OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum

WebSite Information => Comments, Suggestions & Questions => Topic started by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.02, 08:49:11

Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.02, 08:49:11
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.02, 02:41:15
(1) I find OS/2 to still be more stable than Windows. While GUI hangs are an issue with OS/2, tools like CAD help eliminate that issue (comes with eCS). In addition, even IF Windows was more stable when initially installed, it degrades severely over time, which OS/2 isn't prone to do to nearly the ame degree.
Unless you're using Windows 98, this is the exception rather than the rule.  When I retired my P4 in January it had been running the same Windows XP install since early 2003.  Four years on one install and never a blue screen, never a crash, never a quirk, and this PC was typically on 24x7 running any number of intense games or apps.  In the 'old days' it was common for Windows server operators to schedule periodic reboots.. They don't do that so much anymore.  Windows 2003 boxes can run for months and months without issue.  If Windows is not playing nice, 9 times out of 10 it is a sure sign there's something legitimately wrong with the hardware.
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.02, 02:41:15
(2) OS/2 still can serve more traffic than Windows on less resources (making it an ideal server solution).
OS/2 can be a good server if you have hardware it likes, the software you need, and nobody touches it.  Meeting all of these requirements may be tricky depending on what you want to do.  Bolting on *nix ported things like Apache and Samba are nice, but if you're at that point just to get the functionality you want, why not just run *nix?  They make VERY lean Linux distributions these days.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_Small_Linux ).  The benefit of OS/2 in this case again, is that it's virtually unhackable unless someone exploits a weakness in the the *nix-based code that happens to exist in the OS/2 port.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.02, 10:10:07

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.02, 02:41:15
Unless you're using Windows 98, this is the exception rather than the rule.  When I retired my P4 in January it had been running the same Windows XP install since early 2003.  Four years on one install and never a blue screen, never a crash, never a quirk, and this PC was typically on 24x7 running any number of intense games or apps.  In the 'old days' it was common for Windows server operators to schedule periodic reboots.. They don't do that so much anymore.  Windows 2003 boxes can run for months and months without issue.  If Windows is not playing nice, 9 times out of 10 it is a sure sign there's something legitimately wrong with the hardware.
I'm going to have to disagree on that one. My computer had a p3 notebook with 512 MB ram and windows xp that had never been reinstalled, and it ran insanly slow. Yes it was a p3 but it ran slower then a celeron with less ram that I had at home :). I kept telling my boss that we needed to reinstall windows, and he kept saying "no no.. that's hardly ever needed". He would spend hours clearing out log files, defraging etc etc.. (and no it did not have spyware/trojan issues)  Finally I got tired of it and just reinstalled the os without his permission, and it was like a totally different computer... Faster then lightning. I loved the look on his face that time although i'm sure he took credit for it anyway :)..
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.02, 10:11:34
My "Company" computer that is.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.02, 10:27:30
:\ I do not have any slow-down on my personal computer (WinXP) at all. I do minimal maintenance and have ZERO issues. I game quite intensely and also do some photo/video editing. I am not sure why people seem to have such issues with Windows, I can only assume its shoddy hardware or something else even. I however, again, have found OS/2 to not be NEARLY as stable as windows, nor as fast with every day tasks, some as simple as unzipping a file, opening a Mozilla app. Sure, my windows 98 laptop locked up pretty frequently, but never with something as stupid as multiple sound streams being the culprit. Or Firefox going on the flake, or right clicking a png file, or any other little oddity that sometimes crops up when im using OS/2. That being said, so long as you don't mess with it, it seems to stay quite stable. Im not certain where these issues arise from, but I can only assume that if something like the CW classes dont work properly on my eCS 2.0RC2 install, there are some low-lying issues that need to be ironed out in the install CD that you download.

As for OS/2 and hardware, it seemed rather picky this summer as it REFUSED to install on the computer it had been running on previously for over a year, with no hardware changes. I even wrote Serenity to set up a support Ticket. One day, it magically installed and ran again, and we have NO idea why. What could have caused this? No idea. Will it happen again? Hope not. Now that its running, its quite fine with my hardware and I dont have any WPS locks or crashes that I cant attribute to some application on the fritz, which says alot about the stability of the base operating system, which is that its quite good.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.02, 17:42:44
Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.02, 10:10:07
I'm going to have to disagree on that one. My computer had a p3 notebook with 512 MB ram and windows xp that had never been reinstalled, and it ran insanly slow. Yes it was a p3 but it ran slower then a celeron with less ram that I had at home :). I kept telling my boss that we needed to reinstall windows, and he kept saying "no no.. that's hardly ever needed". He would spend hours clearing out log files, defraging etc etc.. (and no it did not have spyware/trojan issues)  Finally I got tired of it and just reinstalled the os without his permission, and it was like a totally different computer... Faster then lightning. I loved the look on his face that time although i'm sure he took credit for it anyway :)..
We're veering off topic, but this is simple.  An XP box with 512MB and a P3 will run slow.  Why your Celeron with less RAM ran faster (I'm sure you benchmarked it, and it's not just a subjective estimation), well there can be many reasons.  The P3 may have had many apps running in memory, or maybe it was installed with poor/improper drivers.  You could be comparing a P3 with a later generation Celeron (they still make Celerons NOW which would totally destroy a P3 of course).  Really, most "WINDOWS IS TEH SLOW" commentary I see out there, people seem to be almost deliberately TRYING to make it run slow.  Which it will happily let you do.  But there are ways to determine why, built right into the OS.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.02, 21:16:24
Actually, Windows runs slower depending on the release. When XP came out, it wasnt uncommon to find 128MB or 256MB machines with it pre-installed. I've seen numerous older machines that are still at pre-SP1 or pre-SP2... and seem to run speedy - until you properly update the machine with the 300+MB worth of updates that come in SP2, and then the 100+ fixes since SP2. After that, you'll be begging for more memory. For some reason, some installs of Windows happily download any fix that will work on SP1 or pre-SP1 machines, without ever upgrading the machine to SP1 or SP2 and downloading the other fixes that rely on those SPs. Why? I dont know. It doesnt seem to be anything consistent (ie: it's not an issue with XP SP1... because many I've seen update to SP2, while others just dont - while claiming to have started at the same release level).

And of course, a fully patched XP machine will NOT run (will barely walk or crawl) with 128MB.

The other BIG contributing factor is AV and AntiSpyware software, which can bring many machines to a crawl.

As for OS/2 users in this forum having less problems with Windows, I'd expect to. You all are NOT your average joe computer user. You are less likely to infect or infest your machines with spyware, viruses or crappy programs. You are less likely to do things that hose your registry (which will bring Windows to a crawl far worse than hosing the OS2 INI files will).

As for speed, I dont know about you all, but I *have* done some benchmarks... namely via doing video transcoding, using ffMPEG and using mPlayer... my quad 550 WSeB machine beats our Athlon 2.8GHz XP machine on both tests per GHz (or more specifically, the WSeB machine takes 2-3 times longer than the XP machine - while using one CPU... meaning I can process 2-3 videos on the XP machine, while using all CPUs can do 4 to 6 on the WSeB machine - while if you do the math, the XP machine should crush it).
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.01, 22:29:55
How in the world does someone get an assignment about OS/2?

Well, whatever.[...]

An unbiased response can not be simply "whatever."

While I share with you the criticism at the Serenity business model, the rest of your non-constructive criticism directed at the OS/2 is from the perspective of someone indoctrinated into the family of  WinXX.  On the other hand, if you have been paying for the alpha and beta development of pseudo operating systems made by Gates --with each one really promising nirvana to its tribute payers-- why do you complain about Serenity's approach?  The latter is following exactly the same pattern as its WinXX countepart.

The development around the WinXX pseudo operating system overflows with commercial offerings, native drivers, applications, bells and whistles.  Not so with OS/2.  Accordingly, comparing the available resources to make WinXX "intuitive" --whatever that means to the Borg collective because I keep running away from the "intuitiveness" of WinXX and MacOS-- versus those available for the OS/2, is like ...comparing the "finesse" of people in resource rich "developed countries" against the "unrefined riff-raff" in "developing countries"  (using words from conservatives, er... narrow minded individuals).

Unless OS/2, or as a matter of fact, any other operating system, is executing in a paravirtualized environment, as your OS/2 instance is surely not the case, that emulated environment will no doubt greatly affect the performance of the virtualized operating system (driver issues, API mappings, etc.).  If you need help in distinguishing between paravirtualization, full virtualization, and software virtualization --and their relevancy to making a fair assessment of an operating system executing within those environments-- please become acquainted with the terms before making assertions based on shaky assumptions about the performance of any operating system –not just OS/2-- in those environments.

If  WinXX is the standard against which you are measuring the OS/2 environment experience, then you are right in saying that OS/2 is not for you.  And you should go back to the comfort of your Borg Collective environment.  Borrowing from a Unix saying, "OS/2 is not unfriendly –it simply is picky about who its friends are."

OS/2 is "not" Windows (and I for one would not desire it to be), and those of us who continue using it know about its limitations, but we also know about how to extend its functionality –either with free software and hacked drivers (like those from Daniela Engelbert), or with native applications that do not need to be upgraded with features that the herd only realizes it "needs" when hit with the marketing mob propaganda.  Yes ...and for those of us who also use Linux, the command line is what we regard as intuitive –not the mindless use of the critter.

It does not mean, notwithstanding, that I do not make use of the GUI components.  And I will simply state that if OS/2's GUI behaved as you described, i.e., hang after hang, I would have stopped using OS/2 and quite simply continue using Linux and/or Solaris instead.

Need a current office suite for your basic needs?  How about the free Software as a Service (SaaS) offering from Google Apps?  Those work from within your browser.  Speaking of the browser, there are certain OS/2 upgrade requirements that must be placed in the truth table cell before the assumption about crashes may be true.  Continuing speaking of the browser, Web applications might be the way to continue extending the existence of OS/2 since its proprietary masters do not want to let free the full potentiality of the chained OS beast and open source the code (my constructive approach).

In short, for our friend who is doing the research on OS/2, you can finalize your paper with the statement: OS/2 is being strangled by the proprietary business model --and by those who, like the paid MS "munchkins" of yesteryear, simply babble nonsense due to their basing their assertions on assumptions on stilts.

I am sorry if I offend the sensibilities of the WinXX users in the forum (I know there are many) but I have used MacOS, WinXX, Linux, Solaris, and of course OS/2 --all on real hardware and not only on virtualized environments-- and MacOS and WinXX simply are not as intuitive or stable as Linux, Solaris, or OS/2  (hint: I am simply following the pattern by our friend whom I am quoting  ;),
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.03, 00:52:31
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14

...In short, for our friend who is doing the research on OS/2, you can finalize your paper with the statement: OS/2 is being strangled by the proprietary business model --and by those who, like the paid MS "munchkins" of yesteryear, simply babble nonsense due to their basing their assertions on assumptions on stilts.

I am sorry if I offend the sensibilities of the WinXX users in the forum (I know there are many) but I have used MacOS, WinXX, Linux, Solaris, and of course OS/2 --all on real hardware and not only on virtualized environments-- and MacOS and WinXX simply are not as intuitive or stable as Linux, Solaris, or OS/2  (hint: I am simply following the pattern by our friend whom I am quoting  ;),

While El Vato brings up many valid points, there are some things I'd like to add. While OS/2 has a closed proprietary model (like Windows), it has many documented entry-points that at least allow it to be extended in numerous fashions (UNLIKE Windows).

Is OS/2 the solution to everyone's needs? No, especially since many of those "needs" consist of GAMES, or specific software that will never be ported to OS/2 (or any other OS for that matter) like Office 2007. Many of those "needs" aren't needs, so much as WANTS... OpenOffice or Google's Web Suite provide far cheaper alternatives to those closed source solutions we wont see on OS/2 - but require fighting the group mentality MS instills in too many consumers.

Now, as for OS/2 (the GUI) being non-intuitive, again I agree with El Vato, and again I will add some extra points. OS/2's GUI is HIGHLY intuitive... and better yet, is HIGHLY consistent. Windows is NOT. That someone is USED TO Windows GUI doesnt make OS/2's GUI non-intuitive. It just makes it different. Once I learned the difference between right-click and left-click, I fell in love with the fact that OS/2's GUI is more consistent, and allows me to execute more tasks by simply using the mouse and picking a certain button.

Heck, to this day MS cant decide what keyboard shortcut sets they want to use (which is why, as one of MANY examples, CTRL-INS works someplaces and CTRL-V works others, or both work in certain places). That is primarily because when they bought (or "acquired") the numerous products that make up their Windows OS and Office Suite, they never bothered to standardize on a particular method, or implement both methods... so the interface is thus inconsistent because it uses whatever standard the original company decided to implement.

