and OS/2 users can take advantages of new hardware advances much sooner.

Running the OS in a virtual is going to be the standard setup for all OSes anyway. I run eComStation for the OS and apps not the hardware. The hardware is important just like the foundation of a house. BUT it is the OS and Apps that I interface with. Most eComStation and OS/2 users that need to buy a NEW machine today would have better choices if eComStation and OS/2 MCP2 ran in QEMU. Running in them today in QEMU * IS * faster than waiting 6 months or 12 months or forever for another driver or kernel change.

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 18:13
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
44. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Independent efforts are isolated and uninteresting when a good system like SNAP is easily available. They become more interesting as it becomes less supported. The efforts have existed, there are people who can do it and would again, whether they are now or not.

I don't advertise all my projects, so I don't assume that silence means there is zero work or research going on.

As Ben Dragon pointed out very well, the economics of it dictate how this falls into place. But in the end it takes work to maintain drivers, and that will equal the time and money we as users put into it. That is a given, whether SciTech maintains SNAP or SSI or someone else or no-one. A change like this is merely a shift, and that can be good because it can mean new things. The only reason it can be bad is if we all drop OS/2 because of it, so there is no more money or time invested.

That's why I think pessimism about this unfinished story is worse, and why I respond. I can't force you to be optimistic, though, I can only encourage you. You will see in it what you want to.

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 18:20
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
45. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (01 Dec, 2006 18:13):
Most eComStation and OS/2 users that need to buy a NEW machine today would have better choices if eComStation and OS/2 MCP2 ran in QEMU. Running in them today in QEMU * IS * faster than waiting 6 months or 12 months or forever for another driver or kernel change.

As I said, eComStation and OS/2 do run in QEMU. You are free to do that if you want to. I do it for some purposes but couldn't tolerate it as a primary desktop. As others have pointed out, it is not at all desireable to most of us. You keep mentioning dual core processors, but that gains you nothing if it is slowed down in an emulator. Besides, QEMU itself does not take advantage of multiple cores. It would provide some additional RAID capability in a roundabout way, but at the cost of maintaining a host OS that most of us would not want to. For less work you could create backups that would restore a destroyed OS/2 system nearly as fast as software-based RAID recovery, which really should be done anyway even if you use RAID.

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 18:38
zman
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 37
since: 25 Jun, 2005
46. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (30 Nov, 2006 21:47):

zman (30 Nov, 2006 09:20):
if you buy a pentium d you'll have to -- oh i know this is so hard for most users -- PAY and get rid of that ancient patched version 4 or even the worse older stuff.

I know this is getting off-topic, but why will we have to?


virtual pc run windows xp

There is a VPC for OS/2?


the acpi in ecs 2.0 is licensed only for ecs 2. it is required to get all the benefits of the system. up until october, i had to run this system in pic mode. all the drivers loaded with low irqs, stomped on the usb controllers, and the video adapter. now they load high (irq 16-23) and are shareable thanks to highirq.sys.

virtual pc was available for os/2 til ms bought out connectrix. it was a product of innotek. of course we got the usual howls -- its too expensive, os/2 is perfect on my pentium 1 nobody should want more, it is so slow, and .... i use it on select pc at corporate and at home. the ms version does not run, yet, on an intel mac; but, parallels does. yea -- no qemu or what ever for me. i want twenty first century multimedia capacity NOW! mac osx is my migration path of choice starting with replacing my tp770x next year!!!

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 19:47
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
47. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (01 Dec, 2006 18:3:
As I said, eComStation and OS/2 do run in QEMU. You are free to do that if you want to. I do it for some purposes but couldn't tolerate it as a primary desktop.

Several other people have tried without luck to get eComStation and OS/2 MCP2 working in QEMU.
http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=cadb45771a7a9f2f2bd618be8a7c71f4

We could really use help.

Can you post version info and steps in install procedure?

Did you have networking (peer and tcpip) working?

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 20:06
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
48. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (01 Dec, 2006 20:06):
Several other people have tried without luck to get eComStation and OS/2 MCP2 working in QEMU.
http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=cadb45771a7a9f2f2bd618be8a7c71f4

We could really use help.


Hrm, I thought all the problems had been covered there. I'll read more carefully, and we can take the QEMU discussion to that forum. I'll try to set aside some time this weekend and see if I'm able to help figure out the trouble people are still having.


Can you post version info and steps in install procedure?

Warp 4. I just did the same as was already described on that forum.


Did you have networking (peer and tcpip) working?

