Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Article Discussions / Re: Too many cases of "OS/2 is dead, dying, etc"
« Last post by Greg Pringle on March 18, 2024, 10:39:59 pm »
Hello JT

- 1st: On 1996 when the rumor came out that IBM's Gerstner said it will not longer invest in OS/2.

I knew an IBM Exec in 1994 that told me then that IBM had agreed to demands from Microsoft to not market to home users any more. It took a while for the heads of the divisions to follow this new direction. I was told the reason for this change was that IBM was getting a preferred price on Windows 3.1 for resale on IBM machines which was going to be pulled by Microsoft if OS/2 was marketed to regular users. The PC division of IBM was making a lot of money then and did not want OS/2 so Gerstner decided on the new direction. At that time the divisions of IBM were separately managed and where separate profit centers. OS/2 was a money losing profit center at that time. Later I talked with Gerstner and he was happy with the change.
2
Article Discussions / Re: Too many cases of "OS/2 is dead, dying, etc"
« Last post by Mark Szkolnicki on March 18, 2024, 10:03:47 pm »
Heh Guys!

Hello

Let's expect the next dead for "April 15th, 2024" when Hobbes NMSU gets disconnected.  ;D ;D ;D

Regards

Been using OS/2 since 2.1, 2.11 into Warp 3, then Warp 4, including fixpacks, then the eComstation versions, through to ArcaOS 5.0 - 5.1 - OS/2 was declared "Dead", as Martin points out since 1996, when IBM really did not want to develop "Personal OS's" anymore, ceding that back to Microsoft and Windows, wanting to get back into solely the server / mainframe business (Lew Gerstner was somewhat adverse to enthusiasts running "Doom" on what he considered a corporate business based Operating System),

People like Brad Wardell at Stardock jumped in to create remarkable pieces of software like Object Desktop and the first Version of Galactic Civilizations at the time, but with Gerstners business decision to get out, it was really IBM who first declared OS/2 dead, by stopping development, and developers like Brad had no choice but to move on (As an aside I still use Object Desktop on ArcaOS, and it still functions perfectly after all these incarnations of a "dead" operating system).

Twenty eight years later, I still run most of my business, personal software and games on it (including virtual machines for DOS and Windows), still run a wide variety of legacy systems and equipment on it, when people need something from the past (yes, there still are people who want to transfer data from 360K and 1.2 M floppies).

People, the word "Dead" has morphed technically to mean "depreciated" or "not supported as per intent", with corporate management placing big money and thousands of developers into creating a new version that the mainstream "must" move to every year or so, because they do not want to learn how to technically do things for themselves - with cloud computing and Smartphones, they substitute paying again and again to stay up to date, pushed by the companies they subscribe to, for many products that they never use to their full potential anyway - but it creates the constant revenue stream that a corporation craves - I remember reading an article many years ago, where someone in IBM management acknowledging they screwed up with the IBM PC, because once someone with the technical knowledge has the technology and knowledge on their desktops, standalone, and can maintain it themselves, they don't need to constantly go back to the parent corporation to pay and pay again .............

Personally, I don't need the latest and greatest every few months, and I don't need my data to live in the clouds for a fee. Strangely enough, when I turn on my systems and networks everyday, some of the youngest ones 5-10 years old, they still function perfectly, and if not, I fix them - haven't build a latest and greatest system in a while, but still ticking along on the successors to an operating system declared "dead" long ago ...........

I don't see any of our small talented group who continue to produce remarkable results caring about the word "dead", technology wise - I remember my dad saying no one is ever dead, if there are people who remember them.

For the newbies here, welcome - as for the rest of us, I don't think you'll find many, if any, of the usual suspects lurking here much interested in reading tombstones - we're to busy trying to do what we feel is important, even if its only to us.

Best of the Rest of the Week to you!

Mark

Mark Szkolnicki



3
Article Discussions / Re: Too many cases of "OS/2 is dead, dying, etc"
« Last post by Martin Iturbide on March 18, 2024, 08:40:21 pm »
Hello

Let's expect the next dead for "April 15th, 2024" when Hobbes NMSU gets disconnected.  ;D ;D ;D

Regards
4
Wow !! I never thought it will get that bid.

Thanks for the pointer. I had updated the pictures on the wiki too.

Regards
5
Programming / Re: Partition alignment
« Last post by robertapengelly on March 18, 2024, 07:26:16 pm »
Never mind the last message, Lars alignment actually seems to fix the partitions.  Thanks for the help guys.
6
Programming / Re: Qt6 Application Testing
« Last post by roberto on March 18, 2024, 06:48:28 pm »
A question for Paul.
I've found that the Dooble qt6 632 works best for me is when I have very low shared memory.
 I would say below 32mb.
 I wanted to ask if you could do a build, limiting the use of shared low memory to a maximum of 32mb.
 As far as I can see, even when you get to 0 shared memory, it takes high memory and moves it to low,
  to keep working.
But if I have a lot of low memory available, Dooble uses it and tends to crash, more often.

Saludos
7
Programming / Re: Partition alignment
« Last post by robertapengelly on March 18, 2024, 06:25:11 pm »
Okay new question (still related to alignment), how exactly would I align a sector exactly?  Say I have:

    starting sector: 128
    ending sector: 65536

How exactly would I align that?  Also, would I round up or down?
8
Programming / Re: Partition alignment
« Last post by robertapengelly on March 18, 2024, 06:06:01 pm »
Just realized I messed the last sentance up, it should have said:
I still have some partition problems though so maybe Lars was on to something with the end sector.
9
Programming / Re: Partition alignment
« Last post by robertapengelly on March 18, 2024, 05:54:50 pm »
 > the AOS FAQ you cited is out-of-date

Ohh okay, I was given that link by someone and I thought it was recent.  That would explain why I can create partitions on different CHS values instead of head 1 and sector 1.  I still have some partition problems though so maybe Lars was on to something.
10
Programming / Re: Partition alignment
« Last post by Rich Walsh on March 18, 2024, 05:41:06 pm »
Looking at the Partition Alignment section at https://www.arcanoae.com/faqwd/how-can-i-tell-if-my-current-disk-drive-is-compatible-with-arcaos/ it says:

 > ArcaOS expects partitions to be CHS-aligned

Does anyone know what it means by CHS-aligned?

For a comprehensive discussion of hard drive geometry (including some helpful illustrations) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder-head-sector. After reading that, the following will make sense: a CHS-aligned partition can start and end at any cylinder but it must start at the very beginning of the first cylinder (i.e. Head 0 Sector 1) and end at the very end of the last cylinder (typically, Head 255 Sector 63).

F.Y.I.  the AOS FAQ you cited is out-of-date: AOS 5.1 supports both NVME drives and the GPT partitioning scheme. It is also incorrect since OS/2 _does_ support partitions that are not cylinder-aligned (though no OS/2 tool will ever create a non-aligned partition).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10