This same behavior can be seen in numerous places in their GUI, where right-clicking on an icon one place produces different results than in other places, and until recently, even pulling up property notebooks from a shortcut or original, or from different locations, could produce drastically different results - unlike on OS/2.

Another great example of non-intuitive nature of the Windows GUI is that (EVEN WITH HAVING ACCESS TO IBM'S Presentation Manager and WPS CODE) MS still cannot get shortcuts to (1) properly reference the original object or (2) properly note state changes of the original object (for instance, if you delete the original or move the object, it doesnt delete or update the shortcut - or another example, it has no way of updating shortcuts or the original icon for that matter, to show that an object is running). That to me is non-intuitive... especially when the code to do it is very simple in theory, and available to MS to do whatever they want with.

Such things alone make OS/2's GUI MORE INTUITIVE, even if it has (a) a slightly higher learning curve (which I dont believe it does - see Point B), or (b) the need to re-learn things that work differently in Windows.

Does OS/2 have it's issues? Sure... but so does every OS, and I think you (subzero) are severely downplaying Windows' deficiencies; and exaggerating OS/2's.

-Robert
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.03, 07:47:18
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.02, 17:42:44
We're veering off topic, but this is simple.  An XP box with 512MB and a P3 will run slow.  Why your Celeron with less RAM ran faster (I'm sure you benchmarked it, and it's not just a subjective estimation), well there can be many reasons.  The P3 may have had many apps running in memory, or maybe it was installed with poor/improper drivers.  You could be comparing a P3 with a later generation Celeron (they still make Celerons NOW which would totally destroy a P3 of course).  Really, most "WINDOWS IS TEH SLOW" commentary I see out there, people seem to be almost deliberately TRYING to make it run slow.  Which it will happily let you do.  But there are ways to determine why, built right into the OS.
It's not really varing off topic that I can see. It was claimed that os/2 was more stable over time compared to windows which the poster felt tended to degrade (IE being in the topic of "some problem and limition of OS/2 or Advantages of OS2"). We're debating that point, so it's a continuation of the original topic and still relevent.

Anyhow.. I had left out specific technical details to make the point quickly, but since you wish to know the office machine was a p3 900mhz 512mb ram ata133 hard drive. The home computer was a celeron 466 320mb ram ata100. My comparison to the home machine was subjective, but I know it was faster (which of course you don't have to believe :).. I really don't care).
The comparison to the home machine however was not even the main point however. The point is that the P3 machine ran slow no matter what common "maintanence" things we did to try to improve it. After reinstalling the same OS, reapplying the same updates, reinstalling the same software (anti virus etc) it was much much faster - fast enough that my boss who never likes to admit he is wrong did not have anything to say other then I was right.[(so it wasn't just in my head :)]
It seemed obvious to me that the OS itself had degraded in performance over time.

Now, i'll fully admit there was some key I could have missed. But.. I routinely fix home computers for both friends and profit, and this experience has been repeated many times. So for now I believe it until I find that element.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
While I share with you the criticism at the Serenity business model, the rest of your non-constructive criticism directed at the OS/2 is from the perspective of someone indoctrinated into the family of  WinXX.  On the other hand, if you have been paying for the alpha and beta development of pseudo operating systems made by Gates --with each one really promising nirvana to its tribute payers-- why do you complain about Serenity's approach?  The latter is following exactly the same pattern as its WinXX countepart.
FYI - When you resort to MIKKKRO$$$$HAFT INTERNOT EXXXXPLODER!!!! GATE$$$$$!!!! logic, you really reduce your credibility.  I grew out of that thought process a long time ago, and now I see talk like this as pretty juvenile. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
The development around the WinXX pseudo operating system overflows with commercial offerings, native drivers, applications, bells and whistles.  Not so with OS/2.  Accordingly, comparing the available resources to make WinXX "intuitive" --whatever that means to the Borg collective because I keep running away from the "intuitiveness" of WinXX and MacOS-- versus those available for the OS/2, is like ...comparing the "finesse" of people in resource rich "developed countries" against the "unrefined riff-raff" in "developing countries"  (using words from conservatives, er... narrow minded individuals).
Linux was in better shape than OS/2 on the driver and application side LONG before it became popular to profit from it.  It's also become more intuitive and simply better over time while still being free.  The Mac OS, and OS X especially, has always been very intuitive.  I bought a Mac G4 for the sole purpose of learning OS X, and I definitely did not get a good value, as I learned pretty much everything I wanted to know about OS X in the span of about an hour.  During OS/2's prime the Mac OS of the time was around 7.5-8.0.  I tinkered with these under Basilisk II (a pre-PowerPC Mac emulator) and for the time they really were user friendly.  They were restrictive, but if they offered an option, that option worked the way it was expected to.  OS X is still like that today. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Unless OS/2, or as a matter of fact, any other operating system, is executing in a paravirtualized environment, as your OS/2 instance is surely not the case, that emulated environment will no doubt greatly affect the performance of the virtualized operating system (driver issues, API mappings, etc.).  If you need help in distinguishing between paravirtualization, full virtualization, and software virtualization --and their relevancy to making a fair assessment of an operating system executing within those environments-- please become acquainted with the terms before making assertions based on shaky assumptions about the performance of any operating system –not just OS/2-- in those environments.
The virtualized environment is really not out of the range of PCs that could run OS/2 today.  Virtualization is matured, so much in fact that Intel and AMD both have specific hardware options just for it, and companies like VMware exist specifically because of it.  The software I run, Virtualbox, is made by a company called Innotek.  Perhaps you have heard of them.  I'd say they know a thing or two about OS/2, so if anyone could run it in virtualization it would be them (in fact Innotek wrote the OS/2 additions for MS Virtual PC).  The hangups I am seeing are typical OS/2 hangups, not some mysterious problem that nobody has ever seen before. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14OS/2 is "not" Windows
IBM used to sell OS/2 as a "Better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows."  Even IBM thought OS/2 was Windows. 8)

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14native applications that do not need to be upgraded with features that the herd only realizes it "needs" when hit with the marketing mob propaganda.
This is a strange idea I hear thrown around.  Operating systems, like the rest of the PC, evolve.  If they didn't, we'd all be sitting at our 4.077Mhz IBM PCs and doing awesome spreadsheets with Lotus 1-2-3 1.0 in DOS.  Things like hardware accelerated graphics cards, PCI, plug and play, DVD-RW's, and 21" LCD panels happen because the public wants these things.  The internet happened because the people that could use it in the early days told people and as word got out and as dial-up ISP's started getting all kinds of users it just exploded.  There was no "marketing mob propaganda" there.  If there was, hey you sold out too I guess!  As for software, yeah, sometimes we don't realize how much we need something until it exists.  This goes back to the first primitive man to figure out that an old bone can be used as a tool.  You only need to spend a day browsing the web with Lynx and doing all your email with PINE to understand why we have GUIs today.  As hardware evolves I'm sure we will see software in a few years with features we can't understand how we got by without them.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Yes ...and for those of us who also use Linux, the command line is what we regard as intuitive –not the mindless use of the critter.
Mindless?  A computer has a function.  To the average user, the function is simple, and I can quote an average user: 

"All I want to do is push the button."

This is it.  This is what the user wants.  It's all they want.  Push the button, complete task.  In 2007 we can complete many tasks with a tiny, tiny fraction of the time and work required in the 80's.  In 2007 anyone, *anyone* can produce music, write novels, post stupid videos of themselves, or whatever, and with a snap have it visible to a good percentage of the human population of earth.  I'd safely say the mouse has helped in more than a minor way.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14It does not mean, notwithstanding, that I do not make use of the GUI components.  And I will simply state that if OS/2's GUI behaved as you described, i.e., hang after hang, I would have stopped using OS/2 and quite simply continue using Linux and/or Solaris instead.
This is pretty much what happened for the majority of OS/2 users from the 90's.  I gave up, everyone I knew gave up, hey even IBM gave up.  In my case the entire purpose of using OS/2 was to run a DOS-based BBS I ran back then.  It performed this task exceptionally well due to my "stability through inaction" I mentioned earlier.  In those days we also had a much more limited software library as there were no web browsers or email clients or Java or whatever else.  Heck, I was still using e.exe as my word processor.  When I stopped running the BBS I simply had no real need for OS/2 anymore, as Windows 95 did the things I really wanted to do, like play games and use things like Office, which even then people were giving me .doc files and Office was the only way I could reliably open them.  Apparently I wasn't the only one to reach this conclusion.  Windows NT 3.51/4.0 gave me the early NT knowledge I would rely on for the next several years and eventually get into some decent jobs doing work around Windows and networks that they run on, which was the right idea since really, how often do you see jobs for OS/2 support?  I haven't even had it on my resume in several years.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Need a current office suite for your basic needs?  How about the free Software as a Service (SaaS) offering from Google Apps?  Those work from within your browser.  Speaking of the browser, there are certain OS/2 upgrade requirements that must be placed in the truth table cell before the assumption about crashes may be true.  Continuing speaking of the browser, Web applications might be the way to continue extending the existence of OS/2 since its proprietary masters do not want to let free the full potentiality of the chained OS beast and open source the code (my constructive approach).
Google's apps so far are primitive but cute and show promise.  What happens though when those apps want to use a plugin like Flash 9, or some higher version of Java?  Youtube is a mere hint of the problems OS/2 has to face if these things become more "assumed" to be on all browsers that the provider feels they care about.  On the top-end this is already screwing with adopters of 64-bit OSs (which Linux and Windows both offer), since there is no 64-bit Flash.  The chance of a 64-bit Flash eventually happening is pretty high; the chance of Flash 9 in OS/2 is less certain.  It certainly won't be Adobe making it.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14In short, for our friend who is doing the research on OS/2, you can finalize your paper with the statement: OS/2 is being strangled by the proprietary business model --and by those who, like the paid MS "munchkins" of yesteryear, simply babble nonsense due to their basing their assertions on assumptions on stilts.
Believe what you like.  Did MS make some predatory moves to get Windows installed on more machines?  The government already agrees they probably did.  Is MS unbeatable?  Linux has shown us they are certainly beatable in many areas.  Linux has a little ways to go before it will be at a Windows-level of consumer friendliness, but it's very close, much closer than even a couple of years ago.  Ubuntu 7.04 blew me away with how well they conceal the underpinnings, like OS X hides the fact that it's based on BSD.  Users don't need to know what /dev/hdc is.  Users don't care.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
While I share with you the criticism at the Serenity business model, the rest of your non-constructive criticism directed at the OS/2 is from the perspective of someone indoctrinated into the family of  WinXX.  On the other hand, if you have been paying for the alpha and beta development of pseudo operating systems made by Gates --with each one really promising nirvana to its tribute payers-- why do you complain about Serenity's approach?  The latter is following exactly the same pattern as its WinXX countepart.
FYI - When you resort to MIKKKRO$$$$HAFT INTERNOT EXXXXPLODER!!!! GATE$$$$$!!!! logic, you really reduce your credibility.  I grew out of that thought process a long time ago, and now I see talk like this as pretty juvenile.

Did you grow out of it or did the notion actually consumed you --without you realizing it?  "The fish does not realize that the water is wet."  Besides, as is typical of an conservative, you avoid the gist of the concept and focus instead on the periphery of the argument.  The core of the argument –that-- you left unanswered. 

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
The development around the WinXX pseudo operating system overflows with commercial offerings, native drivers, applications, bells and whistles.  Not so with OS/2.  Accordingly, comparing the available resources to make WinXX "intuitive" --whatever that means to the Borg collective because I keep running away from the "intuitiveness" of WinXX and MacOS-- versus those available for the OS/2, is like ...comparing the "finesse" of people in resource rich "developed countries" against the "unrefined riff-raff" in "developing countries"  (using words from conservatives, er... narrow minded individuals).
Linux was in better shape than OS/2 on the driver and application side LONG before it became popular to profit from it.  It's also become more intuitive and simply better over time while still being free.  The Mac OS, and OS X especially, has always been very intuitive.  I bought a Mac G4 for the sole purpose of learning OS X, and I definitely did not get a good value, as I learned pretty much everything I wanted to know about OS X in the span of about an hour.  During OS/2's prime the Mac OS of the time was around 7.5-8.0.  I tinkered with these under Basilisk II (a pre-PowerPC Mac emulator) and for the time they really were user friendly.  They were restrictive, but if they offered an option, that option worked the way it was expected to.  OS X is still like that today.

"LONG" is an ambiguous word and is used typically in arguments where the user attempts to hide his/her ignorance of the issue s/he is dealing with –conveniently changing the meaning of the word as an argument progresses.