No, haven't bothered with it because I haven't needed it yet. QEMU networking is rather a pain with any guest system. Again I'll try this weekend to get some time to attempt to reproduce the problems (and successes) described in the forum. I need to get my FreeBSD image connected anyway. Peer might be a long-shot, but I'll try it.

Date: 01 Dec, 2006 on 20:50
OriA;
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 17
since: 20 Nov, 2006
49. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Will eCS run on an Intel Mac?

---
Alan

Nerve Center BBS tncbbs.no-ip.com

Date: 02 Dec, 2006 on 03:55
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
50. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 03 Dec, 2006 02:31 (1 times)

OriA; (02 Dec, 2006 03:55):
Will eCS run on an Intel Mac?

The processor is not a problem but are there OS/2 drivers for video, NIC, sound, and even disk controller?
This web site has links to the drivers windows users are using for Intel Mac
http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Users/XOM/Drivers

QEMU does run on Intel Mac. It is also much easier getting windows to run as a QEMU guest on Intel Mac than to run it directly on the hardware.
http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/viewtopic.php?t=2002&highlight=intel&sid=008983619606b6564a36d8f822db851d

I tried running eComStation as a guest on QEMU on Intel Mac but eComStation locked up during boot just like on a regular Intel. I was able to run Warp4 (pre fixpak) and no networking in QEMU on Intel Mac. So the basis for running eComStation must be there. Just need some developers to look at the few bumps that are keeping eComStation from running. Also networking is a must since there are no VPC type shared folders

QEMU
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

Date: 03 Dec, 2006 on 02:17
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
51. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Sorry ecsguy, you are right. QEMU isn't as slow as I remembered it, so it could be a solution for some situations. Also there is the locking on boot, even with Warp 4. I'm thinking it could have to do with the way QEMU emulates a hard drive. It can probably be resolved, but I've spent about as much time on it as I can afford. I'm leaving my notes about it on the QEMU forum. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to it later, or someone else can try my suggestions.
Date: 03 Dec, 2006 on 20:18
Sebadoh
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.newterrasoftware.com
posts: 198
since: 10 Apr, 2001
52. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (03 Dec, 2006 20:1:
Sorry ecsguy, you are right. QEMU isn't as slow as I remembered it, so it could be a solution for some situations. Also there is the locking on boot, even with Warp 4. I'm thinking it could have to do with the way QEMU emulates a hard drive. It can probably be resolved, but I've spent about as much time on it as I can afford. I'm leaving my notes about it on the QEMU forum. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to it later, or someone else can try my suggestions.

I for one absolutely hate emulation.. and it actually doesn't do a whole lot for us, even though it is running on newer hardware it doesn't add any capabilities I didn't have otherwise. I still can't use an usb device which doesn't have OS/2 support unless there is some network mapable way to make it work which is a huge kludge. No matter how good the emulator is it is always going to be slower then running it native (i am not talking about a hardware level emulator like VM, just any software emulator) and guys. saying that you need ecomstation 2 in order to use acpi is kinda silly... that is like complaining because you need to use Warp since an app doesn't run in 2.11! =) times change. At some point you need to upgrade and atleast ecomstation 2.0 is in the works.. (even if it isn't really a new OS as 2.x would imply.. it is simply... 1.4 w/ 3rd party extensions =).. warp 4.56 =)

Date: 04 Dec, 2006 on 00:55
Junior
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 4
since: 25 Nov, 2006
53. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Hi all,

Been following this forum a lil n found this at GoldenCode web site :

" Device Driver Development. Golden Code can provide full design and development services for OS/2 device drivers. Once armed with the functional requirements of the driver and any associated hardware/hardware interface documentation, this team can create, modify or maintain/support virtually any device driver project. The driver development team is experienced in a wide range of OS/2 driver types including:

* both 16-bit and 32-bit physical device drivers (PDD)
* implementation of network drivers using the Network Device Interface Specification (NDIS) at both the lower (MAC) and upper (protocol) interfaces
* security enabling services installable security subsystem (SES ISS)
* installable file systems (IFS) "

Perhaps they would be prepared to take over or buy snap. Noticed how well people supported netlabs, perhaps the OS/2 community would help in supporting them as well for a good cause. I'm in as much i can possibly give within my means.

Date: 04 Dec, 2006 on 23:01
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
54. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (03 Dec, 2006 20:1:
Sorry ecsguy, you are right. QEMU isn't as slow as I remembered it...

The speed of QEMU was the thing that first got my attention. And that is without the QEMU acceleration feature!

eComStation guest on QEMU would be very useable on new machines.