Well at the risk of giving you an more definite reference for your "LONG" ambiguity, here is some insight from actual experience.  You obviously never installed an Linux distro before 1998 or 1999.   As I had 3 versions of OS/2 in a multiboot environment, the X windows in Linux distros required some painful tinkering to display properly (no, do not be deceived by current MS propaganda, the word "windows" existed "LONG" before the "intuitiveness" of your operating system name).

We should not forget that as far as 1998, companies like Oracle began noticing the traction that Linux was generating in the circles of those who regard your notions of "intuitiveness" as, to use a word of your own, "juvenile."  Accordingly, inhouse resources began to be pumped into continuing development of Linux so as to host  Oracle's crown jewel: its database.  IBM and others did likewise.  Needless to say, resources for the OS/2 were redirected to Linux.

I am not surprised that you regard Mac of "LONG" ago "intuitive," Gates has been stealing, er "borrowing" ideas from that OS since that "LONG."

Again, this is an specious and self serving argument.  You are simply exhibiting  the "wetness" property of the fish-in-pond analogy that I advanced before.  Not all of us are in that MS pond in which you comfortably swim.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Unless OS/2, or as a matter of fact, any other operating system, is executing in a paravirtualized environment, as your OS/2 instance is surely not the case, that emulated environment will no doubt greatly affect the performance of the virtualized operating system (driver issues, API mappings, etc.).  If you need help in distinguishing between paravirtualization, full virtualization, and software virtualization --and their relevancy to making a fair assessment of an operating system executing within those environments-- please become acquainted with the terms before making assertions based on shaky assumptions about the performance of any operating system –not just OS/2-- in those environments.
The virtualized environment is really not out of the range of PCs that could run OS/2 today.  Virtualization is matured, so much in fact that Intel and AMD both have specific hardware options just for it, and companies like VMware exist specifically because of it.  The software I run, Virtualbox, is made by a company called Innotek.  Perhaps you have heard of them.  I'd say they know a thing or two about OS/2, so if anyone could run it in virtualization it would be them (in fact Innotek wrote the OS/2 additions for MS Virtual PC).  The hangups I am seeing are typical OS/2 hangups, not some mysterious problem that nobody has ever seen before.

I asked you if you knew about the difference in the three major types of x86 virtualization –and how they affect the performance of any operating system.

As before your assumption about Innotek is walking on stilts.  I did not ask you about whether you "believed" that a virtualized environment "really not out of the range of PCs that could run OS/2 today."  You did not offer support for that assertion other than by reasoning by (faulty) analogy that "...they know a thing or two about OS/2..." because [they]  "...wrote the OS/2 additions for MS Virtual PC."

Virtual Box is "not" Virtual PC  --the former uses hardware extensions to provide the virtualization environment for OS/2; the latter uses full software virtualization to achieve the same task. Two very different approaches that effectively are  relevant in an unbiased evaluation of non- alpha or beta releases of Virtual Box, capisci? 

Please, do your homework and base your assertions on a solid foundation and not on self-serving and baseless arguments that only reveal your ignorance of the subject.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14OS/2 is "not" Windows
IBM used to sell OS/2 as a "Better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows."  Even IBM thought OS/2 was Windows. 8)
Yes.  MS indoctrinates engage in history revisionism whenever they can.  I will not take credit for that observation, notwithstanding.  Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape Communications made a similar observation.  I never thought that history revisionism was considered "cool" in the MS pond.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14native applications that do not need to be upgraded with features that the herd only realizes it "needs" when hit with the marketing mob propaganda.
This is a strange idea I hear thrown around.  Operating systems, like the rest of the PC, evolve.  If they didn't, we'd all be sitting at our 4.077Mhz IBM PCs and doing awesome spreadsheets with Lotus 1-2-3 1.0 in DOS.  Things like hardware accelerated graphics cards, PCI, plug and play, DVD-RW's, and 21" LCD panels happen because the public wants these things.  The internet happened because the people that could use it in the early days told people and as word got out and as dial-up ISP's started getting all kinds of users it just exploded.  There was no "marketing mob propaganda" there.  If there was, hey you sold out too I guess!  As for software, yeah, sometimes we don't realize how much we need something until it exists.  This goes back to the first primitive man to figure out that an old bone can be used as a tool.  You only need to spend a day browsing the web with Lynx and doing all your email with PINE to understand why we have GUIs today.  As hardware evolves I'm sure we will see software in a few years with features we can't understand how we got by without them.

This is something that continues to amaze me from the conservative bunch: how they lump all this notions into a self serving soup mixture to concoct an self serving and specious answer.  What does "evolution" of hardware, the Internet, etc., have to do with the marketing induced behaviour of the Borg collective???

I can only assume that MS has redefined the term "evolution" to hide the true or conventional meaning to its tribute payers.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Yes ...and for those of us who also use Linux, the command line is what we regard as intuitive –not the mindless use of the critter.
Mindless?  A computer has a function.  To the average user, the function is simple, and I can quote an average user: 

"All I want to do is push the button."

How many times?  What do you do when it does not work?  You go out and buy the "new version" of the "improved," "security enhanced," "one click," solution MS "snake oil" product.  Subsequently, a month or two down the road, you come against another "intuitiveness" barrier and the cycle is repeated all over.  This vicious cycle stuffs a lot of cash in your master's mouth and induces it to fight to maintain a firmer grip on you.

I do not have that problem with the command line, period.  OS/2 users know how to extend the OS/2 functionality because we do not share the mindless notion of "intuitiveness" that compels those in the MS pond to prolong the vicious cycle that keeps the MS pockets full of cash.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
This is it.  This is what the user wants.  It's all they want.  Push the button, complete task.  In 2007 we can complete many tasks with a tiny, tiny fraction of the time and work required in the 80's.  In 2007 anyone, *anyone* can produce music, write novels, post stupid videos

By any chance, at the push of a button, have you been spamming users like me with email headlines like: Dude, you have to see the funniest video?

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14
of themselves, or whatever, and with a snap have it visible to a good percentage of the human population of earth.  I'd safely say the mouse has helped in more than a minor way.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14It does not mean, notwithstanding, that I do not make use of the GUI components.  And I will simply state that if OS/2's GUI behaved as you described, i.e., hang after hang, I would have stopped using OS/2 and quite simply continue using Linux and/or Solaris instead.

This is pretty much what happened for the majority of OS/2 users from the 90's.  I gave up, everyone I knew gave up, hey even IBM gave up.  In my case the entire purpose of using OS/2 was to run a DOS-based BBS I ran back then.  It performed this task exceptionally well due to my "stability through inaction" I mentioned earlier.  In those days we also had a much more limited software library as there were no web browsers or email clients or Java or whatever else.  Heck, I was still using e.exe as my word processor.  When I stopped running the BBS I simply had no real need for OS/2 anymore, as Windows 95 did the things I really wanted to do, like play games and use things like Office, which even then people were giving me .doc files and Office was the only way I could reliably open them.  Apparently I wasn't the only one to reach this conclusion.  Windows NT 3.51/4.0 gave me the early NT knowledge I would rely on for the next several years and eventually get into some decent jobs doing work around Windows and networks that they run on, which was the right idea since really, how often do you see jobs for OS/2 support?  I haven't even had it on my resume in several years.

Having spent the mid 90s resolving Linux issues so as to master (some of) the OS intricacies, never left me time to
engage in the shallowness of game playing.  Accordingly, I have contributed, by my early input to the Linux community, to enable WinXX users like you to be "bold" enough and try something "intuitive" to click-and-click, install and use, click-and-click, as Ubuntu.

Notwithstanding, I would like to know if there is a game level that you can attain that rewards you with nirvana, thus allowing you to escape the MS grip?

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14Need a current office suite for your basic needs?  How about the free Software as a Service (SaaS) offering from Google Apps?  Those work from within your browser.  Speaking of the browser, there are certain OS/2 upgrade requirements that must be placed in the truth table cell before the assumption about crashes may be true.  Continuing speaking of the browser, Web applications might be the way to continue extending the existence of OS/2 since its proprietary masters do not want to let free the full potentiality of the chained OS beast and open source the code (my constructive approach).
Google's apps so far are primitive but cute and show promise.  What happens though when those apps want to use a plugin like Flash 9, or some higher version of Java?  Youtube is a mere hint of the problems OS/2 has to face if these things become more "assumed" to be on all browsers that the provider feels they care about.  On the top-end this is already screwing with adopters of 64-bit OSs (which Linux and Windows both offer), since there is no 64-bit Flash.  The chance of a 64-bit Flash eventually happening is pretty high; the chance of Flash 9 in OS/2 is less certain.  It certainly won't be Adobe making it.

Again, do not try to deform the core of the argument so that it can fit into your preconceived notion.  I addressed the complaint that you raised about the lack of a current application for an OS/2er to collaborate with other platforms now.

And as long as there is an current OS/2 browser you can use Google Apps now

That effecively takes care of your complaint for an office suite for OS/2 now.   

Zooming out, and surveying the limited logical patch where you connect that dots to form your specious assertions, one can see that you are thinking full compatibility with MS Office --but unless an user migrates to MacOS and/or WinXX, no other platform office application (Linux, OS/2, Solaris, in alphabetical order, only) can be 100 percent compatible because the proprietary office suite of reference implements an close format.  And there the reason that the Open Document Format (ODF) is being fought so hard by your master:  ODF implies loosening the grip on the likes of you.

That you insist on clobbering the OS/2  --performing on real hardware-- based on your virtualized instance experience simply represents an extension of your self-serving argument thread.  Additionally,  by hypothesizing future issues that an resource-starved operating system will face is like ...those conservatives that argue that  (humans) who live in "developing nations" will not achieve anything and therefore expendable since their fate is already determined.  In short, your answer is "juvenile" --using your own words.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.03, 18:39:00
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.03, 00:09:14In short, for our friend who is doing the research on OS/2, you can finalize your paper with the statement: OS/2 is being strangled by the proprietary business model --and by those who, like the paid MS "munchkins" of yesteryear, simply babble nonsense due to their basing their assertions on assumptions on stilts.
Believe what you like.  Did MS make some predatory moves to get Windows installed on more machines?  The government already agrees they probably did.  Is MS unbeatable?  Linux has shown us they are certainly beatable in many areas.  Linux has a little ways to go before it will be at a Windows-level of consumer friendliness, but it's very close, much closer than even a couple of years ago.  Ubuntu 7.04 blew me away with how well they conceal the underpinnings, like OS X hides the fact that it's based on BSD.  Users don't need to know what /dev/hdc is.  Users don't care.
No.  Believe what makes your master most comfortable --after all, it promotes Novell's SuSE distro because it serves their narrow beliefs of IP ownership, whereas at the same time denying any violation from software products like the MacOS.  On the other hand, I commend you on exploring alternatives to MS  --Ubuntu is a good "intuitive" first step in the process of coming out of the MS pond ...just leave behind the "juvenil" OS/2  bashing that is indoctrinated in the psyches of the Borg collective in your pond.   

There used to be talk, in the developers' circles, of implementing the OS/2 GUI into Linux  --take that as an indication of the maturity of that OS/2 interface.
Title: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 01:00:56
Not to step into an argument where I dont belong, but I am fairly sure that bashing Windows and those who choose to use it is just as juvenile as he was implying you were. Further, it would seem rather base to call gaming a "shallow" endeavor just because you yourself do not partake of it or enjoy it. As a gamer, I find it affords me a nice past-time similar to watching movies, but with a level of interaction that affords it (in my mind) more value. This is neither here nor there, you two will obviously never see eye to eye and I do not wish to involve myself further, but I felt the above needed to be mentioned, if in passing only.

Edit:
Lol at the clip/new thread move, very apropriate :p
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 06:46:19
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 01:00:56
Not to step into an argument where I dont belong, [...]
Saijin_Naib,

The last time I saw the inside of the headquarters of the X Men, Professor X was using OS/2's WSEB, Jean and Storm were using Linux distros (Slackware and Debian, respectively), Jubilee and Cyclops were using WinXX, whereas Beast, having finished the Bhagavad Gita, was immersed reading Dostoevsky's The Brothers karamazov --and he had nearby the works of the French Existentialist, Albert Camus.

Despite the fact that they were paranormal individuals with powers far beyond the mere mortal, they were not playing games  ;)

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 07:00:38
Whoa.
You will forgive me, but I think that post was far beyond my comprehension.
Care to piece it up and explain it to me?
??? its been one of those weeks, Im all out of thinkability. And yes, thats a word now.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Did you grow out of it or did the notion actually consumed you --without you realizing it?  "The fish does not realize that the water is wet."  Besides, as is typical of an conservative, you avoid the gist of the concept and focus instead on the periphery of the argument.  The core of the argument –that-- you left unanswered.
I grew out of it, because I realized that people were insulting Windows more and more because they were simply jealous.  The more I used it, I realized it wasn't as bad as people said it was, it was more functional, and more compatible, and simply a better user experience. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Well at the risk of giving you an more definite reference for your "LONG" ambiguity, here is some insight from actual experience.  You obviously never installed an Linux distro before 1998 or 1999.   As I had 3 versions of OS/2 in a multiboot environment, the X windows in Linux distros required some painful tinkering to display properly (no, do not be deceived by current MS propaganda, the word "windows" existed "LONG" before the "intuitiveness" of your operating system name).
If you're going to get into my personal life, ok I'll bite.  My first experiences with Linux were in the pre-1.0 kernel days circa 1992, my friend at university showed it to me.  I really only tried it seriously in around summer 1993, installed off a brick of floppy disks.  I never said Linux was intuitive back then, I said it had the driver and app advantage.  And it did.  I mean even then it came with something like five desktop managers and all kinds of little tools and apps and games and whatever.  It was a pain to set up, but once it was running it was kinda nice.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
I asked you if you knew about the difference in the three major types of x86 virtualization –and how they affect the performance of any operating system.
You actually never asked any questions about virtualization.  There are no question marks in that entire paragraph.
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Virtual Box is "not" Virtual PC  --the former uses hardware extensions to provide the virtualization environment for OS/2; the latter uses full software virtualization to achieve the same task. Two very different approaches that effectively are  relevant in an unbiased evaluation of non- alpha or beta releases of Virtual Box, capisci?
While Virtualbox can use hardware virtualization extensions it certainly doesn't have to, in fact the default setting for VB is to run without them.  Virtualbox will happily run on hardware that doesn't even have these features.  There's also nothing stopping MS from coding Virtual PC to use them either, except for the desire to do so.
*EDIT*  MS Virtual PC 2007 does indeed have an option to use hardware virtualization

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Yes.  MS indoctrinates engage in history revisionism whenever they can.  I will not take credit for that observation, notwithstanding.  Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape Communications made a similar observation.  I never thought that history revisionism was considered "cool" in the MS pond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
QuoteOS/2 2.0, released in April 1992, was touted by IBM as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows."
I even remember seeing this exact quote in the trade mags of the time.  It was an honest to goodness slogan used by IBM .
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
This is something that continues to amaze me from the conservative bunch: how they lump all this notions into a self serving soup mixture to concoct an self serving and specious answer.  What does "evolution" of hardware, the Internet, etc., have to do with the marketing induced behaviour of the Borg collective???
There is no doubt that MS's movements can shift the industry and push things in certain directions.  It's no small coincidence that memory prices get crazy (and usually plummet) when MS releases an OS with higher memory requirements.  Windows 95 did it, XP did it, Vista is doing it now.  Microsoft brought us into the PnP world kicking and screaming.  Windows single-handedly created the current video card market.  I remember before Windows 95, Linux shipped by default booting to text mode.  Soon after Windows 95, most linux distributions of the time suddenly decided to make a GUI as the default.  Interesting.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
How many times?  What do you do when it does not work?  You go out and buy the "new version" of the "improved," "security enhanced," "one click," solution MS "snake oil" product.  Subsequently, a month or two down the road, you come against another "intuitiveness" barrier and the cycle is repeated all over.  This vicious cycle stuffs a lot of cash in your master's mouth and induces it to fight to maintain a firmer grip on you.
What "does not work?"  When is a user forced to buy a new version?  Does the old version expire and suddenly cease function?  If I broke out Windows 3.1 and tried to install it (on hardware it would work on) would it refuse because it's too old?  Would Office 4.2 refuse to install strictly because it reached some expiration date?  No.  Your perception of forced updating comes from the fact that the outside world upgrades, and we upgrade to keep up with the Jones'.  Microsoft isn't forcing you to upgrade, the guy sending you a .docx file is.  Microsoft doesn't send people to your house to make sure you are running Vista.  Windows XP is still a very good and viable OS that many people don't want to give up.  People will stop using XP when Vista and it's successors offer enough to encourage it, or the hardware makers decide that there is no reasonable purpose to do so. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
I do not have that problem with the command line, period.  OS/2 users know how to extend the OS/2 functionality because we do not share the mindless notion of "intuitiveness" that compels those in the MS pond to prolong the vicious cycle that keeps the MS pockets full of cash.
If you consider intuitiveness to be mindless, why are you here?  Go break out a chisel and find a stone and chip out your opinions.  The command line is dead to the general public.  They don't need it, they don't want it.  The use of the command line today is akin to a time in man's history when people had to kill all their own food and make all their own clothing.  Do you kill all your own food and make all your own clothing?  That computer you are sitting at, did you construct it from the atomic level right down to the traces on the chips?  To do anything else is way too easy.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
By any chance, at the push of a button, have you been spamming users like me with email headlines like: Dude, you have to see the funniest video?
I rarely get those kinds of emails.  If you get them, perhaps your friends are more "average user" than you think.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Having spent the mid 90s resolving Linux issues so as to master (some of) the OS intricacies, never left me time to
engage in the shallowness of game playing.  Accordingly, I have contributed, by my early input to the Linux community, to enable WinXX users like you to be "bold" enough and try something "intuitive" to click-and-click, install and use, click-and-click, as Ubuntu.
Game playing, shallow?  Gaming is a relaxing way to release stress and is fun.  If you do not game that is too bad, but don't dis gaming.  These people are "shallow gamers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Bleszinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Fong
There's also that F4tal1ty guy I can't find since I can't figure out the right spelling of his nickname

Would you consider yourself to be (more) or (less) successful than these gamers?

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Zooming out, and surveying the limited logical patch where you connect that dots to form your specious assertions, one can see that you are thinking full compatibility with MS Office --but unless an user migrates to MacOS and/or WinXX, no other platform office application (Linux, OS/2, Solaris, in alphabetical order, only) can be 100 percent compatible because the proprietary office suite of reference implements an close format.  And there the reason that the Open Document Format (ODF) is being fought so hard by your master:  ODF implies loosening the grip on the likes of you.
???
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3618176
They officially agreed to back ODF over a year ago.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/may07/05-16ANSIVotePR.mspx

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
No.  Believe what makes your master most comfortable --after all, it promotes Novell's SuSE distro because it serves their narrow beliefs of IP ownership, whereas at the same time denying any violation from software products like the MacOS.  On the other hand, I commend you on exploring alternatives to MS  --Ubuntu is a good "intuitive" first step in the process of coming out of the MS pond ...just leave behind the "juvenil" OS/2  bashing that is indoctrinated in the psyches of the Borg collective in your pond.
See, I don't understand this "master" and "borg" thing.  To me a computer is a tool used to complete a task.  I use the operating system that best allows me to complete that task.  OS/2 was not the best tool for that task.  Linux is not the best tool for that task.  Windows is the best tool for that task.  My tasks, and your tasks, seem to be very different.  Operating systems are not a "one size fits all" thing, though Windows would appear to scale better to the tasks of the general public, and beyond that.  I hardly use Windows because OOH SHINY!!  Because really, Linux is far shinier.  But again, Linux doesn't do what I want to do.  Windows is the prerequisite for the tasks I want to perform.  It's not a fashion show.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13There used to be talk, in the developers' circles, of implementing the OS/2 GUI into Linux  --take that as an indication of the maturity of that OS/2 interface.
There's nothing stopping anyone from coding an open source PM for Linux now.  You'll notice there's no such thing.  Take that as an indication as to how much people who don't use OS/2 care about OS/2 today.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35
MODERATOR HAT ON:
While we dont have any specific problem with the OS/2 vs Windows debate, lets please keep it civil - meaning no attacks on each other please.
MODERATOR HAT OFF



Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Yes.  MS indoctrinates engage in history revisionism whenever they can.  I will not take credit for that observation, notwithstanding.  Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape Communications made a similar observation.  I never thought that history revisionism was considered "cool" in the MS pond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
QuoteOS/2 2.0, released in April 1992, was touted by IBM as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows."
I even remember seeing this exact quote in the trade mags of the time.  It was an honest to goodness slogan used by IBM .

True... but not out of confusion over what OS/2 was... it was (many supporting documents out there) an attempt to leverage the interest into Windows over to OS/2 where the hopes were that users would find OS/2 apps more intuitive, faster and more stable than their Windows counterparts while preserving their investment in Windows and DOS apps.


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
This is something that continues to amaze me from the conservative bunch: how they lump all this notions into a self serving soup mixture to concoct an self serving and specious answer.  What does "evolution" of hardware, the Internet, etc., have to do with the marketing induced behaviour of the Borg collective???
There is no doubt that MS's movements can shift the industry and push things in certain directions.  It's no small coincidence that memory prices get crazy (and usually plummet) when MS releases an OS with higher memory requirements.  Windows 95 did it, XP did it, Vista is doing it now.  Microsoft brought us into the PnP world kicking and screaming.  Windows single-handedly created the current video card market.  I remember before Windows 95, Linux shipped by default booting to text mode.  Soon after Windows 95, most linux distributions of the time suddenly decided to make a GUI as the default.  Interesting.

One big issue with that - which every OTHER (non-Windows) OS has faced is the plethora of new hardware where MS gets the manufacturers to design them to certain (MS's) specs, making it difficult to get the hardware running on another OS. Video cards, and WinModems and WinPrinters being just a few categories.

Keep in mind that much of those situations have also been through MS outright lying to customers - for instance the original Win95 boxes that horrendously understated their memory requirements at 4MB instead of the 8MB they needed (which were eventually revised). The same is happening with Vista - where the minimum requirements barely run the particular OS - much less another browser or Office or OpenOffice - which require an upgrade. That's called deceptive marketing and deceptive trade practices - but it does drive the hardware market...


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
How many times?  What do you do when it does not work?  You go out and buy the "new version" of the "improved," "security enhanced," "one click," solution MS "snake oil" product.  Subsequently, a month or two down the road, you come against another "intuitiveness" barrier and the cycle is repeated all over.  This vicious cycle stuffs a lot of cash in your master's mouth and induces it to fight to maintain a firmer grip on you.
What "does not work?"  When is a user forced to buy a new version?  Does the old version expire and suddenly cease function?  If I broke out Windows 3.1 and tried to install it (on hardware it would work on) would it refuse because it's too old?  Would Office 4.2 refuse to install strictly because it reached some expiration date?  No.  Your perception of forced updating comes from the fact that the outside world upgrades, and we upgrade to keep up with the Jones'.  Microsoft isn't forcing you to upgrade, the guy sending you a .docx file is.  Microsoft doesn't send people to your house to make sure you are running Vista.  Windows XP is still a very good and viable OS that many people don't want to give up.  People will stop using XP when Vista and it's successors offer enough to encourage it, or the hardware makers decide that there is no reasonable purpose to do so. 

Check out Wikipedia for the list of programs that were rendered inoperative (ie: incompatible) with Vista... there are similar lists for each OS release... and the lists are far from all inclusive, yet still pretty big. I do agree with your last statement though (the one I bolded). I somewhat disagree with the one I put in italics... MS knows, by changing the format of the DOC files (as one example) that people buying new computers, with the new Office will force others to upgrade. It isnt the guy sending the file who is forcing it... it IS MS for changing the format, and/or not releasing a simple patch for the older version, and then ensuring only the new version can be purchased, thus slowly forcing everyone to upgrade to stay "compatible" - heck even the OpenOffice Team figured out how to read the new formats... yet MS cant provide that feature for earlier versions of Office? C'mon!



As for the rest, many versions of Unix booted to a GUI long before MS even started borrowing writing a GUI. Using one Unix variant as an example isnt a good example. Regardless, in a server world, I'd prefer if all server apps DIDNT require a GUI... they are faster, more responsive, and easier to deal with from a server perspective - on ANY OS.

And as for gaming, I do not think that a desire to play games - or a desire NOT to play games means anything at all. Me personally, for gaming, choose either XP or a PS2/PS3/xBox.... for almost everything else I choose OS/2.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 21:26:58
One quibble, there is the Office Compatability pack, free to licensed users of Office that allows compatabilty of the older office suites with the new MS office formats. So no forced upgrade there.

Personally, I had no troubles running the BETA of vista on damned near the minimum specs, but obviously, I am alone in not having problems with running Windows properly.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 22:02:22
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 21:26:58
One quibble, there is the Office Compatability pack, free to licensed users of Office that allows compatabilty of the older office suites with the new MS office formats. So no forced upgrade there.

Really? Where can I find it? That's a first for them, and one we've not yet seen here.

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 21:26:58
Personally, I had no troubles running the BETA of vista on damned near the minimum specs, but obviously, I am alone in not having problems with running Windows properly.