We need a virtual machine environment to complement the direct hardware support we can get. But the VM environment needs to be open source so it does not get bought (killed) again. Since VMWare OS/2 support was killed, we have invested too much (time (5 years!!!), and $$$) to be empty handed. When Microsoft goes to Parallel's and says let's make a deal, what do you think will happen to OS/2 guest support.

Date: 05 Dec, 2006 on 03:23
zman
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 37
since: 25 Jun, 2005
55. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (05 Dec, 2006 03:23):


We need a virtual machine environment to complement the direct hardware support we can get. But the VM environment needs to be open source so it does not get bought (killed) again. Since VMWare OS/2 support was killed, we have invested too much (time (5 years!!!), and $$$) to be empty handed. When Microsoft goes to Parallel's and says let's make a deal, what do you think will happen to OS/2 guest support.


good points. choice is good and of course i'm for the progress of qemu; but, parallels with its working full usb support does for me what vpc for os/2 came just short of right now. if vpc had made it i'd have been liberated. microsoft offered me a free upgrade to vpc for windows which supports os/2 as a guest. in fact vpc 2004sp1 still supports os/2 as a guest and i downloaded the "server version". i could have solved my os/2 problems by reversing the roles windows and os/2 play in my life and it would not have cost me a penny; but, i'm not quite readty to roll over in spite of the money!

i find linux on the software front to be no better than os/2 for my future computing applications. more and more i am pushed to move to something more mainstream. so if ms makes a deal with parallels it looks like the os/2 guest support would be there as with vpc. at this point beating up on poor old os/2 for microsoft is so over and who cares anymore. in the end, ibm's treatment really was worse and in the long run ibm is not a friend of linux or open source.

i think golden code could keep snap up; but, the issue is the money. ibm paid scitech for snap. now that ibm has cut off funding, scitech lost its number one source of funds for snap. since os/2 users haven't paid for it in large enough numbers .... well you get the rest! looking at what happened with the java mess, i wonder if golden code really cares!

Date: 05 Dec, 2006 on 22:33
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
56. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

zman (05 Dec, 2006 22:33):
good points. choice is good and of course i'm for the progress of qemu; but, parallels with its working full usb support does for me what vpc for os/2 came just short of right now.

Parallels already dropped the OS/2 host. Most of the new features released are only supported in ms win guests with no support for OS/2.

QEMU has basic USB support which should be improved in the next release.

With QEMU, there are no features off limits to OS/2 users. If we find the resources we can always have feature parity on features that are important to us. We don't have a supplier dictating what we can have.

Date: 06 Dec, 2006 on 05:51
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
57. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 06 Dec, 2006 07:24 (3 times)

Sebadoh (04 Dec, 2006 00:55):
I for one absolutely hate emulation.. and it actually doesn't do a whole lot for us, even though it is running on newer hardware it doesn't add any capabilities I didn't have otherwise. I still can't use an usb device which doesn't have OS/2 support unless there is some network mapable way to make it work which is a huge kludge.

In most cases it would have given you new capabilities you would not have had yet (or a lot sooner). Wireless NICs is one of the best examples. Wireless has been out for many many years and we still can't use OS/2-eCS with most wireless cards. There are a lot of OS/2-eCS users with laptops where they can't use the laptop's wireless card. Dual core came out over two years ago and we are only now getting support for some motherboards.

USB is not a good example. Until recently OS/2 itself did not have decent and stable basic USB drivers. Also QEMU USB support is improving.

Virtual machines might not give 100% isolation from hardware but it can help a lot.

Today it would allow
using dual/quad cores on most motherboards
Video - on almost all cards/motherboards
NIC (wired and wireless) - on almost all cards/motherboards
Sound - on almost all cards/motherboards
SATA - on almost all cards/motherboards
RAID (the inexpensive controllers) - almost all
USB - full USB is almost here

With a virtual machine you could be using new versions of most devices almost instantly instead of waiting years (or sometimes infinity) as is common for OS/2 drivers.

Today with native drivers, every time the manufacturer revs the hardware we have to tweak the native OS/2 driver (if we even have one). Most hardware makers will even change the hardware completely without using new model numbers. So OS/2 users buy something they think works in OS/2 only to find the device is a minor different rev than the one sold yesterday. Even with Scitech we had this problem all the time. Scitech would release support for a graphics chip and then the next day the hardware maker releases a "Pro" or "+" or something else new and improved rev version that the recently released Scitech version can not use.


Sebadoh:
No matter how good the emulator is it is always going to be slower then running it native

Sorry but it is not always slower. The issue for OS/2-eCS most of the time is lack of a driver that keeps you from using the new version of the device at all or maybe not even be able to boot OS/2-eCS at all.