What specs are those? And are you also (under those specs) running Firefox, or OpenOffice, or a game (that would otherwise run on XP on those specs)?

See, my point was this (which perhaps I should have elaborated)... (1) those minimum specs usually barely support JUST the OS... not a very useful experience. and (2) MS has claimed NUMEROUS times that Vista is faster than XP... that claim is of course very bogus/misleading since on the same hardware, Vista is SLOWER than XP.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.04, 22:14:43
Office Compatability Pack:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA101686761033.aspx

As for vista vs XP, I dislike both, Id rather be on 2kpro but thats not viable anymore. But yes, XP is faster, but then again, so is 2k on the same hardware, and so is ME on the same hardware, and so forth. And yes, I made extensive use of Vista when I was beta testing (it was my primary OS for 4 months after all), and I found it to be perfectably acceptable and stable for a BETA OS, especially considering that the NVIDIA drivers were in early beta at the time I was using it (July 2006 to early November 2006).

Specs were as follows:

Pentium 3 based M: 1.8ghz
256mb RAM
40gb IDE drive
Intel 845m graphics chipset
---------------------------
Pentium 4 with HT 3.06ghz
512mb RAM
40gb IDE drive
Nvidia FX5500 graphics chipset

I have yet to try it with my 7600GT and 2gb of RAM, but I am certain it would damn near fly, just like XP has with its new goodies and the page/swap turned off. I wish eCS had hardware acceleration for my 7600GT so I could actually appreciate the performance boost the new goodies should have given it. Alas, this is not so. Maybe one day we can get the nvidia UDA ported to eCS or something.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: The Blue Warper on 2007.11.05, 02:29:09
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13There used to be talk, in the developers' circles, of implementing the OS/2 GUI into Linux  --take that as an indication of the maturity of that OS/2 interface.
There's nothing stopping anyone from coding an open source PM for Linux now.  You'll notice there's no such thing.  Take that as an indication as to how much people who don't use OS/2 care about OS/2 today.

I *think* El Vato had in mind OS/2 WPS (WorkPlace Shell) rather than OS/2 PM.  Where the latter is the layer responsible for drawing the windows, making them 'physically' interact with user input (via keyboard or mouse actions), and so on; while the former is the actual interface (an object interface, in the case of OS/2) which handles the objects of your system according to its own paradigm.
And it's this very paradigm what makes OS/2 so special to its users (which doesn't necessarily mean all users).

[Just wanted to clarify a bit.  Hope I didn't misinterpreted any of you...]
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 04:28:03
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35
One big issue with that - which every OTHER (non-Windows) OS has faced is the plethora of new hardware where MS gets the manufacturers to design them to certain (MS's) specs, making it difficult to get the hardware running on another OS. Video cards, and WinModems and WinPrinters being just a few categories.
As a tech in the 90's I can safely say no intelligent Linux user would have wanted a winmodem at that time anyway.  I haven't used a modem in years so I don't know what they are like anymore, but I assume they still make hardware modems for people who need them.  As for printers, most printers I know have Windows and Mac drivers.  It would be tricky for a winprinter to work on a Mac so I assume these are not winprinters.  I don't own a printer, tho the last one I owned had Mac drivers as well.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35Keep in mind that much of those situations have also been through MS outright lying to customers - for instance the original Win95 boxes that horrendously understated their memory requirements at 4MB instead of the 8MB they needed (which were eventually revised). The same is happening with Vista - where the minimum requirements barely run the particular OS - much less another browser or Office or OpenOffice - which require an upgrade. That's called deceptive marketing and deceptive trade practices - but it does drive the hardware market...
While it's true the minimum requirements are often kinda of silly, I see people asking about running operating systems in ridiculously low memory conditions frequently enough that MS must think there's method to the madness.  Just recently I had someone ask me if XP would install on some old junk laptop with 64MB of RAM.  I also had someone ask if it would run on a 486.  These people get *frustrated* when I tell them it won't work.  It's like some big surprise.

As a gamer I've known not to trust the "minimum" on the box for a long time. 

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35
Check out Wikipedia for the list of programs that were rendered inoperative (ie: incompatible) with Vista
So what you're telling me is this:  At some point, in Redmond, Bill Gates stood up and said "Vista is done."  At that exact moment, in Topeka KS, Joe Smith was updating his resume in Word XP, running on Windows XP, and had never heard of Vista.  Word XP does not run in Vista, so Joe's Word XP INSTANTLY stopped running.  The mere existence of Windows Vista in the universe broke Joe's software and EVERY piece of software ever made for anything that could not run on Vista.

Of course that's not what you're telling me. 

Sites like Wikipedia and Google have changed the risk of early adoption.  In short, you don't have to risk it, because you can always read up on someone who did.  I have my MMO game which does not run well under Vista.  I knew this MONTHS before Vista went gold.  Months!  People who play my MMO posted on a fan site saying they tried it and it didn't work.  Mystery solved!  So my gaming rig is not Vista, it's XP64, which my MMO works well on.  All it takes is "<app> in Vista" on Google to know.  It ain't rocket surgery.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35
MS knows, by changing the format of the DOC files (as one example) that people buying new computers, with the new Office will force others to upgrade. It isnt the guy sending the file who is forcing it... it IS MS for changing the format, and/or not releasing a simple patch for the older version, and then ensuring only the new version can be purchased, thus slowly forcing everyone to upgrade to stay "compatible" - heck even the OpenOffice Team figured out how to read the new formats... yet MS cant provide that feature for earlier versions of Office? C'mon!
I don't understand your argument.  Office has always maintained a decent degree of backwards compatibility.  Word 2007 can still open numbered (pre-97) Office files, and even Wordperfect 5.x files.  The problem has never been backwards compatibility, it's been forwards compatibility.  You can't expect Word 97 to open a .docx file.  It's very easy to tell Office 2007 to save it's files in "97-2003" mode, but there's always the chance someone will want to use a feature only the newest format offers. 

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.04, 21:12:35As for the rest, many versions of Unix booted to a GUI long before MS even started borrowing writing a GUI. Using one Unix variant as an example isnt a good example. Regardless, in a server world, I'd prefer if all server apps DIDNT require a GUI... they are faster, more responsive, and easier to deal with from a server perspective - on ANY OS.
The Linux distributions of 1995ish did not default to GUI.  None of them did (there were only about 3-4 back then and Slackware was considered the "friendlier" one.. *shiver*).  It was in there as an option, but in those days monitor sync problems causing CRT blowouts were an actual possibility, and I had enough whining tubes just fudging with the primitive config tools of the day to know no rational Linux developer would try to automate that process. 

Windows Server 2008 will have an option to run headless, allowing for strict command line and script administration, without a GUI.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34
Humm ...let's see, I do not see any reference of complaints about the lack of a current office suite of core applications needed for OS/2 to engage in collaboration with other platforms.  We are making progress, painful, but nonetheless progress ...Sigh.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Did you grow out of it or did the notion actually consumed you --without you realizing it?  "The fish does not realize that the water is wet."  [...] you avoid the gist of the concept and focus instead on the periphery of the argument.  The core of the argument –that-- you left unanswered.
I grew out of it, because I realized that people were insulting Windows more and more because they were simply jealous.  The more I used it, I realized it wasn't as bad as people said it was, it was more functional, and more compatible, and simply a better user experience.

Wrong! The notion consumed you, evidently.

If you go back and reread what I wrote –focusing on the core issue and not on the distracting peripheral minutia-- I merely pointed a fact in the WinXX world: you pay for the alpha and beta development of that family of pseudo operating systems.  From someone used to that modus operandi, it should come as no surprise a similar business model espoused by another vendor.  I mentioned the word "Gates" and that was what incensed you.

Contrary to your belief, you have been preconditioned to overreact even if the name of your master is circumstantially mentioned. 

Where does your notion of  "jealousy" come from?  I do not want my GUI interface to be WinXX like, period. 

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
[...], here is some insight from actual experience.  You obviously never installed an Linux distro before 1998 or 1999.   As I had 3 versions of OS/2 in a multiboot environment, the X windows in Linux distros required some painful tinkering to display properly[...].
If you're going to get into my personal life, ok I'll bite

I did not know that your "personal" life had been redefined to mean computer related activities.  Look, in the outside world, the definition of "personal" is more like family related, more like your individual interactions with other human beings.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
.  My first experiences with Linux were in the pre-1.0 kernel days circa 1992, my friend at university showed it to me.  I really only tried it seriously in around summer 1993, installed off a brick of floppy disks.  I never said Linux was intuitive back then, I said it had the driver and app advantage.  And it did.  I mean even then it came with something like five desktop managers and all kinds of little tools and apps and games and whatever.  It was a pain to set up, but once it was running it was kinda nice.

Reread what I wrote, the drivers for the X windowing system were awful!  You never installed Linux, obviously, the purported "experiences" that you mention are all over the Web written by those who did not pretend to have been --but actually were-- in the trenches.  Evidently, those "personal experiences" of yours that you mention are standing on stilts, like the rest of your arguments.

You have not exhibited the individuality necessary to install Linux, especially the early distributions --unless of course your friend was hand holding you during the process.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
I asked you if you knew about the difference in the three major types of x86 virtualization –and how they affect the performance of any operating system.
You actually never asked any questions about virtualization.  There are no question marks in that entire paragraph.
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Virtual Box is "not" Virtual PC  --the former uses hardware extensions to provide the virtualization environment for OS/2; the latter uses full software virtualization to achieve the same task. Two very different approaches that effectively are  relevant in an unbiased evaluation of non- alpha or beta releases of Virtual Box, capisci?
While Virtualbox can use hardware virtualization extensions it certainly doesn't have to,

If you are executing an closed source operating system like OS/2, you "need" the virtualization extensions in Virtual Box –this is not an either/or proposition.  Go back and reread the documentation so that you can peel off the layers of assumptions that you superimpose on everything.

Accordingly, the performance of the OS/2 will not be anywhere near as fast and/or stable as if the operating system were being paravirtualized.  You do not know what you are talking about --except to babble your nonsense-- when you pretend to evaluate an virtual instance of OS/2 under those circumstances.

Do yourself a favour and save a fraction of your credibility by installing OS/2 in real hardware and then do your "evaluations" --or whatever you call your bitter criticism towards the operating system.

No, there are no question marks in the advise offered but it implies that you should perform some unbiased tasks before reaching conclusions, capisci?

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
in fact the default setting for VB is to run without them.  Virtualbox will happily run on hardware that doesn't even have these features.  There's also nothing stopping MS from coding Virtual PC to use them either, except for the desire to do so.
*EDIT*  MS Virtual PC 2007 does indeed have an option to use hardware virtualization

...on the other hand, since MS knows (apparently) the source code for its own operating systems, it will evidently execute them in a manner more like paravirtualiztion (as implemented in open source Xen for open source operating systems) under their Virtual PC application.  The latter manner will make users like you believe that WinXX "flies" when virtualized whereas other operating systems perform like "snails."  No doubt, the MS marketing mob will trumpet the misinformation to your peers --as you have attempted to duplicate in this forum.

You were supposed to do your homework before typing your very first word in your post to our friend who is doing his/her OS/2 research.  Your ignorance of the matter has in effect reduced your credibility on the theme.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Yes.  MS indoctrinates engage in history revisionism whenever they can.  [...]  Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape Communications made a similar observation.  I never thought that history revisionism was considered "cool" in the MS pond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
QuoteOS/2 2.0, released in April 1992, was touted by IBM as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows."

I even remember seeing this exact quote in the trade mags of the time.  It was an honest to goodness slogan used by IBM .

Got it! You made your point: it is considered "cool" in the MS pond for a member of the Borg collective to engage in history revisionism.  Thank you for revealing that –it is new information for me.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
This is something that continues to amaze me from the conservative bunch: how they lump all this notions into a self serving soup mixture to concoct an self serving and specious answer.  What does "evolution" of hardware, the Internet, etc., have to do with the marketing induced behaviour of the Borg collective???
There is no doubt that MS's movements can shift the industry and push things in certain directions.  It's no small coincidence that memory prices get crazy (and usually plummet) when MS releases an OS with higher memory requirements.  Windows 95 did it, XP did it, Vista is doing it now.  Microsoft brought us into the PnP world kicking and screaming.  Windows single-handedly created the current video card market.  I remember before Windows 95, Linux shipped by default booting to text mode.  Soon after Windows 95, most linux distributions of the time suddenly decided to make a GUI as the default.  Interesting.

Why??? The X Windowing system has "always" been an option in the Unix world --from which Linux is a clone.  In Sun Microsystems and other high end workstations like SGI, it was the default to boot into. Is it so hard to conclude that Linux simply followed the pattern of its high end contemporaries (hint: there is a clear question mark here -->)?  You might want to write the following statement: WinXX is "not" the measure of every technology development out there.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
How many times?  What do you do when it does not work?  You go out and buy the "new version" of the "improved," "security enhanced," "one click," solution MS "snake oil" product.  [...]
.
What "does not work?"  When is a user forced to buy a new version?  Does the old version expire and suddenly cease function?  If I broke out Windows 3.1 and tried to install it (on hardware it would work on) would it refuse because it's too old?  Would Office 4.2 refuse to install strictly because it reached some expiration date?  No.  Your perception of forced updating comes from the fact that the outside world upgrades, and we upgrade to keep up with the Jones'.  Microsoft isn't forcing you to upgrade, the guy sending you a .docx file is.  Microsoft doesn't send people to your house to make sure you are running Vista.  Windows XP is still a very good and viable OS that many people don't want to give up.  People will stop using XP when Vista and it's successors offer enough to encourage it, or the hardware makers decide that there is no reasonable purpose to do so.

This is the most ...er, clear indication of the level of collective brainwashing facing us in the non MS world.  How in the world do you believe that users like you stuff money into the coffers of MS???  "YOU" update to keep up with the Jones.  The latter "live" in the same MS pond as yourself.  MS marketing mob convince either of your peers to upgrade –it is chain reaction.   I do not give a pebble about engaging in that group mentality.  I, other OS/2 users,  live outside of the MS pond.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
[...].  OS/2 users know how to extend the OS/2 functionality because we do not share the mindless notion of "intuitiveness" that compels those in the MS pond to prolong the vicious cycle that keeps the MS pockets full of cash.
If you consider intuitiveness to be mindless, why are you here?

What does your notion of "intuitiveness" have to do with using Netscape derived technology???  You can not smear you narrow "intuitiveness" notion to every other non-ms technology in existence –mosaic and Netscape browser existed "LONG" before your browser was cloned from mosaic.

Your master fought to death the notion espoused by Sun Microsystems: The network is the computer.  In your master's narrow perspective the computer was the network.  It was not until the Internet (with the appropriate mosaic Web GUI for the likes of you) came along that convinced him otherwise and to direct the Borg collective onto the Web with, what did you call it before?, "Exploder" –that's a cool and appropriate adjective to describe one of your pseudo tools.  Oh, and subsequently the MS Borg collective, at your master's direction, engaged in the history revisionist process using hirelings that wrote such pseudo works as "How The Web Was Won."

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Go break out a chisel and find a stone and chip out your opinions.  The command line is dead to the general public.  They don't need it, they don't want it.  The use of the command line today is akin to a time in man's history when people had to kill all their own food and make all their own clothing.  Do you kill all your own food and make all your own clothing?  That computer you are sitting at, did you construct it from the atomic level right down to the traces on the chips?  To do anything else is way too easy.

What does that gibberish have to do with your  notion of "intuitiveness" --have you redefined the notion on the fly to suit your specious argument???  It would not surprise me, your master has done that since "LONG" ago.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
By any chance, at the push of a button, have you been spamming users like me with email headlines like: Dude, you have to see the funniest video?
I rarely get those kinds of emails.

Of course, only those that have bounced back to you when I blocked them.  The rest that you sent to your peers continue on their way since they need an "intuitive" button to save them from the complicated three step routine needed to activate their spam application.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
Having spent the mid 90s resolving Linux issues so as to master (some of) the OS intricacies, never left me time to
engage in the shallowness of game playing.  [...], as Ubuntu.
Game playing, shallow?  Gaming is a relaxing way to release stress and is fun.  If you do not game that is too bad, but don't dis gaming.  These people are "shallow gamers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Bleszinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Fong
There's also that F4tal1ty guy I can't find since I can't figure out the right spelling of his nickname

Would you consider yourself to be (more) or (less) successful than these gamers?

I assume that your heroes have effectuated an profound change in the human sphere of life.  Accordingly, let me check my collection of literature here...Plato's The Republic, The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, Letters from Birmingham... by Martin Luther King Jr., Civil Disobedience by Henry Thoreau, Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche, etc., etc., ...nope, the names of your heroes are not in my collection of individualists.

But, let me ask you, having engaged in your "gaming" made you as successful as your heroes that you note above???  Because that sounds like it is absurd herd or collective thinking what you are engaged in.  OS/2 and Linux users exercise their individuality  --we are not bound by the group or Borg collective absurd analogies.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
[...]   And there the reason that the Open Document Format (ODF) is being fought so hard by your master:  ODF implies loosening the grip on the likes of you.
???
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3618176
They officially agreed to back ODF over a year ago.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/may07/05-16ANSIVotePR.mspx

Pst, pst ...can I tell you a secret?  Your master's "official" position is not what it does.   You have to read sources outside of your MS pond of influence if you want to know the truth about its actions.   You have to read outside sources if you want to know to what extent it has gone to maintain a tight grip on you (and the "Jones" as a matter of fact).

The above advise is not a revolutionary concept as any individual (and not a member of the collective) who desires to know whether the local media propaganda on political issues is accurate –or simply represents  special interests-- will often read the perspective advanced by outside source entities. This fact should be trivial in your critical thinking development.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13
[...]Believe what makes your master most comfortable --after all, it promotes Novell's SuSE distro because it serves their narrow beliefs of IP ownership, whereas at the same time denying any violation from software products  [...].
See, I don't understand this "master" and "borg" thing.  To me a computer is a tool used to complete a task.  I use the operating system that best allows me to complete that task.  OS/2 was not the best tool for that task.  Linux is not the best tool for that task.  Windows is the best tool for that task.  My tasks, and your tasks, seem to be very different

Exactly! When you understand that concept fully, you will not be a conservative anymore! You will come out of that pond and will not want to go back!

Accordingly, if you want to evaluate OS/2 in an unbiased manner, install it on actual hardware and not in an imperfect implementation of a virtualized environment.   If you do not like the GUI fine.  Go back to your pond and tell those like you how fortunate you are to live in a one-way-for-all restricted environment.  Tell them that you enjoy that barely perceptible sensation of "wetness" that your master uses to keep you all under its spell so that you all can continue to maintain an uninterrupted cash flow into its coffers.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
.  Operating systems are not a "one size fits all" thing, though Windows would appear to scale better to the tasks of the general public, and beyond that.  I hardly use Windows because OOH SHINY!!  Because really, Linux is far shinier.  But again, Linux doesn't do what I want to do.  Windows is the prerequisite for the tasks I want to perform.  It's not a fashion show.

Good! Good for you!  Do not go back there to shell out some more cash for an "intuitive" button to implement an action that can be merely achieved by pressing a couple of key strokes simultaneously.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.04, 13:49:05
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.04, 00:43:13There used to be talk, in the developers' circles, of implementing the OS/2 GUI into Linux  --take that as an indication of the maturity of that OS/2 interface.
There's nothing stopping anyone from coding an open source PM for Linux now.  You'll notice there's no such thing.  Take that as an indication as to how much people who don't use OS/2 care about OS/2 today.

Now, now, having had a glimpse of individualism does not imply that you are ready to comment authoritatively on issues of Open Source Software (OSS) development.

Do not even get into pretending that you know how open source community development works –or how the projects are selected.  That is far beyond anything you have done in your limited technical experience ...er, "personal" life –if that is how it has been redefined in the pond and you still feel the need to use that definition ...temporarily?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34
If you go back and reread what I wrote –focusing on the core issue and not on the distracting peripheral minutia-- I merely pointed a fact in the WinXX world: you pay for the alpha and beta development of that family of pseudo operating systems.
Why do you keep insisting that Windows is not a real OS?  It is as real as any other.  It's not alpha or beta.  1.0?  Vista might be considered 1.0 to many people.  Not alpha or beta.  Let's not forget that Vista is being run on a HUGE array of hardware and software.  On the other end of the spectrum we have say, Apple.  Apple maintains a very strict control over what hardware goes into their computers, and certainly can keep a better handle on software, to the point that there's going to be perfect backwards compatibili...
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202602869
"Apple says software on users' machines that may not be Leopard-compatible is to blame for the computers freezing up."

Oh.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34Where does your notion of  "jealousy" come from?  I do not want my GUI interface to be WinXX like, period.
The "OS/2 Warp" button, and WarpCenter, and the various GUIs for Linux, with their very Start-bar like functionality, are a tiny proof that you can't win this one. 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34
Reread what I wrote, the drivers for the X windowing system were awful!  You never installed Linux, obviously, the purported "experiences" that you mention are all over the Web written by those who did not pretend to have been --but actually were-- in the trenches.  Evidently, those "personal experiences" of yours that you mention are standing on stilts, like the rest of your arguments.
Are you accusing me of lying?

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34You have not exhibited the individuality necessary to install Linux, especially the early distributions --unless of course your friend was hand holding you during the process.
Are you attacking my intelligence too?

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34Accordingly, the performance of the OS/2 will not be anywhere near as fast and/or stable as if the operating system were being paravirtualized.  You do not know what you are talking about --except to babble your nonsense-- when you pretend to evaluate an virtual instance of OS/2 under those circumstances.
OS/2 in Virtualbox is really fast.  I was a little scared when I saw there would be no accelerated video, but for the most part the desktop moves at a snappy pace.  At one point I put the OS/2 VM on a network bridge so I could move some large files to and from it, and the speed of moving those files was adequate.  I even punished it a bit, I put WarpVision GUI on, threw a DVD in the drive, and hit Play.  It actually runs fairly decent for being a virtual machine with no video acceleration.  There's a slight jitter and audio (even MP3s) has the occasional stutter, but for the conditions I don't consider this to be bad at all.  Speed-wise, my experience with OS/2 in Virtualbox has been "delightful" I would say. 

Stability-wise, as I said, the problems I encounter are hardly new problems, and they are problems many OS/2 users have experienced for many years. 

http://www.step.polymtl.ca/~guardia/os2review.php

"In second place, OS/2 also has its technical problems. The PMSHELL has a Single Input Queue. This was a design oversight of the first GUI for OS/2. The SIQ creates two problems. Applications jam the queue when opening or processing, even for very brief moments which can lead to a slow reacting interface. Another OS/2 problem is that applications can get stuck in the "exit list" which makes them unkillable. Combined with the SIQ problem, if an unkillable application jams the SIQ, a reboot is needed to gain back access to the interface eventhough OS/2 is still running fine."

That was written SIX years ago.  This problem plagued OS/2 well before that.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34Do yourself a favour and save a fraction of your credibility by installing OS/2 in real hardware and then do your "evaluations" --or whatever you call your bitter criticism towards the operating system.
I considered this, and I have a spare rig to put it on.  However, it has a video card (Radeon X850XT PE) that OS/2 does not come with a driver for, and the only driver that *might* work is not free.  The other computers I own, there's no driver for these video chipsets at all.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34...on the other hand, since MS knows (apparently) the source code for its own operating systems, it will evidently execute them in a manner more like paravirtualiztion (as implemented in open source Xen for open source operating systems) under their Virtual PC application.  The latter manner will make users like you believe that WinXX "flies" when virtualized whereas other operating systems perform like "snails."  No doubt, the MS marketing mob will trumpet the misinformation to your peers --as you have attempted to duplicate in this forum.
You put quotations around "snails" here.  Were you indicating a quote from me somewhere?

Virtualbox and Virtual PC 2007 run OS/2, and both offer pros and cons. 

Virtualbox is far friendlier on resolution, ie. I can set an arbitrary screen resolution and force the guest to use it.  I have OS/2 on VB in 1400x1050, using the standard SVGA GRADD.  This should be impossible since SVGA doesn't even define this resolution, but OS/2 is happily running with no ill-effect.  Full-screen Win-OS/2 even works.  Virtualbox also does in fact run OS/2 faster than VPC2007 does.  VB unfortunately has no virtual shared folders for OS/2, and their NAT implementation prevents me from mapping drives to or from the virtual machine.  To do so I have to set up a network bridge, which is odd and I think VB's network interface driver for this has some problems.  VB also virtualizes a sound chipset that OS/2 has no native support for, and while UNIAUD works it introduces quirks with volume control and such.  VB's keyboard support is also weird, some keys (like caps lock) simply don't work.  Only OS/2 4.52 is "reported to work well" in VB.  ECS 1.2R won't install at all (resource.sys trap right after boot menu).  VB 1.5.2 didn't like my OS/2 install at all.  I had some glitches with hard drive activity and the DANIS506 driver, I don't really see a difference in speed using it so I am not using that anymore.