So running OS/2 as a fast QEMU guest would be a lot faster than not running at all. And on today's hardware OS/2-eCS guests would be very fast and very useable. I have run ms winXP as guest on Linux and it worked well. If winXP worked, OS/2-eCS would scream on that same setup.

With a virtual machine any new Intel desktop or laptop that runs ms win or Linux could almost instantly run OS/2 or eComStation with OS/2-eCS being able to use most of the devices.

Wouldn't it be nice to go shopping for a system and know that you could pick most any system on the shelf and you would be able to use it with OS/2-eCS. You could have even run eComStation on an Apple PowerPC Mac. With the new Intel Macs it will be even easier.

QEMU can be downloaded from
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

But we especial need a OS/2-eCS developer to help the QEMU team see what tweaks QEMU needs so the eComStation and OS/2 MCP with networking can run properly.

Date: 06 Dec, 2006 on 07:16
oli
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 54
since: 24 Jul, 2003
58. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (06 Dec, 2006 07:24):
Sorry but it is not always slower. The issue for OS/2-eCS most of the time is lack of a driver that keeps you from using the new version of the device at all or maybe not even be able to boot OS/2-eCS at all.

So running OS/2 as a fast QEMU guest would be a lot faster than not running at all. And on today's hardware OS/2-eCS guests would be very fast and very useable. I have run ms winXP as guest on Linux and it worked well. If winXP worked, OS/2-eCS would scream on that same setup.

With a virtual machine any new Intel desktop or laptop that runs ms win or Linux could almost instantly run OS/2 or eComStation with OS/2-eCS being able to use most of the devices.

Wouldn't it be nice to go shopping for a system and know that you could pick most any system on the shelf and you would be able to use it with OS/2-eCS. You could have even run eComStation on an Apple PowerPC Mac. With the new Intel Macs it will be even easier.


Sorry but you are seriously delusional, while there are nowhere as many drivers out there as I would like there is not a motherboard or portable computer available that will not take OS/2 even it it needs to be coaxed a bit, this includes the Apple Intel Mac, a number of people are dualbooting between ecs 1.2 and OSX.

They will all run OS/2 or ecs much faster than the same hardware running QEMU under linux etc. Same goes for WinXP under QEMU. the difference is not "minute".

QEMU is not fast, its not BOCHS slow, but its not upto Paraells in speed, its also less stable in it's current incarnation.

Besides QEMU does not run OS/2 at all as it is and Linux is not exactly drowning in quality driver software either even if things are not as bad as they are under OS/2.

Date: 06 Dec, 2006 on 20:02
Smedles
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://smedley.info/os2ports.html
posts: 114
since: 12 Jul, 2003
59. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

oli (06 Dec, 2006 20:02):
Besides QEMU does not run OS/2 at all as it is and Linux is not exactly drowning in quality driver software either even if things are not as bad as they are under OS/2.

QEMU for OS/2 is being worked on. (Not by me).

Date: 07 Dec, 2006 on 03:10
Sebadoh
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.newterrasoftware.com
posts: 198
since: 10 Apr, 2001
60. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
That is quite a statement from a company which has released 2 applications.. I mean, it is nice to see that information on a website but I don't know if i would believe the could support snap. As is the original developers were laboring just to maintain stability. Case in point... power saving doesn't work on DVI interfaces.. very limited overlay support even though they have a long list of supported hardware.


Junior (04 Dec, 2006 23:01):
Hi all,

Been following this forum a lil n found this at GoldenCode web site :

" Device Driver Development. Golden Code can provide full design and development services for OS/2 device drivers. Once armed with the functional requirements of the driver and any associated hardware/hardware interface documentation, this team can create, modify or maintain/support virtually any device driver project. The driver development team is experienced in a wide range of OS/2 driver types including:

* both 16-bit and 32-bit physical device drivers (PDD)
* implementation of network drivers using the Network Device Interface Specification (NDIS) at both the lower (MAC) and upper (protocol) interfaces
* security enabling services installable security subsystem (SES ISS)
* installable file systems (IFS) "

Perhaps they would be prepared to take over or buy snap. Noticed how well people supported netlabs, perhaps the OS/2 community would help in supporting them as well for a good cause. I'm in as much i can possibly give within my means.


Date: 07 Dec, 2006 on 04:10
Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
All times are CET+1. < Prev. | P. 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next >
Go to:
 

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 Standard Edition,
Copyright © UltraScripts.com, Inc. 1999-2000.
Home | Gallery | Forums | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com 2000-2004