VPC2007 doesn't like non-standard resolutions for OS/2, so I was only able to do 1280x1024.  The performance of OS/2 4.52 is OK but not particularly fast.  VPC2007 does handle networking better than VB, I can map drives behind NAT easily.  The hardware VPC2007 virtualizes is pretty ancient (440BX motherboard) but it does do a plain old SB16 PnP, which MMOS2 likes much better than the Sigmatel that VB uses.  ECS 1.2 will install in VPC2007, but performance and reliability are questionable. 

I run VB because the speed, screen resolution, and general feel are better than VPC2007.  So in other words, what you said, the opposite is actually true.

As for "paravirtualization", VMWare does it, but doesn't support OS/2, and Parallels Workstation is not free, tho they do offer a 15-day trial key.  I'd try it, except they also don't support 64-bit OSs, and being on Vista x64 and XP64 means I can't use it.  (it would not work on Linux 64-bit either).  Regardless, the results would be the same.  A hung desktop is a hung desktop, and the SIQ, a known Achilles' Heel of OS/2, is not magically rendered more or less of a problem because of virtualization.  The only less problem is that I don't lose the host OS in the process and I can "intuitively" click the "send CTRL-ALT-DEL" option with my mouse.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34This is the most ...er, clear indication of the level of collective brainwashing facing us in the non MS world.  How in the world do you believe that users like you stuff money into the coffers of MS???  "YOU" update to keep up with the Jones.  The latter "live" in the same MS pond as yourself.  MS marketing mob convince either of your peers to upgrade –it is chain reaction.   I do not give a pebble about engaging in that group mentality.  I, other OS/2 users,  live outside of the MS pond.
It is definitely your choice to run the OS you want to run.  There's a certain hypocrisy to talking about stuffing coffers though, as it's not like OS/2 is free.  At least with Windows, since it is a big piece of Microsoft's income model, they visibly support it.  MS talks about Windows *constantly* and has done so since the early 90's.  In OS/2's best days, IBM would mention it once in a while, and the NYC Warp premiere was neat, but there was this overall "OS/2 is a small piece of IBM's income" feeling, like they were half-hearted into it.  IBM was saying how OS/2 was so great, but then you'd go to buy an IBM PC and it would have Windows on it.  What message does that send?  IBM was so concerned about it's OWN coffers that it sold the thing it knew people *really* wanted.  Even while competing against the pond, IBM swam in it.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34
But, let me ask you, having engaged in your "gaming" made you as successful as your heroes that you note above???  Because that sounds like it is absurd herd or collective thinking what you are engaged in.  OS/2 and Linux users exercise their individuality  --we are not bound by the group or Borg collective absurd analogies.
While I am not as successful as them, I can honestly say that gaming has helped me professionally and personally.  On more than one occasion gaming has come up in interviews, especially with these younger people running companies and having management positions in big companies.  These people don't want to hire workaholic robots; they want humans, humans they can relate to.  Work experience and education.. pfft this entire STACK of resumes here on this desk are people who have work experience and education.  What can set a person apart is all of that and "Why yes, I do play Starcraft."  (I suck at Starcraft, and my co-workers have reminded me of this on many occasions)

The rest of your post seems drawn out and not really anything I can comment on.  Your main points seem to be:

- Windows is not a real OS
- Anyone who uses Windows is fooled into doing so
- The entire MIKKKRO$$$$SHAFT company is evil (ie. cheats, lies, steals, no innovation, GATE$$$, etc.)
- Mice make things too easy
- Paying for upgrades is bad
- Any non-bashing of M$ is instantly interpreted as appreciation for M$
- Gaming has no value

These are all your personal opinion.  They hold no weight outside of that.  In the original thread, which we got spun off of (for good reason), the OP asked for disadvantages of OS/2.  I did not say "OS/2 SUX THAT'S A DISADVANTAGE" because that's not truth, it's just an opinion (and not really mine).  I gave solid, tangible, proven factual reasons: The GUI is dated, it's not stable (see: SIQ), apps were never a draw, hardware is a problem, and it costs too much.  These are not mudslinging insults, they are facts.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: DavidG on 2007.11.05, 19:42:11
I have to boot to WinXP to do some of my graphics work.  However, for everyday file management, internet, and word processing, I prefer to do it under eCS.  I only use XP for the things I can't presently do when using eCS.

My XP system takes approx 4 minutes to boot up to where I can use it. My eCS system takes approx 45 seconds.  It seems every program installed slows XP down just a little bit more.  Although it still locks up, it does so way less frequently than any previous version of Windows.  Note: I have had it lock up and my friends to where the power has had to be cut off at a surge suppressor or the battery pulled from the laptop to make XP reboot.  One thing I can't stand about XP is that a soft boot is not possible when the machine locks up so hard that a control+alt +del does nothing. The power button will not cut it off either.  With a lot of programs installed on XP, it bogs down.

If XP had to be installed by every user like eCS, Microsoft would be swamped with pleas for help.  You just don't now how many times I have had to help my XP friends get their Windows computer back to usablility mode.  What saves Windows is that it comes preinstalled on just about every computer.  If eCS came preinstalled, had the support of every driver and program manufacturer, Windows would eventually fade away.  Yes, eCS users have to pay more for various programs that are free under Windows, but that is because OS/2 and now eCS has never had the support for their operating system that Windows has enjoys.

My Windows friends now want everything for free.  They would rather pirate their software than pay for it.  They look at Windows as being free since it comes with each computer they buy.

I keep telling myself that one day I will tell my Windows friends no more.  I have already laid the ground work by saying that anyone with Windows Vista on their machine need not come to me.  I don't plan on buying or using it anytime in the near and immediate future, if ever.  Another friend of mine already has told our friends that he no longer works on Windows machines.  Again, my friends come to me because being a friend, I work for free.

Yes, Windows is nice when it is running good.  However, when things start happening, it is a bitch to fix.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Terry on 2007.11.06, 01:52:23
eComStation 2.0 is anxiously awaited.

While my personal desktop is being planned around a new SOHO networking environment, and various operating systems => eComStation 2.0 will be the primary workstation - period!  And, I truly believe that a "VirtualBox" host for eCS virtualization is just a matter of time now which will be quite helpful.

However, for my new Compaq business laptop, there is no choice but to use M$ Windows in the field for applications with my employee benefits & financial services occupation.  It is possible to run most apps for my bi-vocational ministry as a part of a win-eCS session as care has been taken to obtain those apps with OS/2 compatibility in mind over the years (sounds like a potential article next year).

Since, the laptop must be hosted by M$ Windows, there will be a purchase of at least 2 more gigs of RAM since 1 gig of RAM is still a little sluggish under M$ Vista.  The advantage here is that at least multimedia codec needs are most capably met by the Vista Home Premium "that came free" with the (2) "pretend windows operating system" laptop recovery DVDs.

With the extra gigs of RAM, M$ Virtual PC will be used as a host for both a guest M$ WinXP-Pro and guest eComStation 2.0.  All of the financial sector applications will be installed in WinXP since WinVista is still hostile to many required financial services applications, and; eCS 2.0 will be used for everything not Win-development mandated.  It will also be interesting to see what client/server possibilities will emerge.

This is not an endorsement of the marketing methods employed by what many have referred to as "the Borg of Redmond."  This is simply an observation of the way it is.  Micro$oft historically may not be "the most stable" operating system, but has been arguably "the best marketed" operating system to gain what sometimes seems to be an insurmountable USA & global market share.

Perhaps we can review two threads looking at the eCS-OS/2 kernel & Windows:

100 things about OS2 & eCS that I like...

http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,291.0/ (http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,291.0/)

100 M$ Windows Vista/XP Idiosyncrasies...

http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,300.0/ (http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,300.0/)

P.S.: I have often wondered, at least in the USA, the current percentage of market share for Micro$oft Windows without anti-trust break-up => compared to AT&T's market share before actual anti-trust break-up => and Standard Oil's market share before its actual anti-trust break-up.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.06, 08:21:47
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34Where does your notion of  "jealousy" come from?  I do not want my GUI interface to be WinXX like, period.
The "OS/2 Warp" button, and WarpCenter, and the various GUIs for Linux, with their very Start-bar like functionality, are a tiny proof that you can't win this one.

Possibly it is the other way around.

If we were to remain within that frameset, we could argue that the dock bar of the MacOS theme simply is an "OOH SHINY!!" version of OS/2 Warp 3 task bar --that taskbar utility has been implemented even in IBM's Unix implementation, AIX, and in Sun Microsystems Solaris Unix alternative --to name a couple. 

Since "LONG" ago the taskbar could be arranged in an horizontal and/or vertical position. Depending on the quantity of items that an user desired to place into the taskbar, it would become more like the current Warp Center --with drawers opening up or down to accommodate objects. An user would simply arrange the taskbar against one edge of the screen so as to save real state.

Although programs like ObjectDesktop existed to provide added functionality and/or a complete replacement of the OS/2 taskbar,  if I need an GUI utility to find some file I could just type: PMSEEK.EXE and the FIND utility would appear ready for my input.

Faster: using Unix utilities under OS/2 I could simply type:
find e:/ -iname "*file*"
and the file name that I needed would "magically" appear.  Instead of using the shutdown button, I would simply type: shutdown and the operating system would "magically" stop its routine.  Again, I could not care less about such peripheral widget concerns.

Linux window managers offer almost an infinite way for the user to customize his/her environment.  The arrangement that you are probably referring to is simply one of many ways to build bridges to those unfortunate beings inside the MS pond.  Linux recognizes that outside of the MS environment, the MS collective is lost and thus morphs some of its window managers into an familiar interface for those bold enough to venture a spin on other operating systems.

Revolutionary and/or evolutionary creativity is an universal inalienable property of humans --not the exclusive domain of MS.
 
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34
Reread what I wrote, the drivers for the X windowing system were awful!  You never installed Linux, obviously, the purported "experiences" that you mention are all over the Web written by those who did not pretend to have been --but actually were-- in the trenches.  Evidently, those "personal experiences" of yours that you mention are standing on stilts, like the rest of your arguments.
Are you accusing me of lying?
;)

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34You have not exhibited the individuality necessary to install Linux, especially the early distributions --unless of course your friend was hand holding you during the process.
Are you attacking my intelligence too?
;)  ;)
[...]
Do not be concerned: whatever has been disclosed here in the forum will remain in the forum.  My lips are sealed -rather, stated in another figurative manner, my fingers are tied-- and I will not disclose (by speech or type) anything of what you revealed here.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.05, 08:02:34Do yourself a favour and save a fraction of your credibility by installing OS/2 in real hardware and then do your "evaluations" --or whatever you call your bitter criticism towards the operating system.
I considered this, and I have a spare rig to put it on.  However, it has a video card (Radeon X850XT PE) that OS/2 does not come with a driver for, and the only driver that *might* work is not free.  The other computers I own, there's no driver for these video chipsets at all.

The last version of the SNAP for OS//2 supports ATI's X850 series video card.  I believe that it is included with eCS.  For someone as successful as yourself, the acquisition of eCS would not represent a serious financial hit as it would be for, say a student, like Saijin_Naib.

Candidly speaking, you need eCS because you are not technically proficient to upgrade your (older) OS/2 version on your own.  Although some of us continue using the older releases of the operating system, we know how to keep the OS/2 updated either with freely available software and/or through non-redistribution agreements for the drivers that we acquire.

[...]
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
(I suck at Starcraft, and my co-workers have reminded me of this on many occasions)

You might want to challenge one of our moderators, RobertM, to a game of Starcraft, so that you both can hone each other's respective skills.  I would suggest Saijin_Naib but I would think that you are no match for his skills; accordingly, RobertM would be more at your level.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
The rest of your post seems drawn out and not really anything I can comment on.

Not at all. The content supports the issues under consideration.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
Your main points seem to be:

- Windows is not a real OS
- Anyone who uses Windows is fooled into doing so
- The entire MIKKKRO$$$$SHAFT company is evil (ie. cheats, lies, steals, no innovation, GATE$$$, etc.)
- Mice make things too easy
- Paying for upgrades is bad
- Any non-bashing of M$ is instantly interpreted as appreciation for M$
- Gaming has no value

I will not take credit for the conclusions that you arrived at. I was simply the medium through which you arrived at those in your very own words.

Though (pond) reality shattering, those conclusions represent the initial struggle that sometimes leads to an extended internal conflict; its final resolution has the potential to reward the person with the highest level of attainment of any human being: individualism and the acceptance of the responsibility that its inherent property of true free will entails.

Cheers!
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 11:17:32
^ My starcraft skillz are not something to be feared. Lets say, my mind cant track that many variables at once. In any RTS, my populace ultimately ends up starving because well, I micro-focus and thats no good.

However, challenge me to quake2/3/4, CS 1.6/CZ/Source, HL2:DM and things will be quite different. Micro-focus is essential when every millisecond means the difference between a slug of plutonium up the rear or not.
I prefer to remain plutonium free :)

I now return to the sidelines, where I belong :P
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.06, 14:56:47
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
The rest of your post seems drawn out and not really anything I can comment on.  Your main points seem to be:

- Windows is not a real OS
- Anyone who uses Windows is fooled into doing so
- The entire MIKKKRO$$$$SHAFT company is evil (ie. cheats, lies, steals, no innovation, GATE$$$, etc.)
- Mice make things too easy
- Paying for upgrades is bad
- Any non-bashing of M$ is instantly interpreted as appreciation for M$
- Gaming has no value
These are all valid points, but they need some tweaking:
1) Windows is a real OS; just not a good OS.
2) Users haven't really been fooled into using Windows (although MS's famous FUD campaigns in both the press and newsgroups could fall under the fooling category.); they have been FORCED to use Windows. Buy a new PC, and you are using Windows, unless you have the knowledge and finances required to change OSes.
3) Microsoft IS an anti-competitive monopoly that has harmed both consumers and the computing industry in general.
4) A user interface should always offer choices.
5) Paying for upgrades is bad, if the payment or the upgrade is forced. Windows requires a huge cost in time and money when upgrading the operating system. Under OS/2, with proper disk partitioning/management, upgrading the OS is trivial. (Although why eCS can't build these concepts into an install is beyond me.)
6) Non-bashing of Microsoft is entirely due to ignorance, especially in a Windows unfriendly forum.
7) Gaming has no value if it is just being used as a tool to extend monopoly dominance.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.05, 17:36:24
These are all your personal opinion.  They hold no weight outside of that.  In the original thread, which we got spun off of (for good reason), the OP asked for disadvantages of OS/2.  I did not say "OS/2 SUX THAT'S A DISADVANTAGE" because that's not truth, it's just an opinion (and not really mine).  I gave solid, tangible, proven factual reasons: The GUI is dated, it's not stable (see: SIQ), apps were never a draw, hardware is a problem, and it costs too much.  These are not mudslinging insults, they are facts.
Lets see...

GUI is dated - NOT a fact. Many users feel that the OS/2 GUI is still superior to all others on the market.

not stable - NOT a fact. Many users have not experienced instability using OS/2. It took until the release of Windows 2000 for Windows to be on par stability-wise with OS/2, but it still underperforms OS/2 by a huge margin.

apps never a draw - NOT a fact. Around the release of Warp, there had been a large effort into getting plenty of apps ready. This was the moment where IBM failed to push against MS hard enough, but it's questionable if they could have overcome Microsoft's monopoly stranglehold on the PC makers.

hardware a problem - NOT a fact. Hardware is and always has been available. All non-Windows OS users have to be choosy when it comes to hardware.

costs too much - NOT a fact. Windows isn't free. Most people buy a new PC to upgrade Windows. How is that cheaper? The cost of moving current applications and data to new OS and/or hardware is astronomical compared to OS/2.

...sounds like your "facts" are nothing more than opinion.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:13:00
Yours as well sir, could be just opinion. Lets see here.. Im going to be partly truthful, and partly play the advocate here..
1) Windows is real, and quite good
2) People arent forced, and if they were, they would do something about it. Self mastery comes to mind.
3) IBM wasnt exactly friendly at points in its life either...
4) Explorer does offer choices. IN fact, I have used BlackBox instead of explorer, as well as Aston. Choices. Brillaint.
Also, a wealth of themes and complete GUI reworks, as well as extensions that modify the behavior. Much like, wait, I know this, the WPS. Holy fck!
5) Really? Because it costs me 5$ to get a licenced copy of both winXP pro SP2 32 and 64 bit from my school. You are right, that is FAR too much. eCS cost me how much? Oh, 135 + 69 every year if I want to keep current with whats going on. But that is trivial. You are right about how time consuming windows is. I mean, every 6-7 years, I have to spend 4 hours setting up my operating system. God, how I have withered. Whereas with eCS i have to spend multiple hours finding out what drivers work by going one by one down massive lists, searching archies for information, and trying desperately to get things that should work (rc3 anyone) to work properly.
6) So you are saying that people who DONT bash on Microsoft and the people who CHOOSE to use their products is due to ignorance? Well, you are more correct than you may know.
7) Gaming has the value that you draw from the experience, isolated from the circumstances that another may assert is the root cause of that experience being possible.

GUI is most certainly dated. See my thread regarding OpenGL / Mesa3d. Dated does not mean not functional, just showing its age.

Again, not true. I have had nearly the exact opposite experience as to what you are saying.

Hardware is most CERTAINLY a problem. But you are correct, lets stop ACPI and GenMAC and Panorama and Amouse and eCUPS and SANE, because we have no need for them.

I donno about you, but I buy a new PC so I can play games better, I keep my OS, and I put my older rig back home in the family room, and retire that family room pc back to my room as a workhorse.

See, everyone can flame and justify back and forth. In the end, you know what it comes down to? Preference. People have reasons, and damned good ones, on all sides. You are no more or less correct than S.Sub or Vato, or myself. The only difference between all our posts is the level of eloquence and the depth and breadth of literary prowess behind the posts.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.06, 15:21:41
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.06, 08:21:47
The last version of the SNAP for OS//2 supports ATI's X850 series video card.  I believe that it is included with eCS.  For someone as successful as yourself, the acquisition of eCS would not represent a serious financial hit as it would be for, say a student, like Saijin_Naib.
One of the ways I maintain the financial freedoms my success provides me is not throwing money around needlessly. I'm certainly not going to make any monetary investment into OS/2, it's too fleeting of a moment for me.   

Also, according to Ecomstation's own website:
http://www.ecomstation.com/edp/mod.php?mod=faq3&op=show_answer&faq_id=15

The X850 isn't here.

Then again, they are still promoting the upcoming Warpstock 2006.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.06, 08:21:47Candidly speaking, you need eCS because you are not technically proficient to upgrade your (older) OS/2 version on your own.  Although some of us continue using the older releases of the operating system, we know how to keep the OS/2 updated either with freely available software and/or through non-redistribution agreements for the drivers that we acquire.
Why do you keep attacking me?  Do you feel personal attacks somehow boost your position?  The admin even said right at the top of the page not to do this.

As for my OS/2 install, it's as current as I can get it.  One of the first things I did after installing it was poke around for fixpacks and see what I could find.  It's interesting most of the recent, usable fixpacks and patches are now hidden away behind paid support contracts.  It would seem OS/2 can remain "current" as long as the user's credit card information remains "current."  At least with Windows, at the point they expect you to pay money for the update it usually results in something tangible and noticeable, even if it's just a prettier interface. 

One of my mini-projects with OS/2 involved making an updated install disc.  With Windows this is pretty easy, most of the updates are designed to be "slipstreamed" into the original install media, and any freeware disc burning software can make a bootable ISO.  OS/2 doesn't provide any real way to integrate fixpacks into the install media.  The only way I have found is a program called UPDCD, which is powerful, but is also rough around the edges.  I did manage to get an updated ISO made and tested successfully.  Going by the UPDCD documentation, my OS/2 4.52 install disc is now *more* current than ECS 1.2R, minus the ECS-specific parts.  Note that I am not comparing my install to ECS 2.0 Beta, since ya know, it's supposedly against protocol to *pay* (http://www.ecomstation.com/subscription.phtml) for beta software.  Where did I hear that?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:27:38
http://www.scitechsoft.com/chiplist/snap_os2_chiplist.html
Ya, don't go by Serenity's site, they tend to be a little bit laggard in updating information.

I was checking this list earlier tonight because I was looking to buy a used/refurb/for parts laptop on ebay and make myself a little mobile eCS box :) The Asus EEE PC is ideal (seems it anyway), but far too costly right now.

I have not messed with UPCD or slipstreaming in Windows, It sounds very convenient, but I know I would ruin something, rather have Microsoft Update and eCSMT do it for me.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.06, 16:12:19
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:27:38
http://www.scitechsoft.com/chiplist/snap_os2_chiplist.html
Ya, don't go by Serenity's site, they tend to be a little bit laggard in updating information.
I saw this tho:
http://www.warpupdates.mynetcologne.de/english/hard_graphics.html

The X850 is listed as "requires Professional Edition" which wasn't too reassuring. 
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:27:38
I have not messed with UPCD or slipstreaming in Windows, It sounds very convenient, but I know I would ruin something, rather have Microsoft Update and eCSMT do it for me.
But they can't fix a problem that affects the installation process.  If you can't get Windows installed, Windows Update is kind of useless.  If ECS won't install, eCSMT doesn't matter much.  With OS/2 this is a little more critical as there have been several updates over the years just for hardware weirdness, like the frequent "OS/2 doesn't like >X hard drive size again.. time to patch IBM1S506!"  There's also goofy stuff like *this* (http://www.os2site.com/sw/magazine/voicenews/2002/03/2002mar14064553.txt) and *this* (http://news.ecomstation.com/article.php?id=1396&group=ecomstation.support.virtualpc).  ECS crashing 10 seconds into the CD boot.. this sort of thing is what integrated fixes are meant to address.

It also just consolidates and simplifies the installation process.  Windows XP is especially frightening now, it's over six years old.  Do YOU want to install a circa 2001 XP (SP0) disc and then run Windows Update?  First off you better have a good book to read.  Second, it's unlikely it will even finish since that reboot crash exploit is still floating around.  Having a fresh, current XP install disc speeds up the installation and gets you going much faster.  Back to OS/2, the integrated fixes shave off several reboots and mean less media to deal with.  UPDCD will happily let you throw whatever you want on the install disc, and will copy it all over to a directory of your choice.  UPDCD is a chore to set up though, but hey I did it, and I haven't touched OS/2 in over a decade.  It can't be that bad. 8)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 16:18:13
Oh it can. I have no joke, reinstalled eCS over 50 times in the past year, on this computer alone.
We dont get along well, its a love-hate thing.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.06, 19:23:24
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 16:18:13
Oh it can. I have no joke, reinstalled eCS over 50 times in the past year, on this computer alone.
We dont get along well, its a love-hate thing.

It sounds like you need to understand the OS better. Maybe eCS's easier install has made using OS/2 too easy.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.06, 19:25:30
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:13:00
Yours as well sir, could be just opinion.
Some opinion, some fact, but I wasn't the one trying to pass one of as the other.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.06, 19:41:05
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 15:13:00
2) People arent forced, and if they were, they would do something about it. Self mastery comes to mind.

People ARE forced to use Windows. Go read the findings of the antitrust court. Most people don't realize they are forced, or they would rebel. The "applications barrier to entry" is what forces people to "choose" Windows.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 21:28:17
 I choose to use windows, and I choose to use eCS. I have my freedom, and I exercise it.

You assume much about me. I had a IBM Aptiva with OS/2. I had OS/2 running on my Compaq Presario. I tried getting eCS to work on my sisters Gateway, and my friends custom built SLI computer. You are right, I do need to learn more. And I am trying to do so, hence why I trash/reinstall so often. If I mess something up, I start clean, and try to get past that point. If I wasnt trying to learn, I would not have kept reinstalling...
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: DavidG on 2007.11.06, 22:21:11
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 21:28:17
I choose to use windows, and I choose to use eCS. I have my freedom, and I exercise it.

You assume much about me. I had a IBM Aptiva with OS/2. I had OS/2 running on my Compaq Presario. I tried getting eCS to work on my sisters Gateway, and my friends custom built SLI computer. You are right, I do need to learn more. And I am trying to do so, hence why I trash/reinstall so often. If I mess something up, I start clean, and try to get past that point. If I wasnt trying to learn, I would not have kept reinstalling...

This is exactly how I learned to use OS/2 and now eCS and even Windows.  Of course, Windows I did not have to experiment to trash the parititon.  It was always just a matter of time.  I was always trying new and different things.  If I messed up my partition, I just reinstalled and learned more each time.  Everyday is a new learning experience.  If I had a question, there was always plenty of people to ask online.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:27:47
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.06, 16:12:19
But they can't fix a problem that affects the installation process.  If you can't get Windows installed, Windows Update is kind of useless.  If ECS won't install, eCSMT doesn't matter much.  With OS/2 this is a little more critical as there have been several updates over the years just for hardware weirdness, like the frequent "OS/2 doesn't like >X hard drive size again.. time to patch IBM1S506!"  There's also goofy stuff like *this* (http://www.os2site.com/sw/magazine/voicenews/2002/03/2002mar14064553.txt) and *this* (http://news.ecomstation.com/article.php?id=1396&group=ecomstation.support.virtualpc).  ECS crashing 10 seconds into the CD boot.. this sort of thing is what integrated fixes are meant to address.

I dont know if you realize this, but you can replace virtually any driver (that will cause it not to install) on the eCS install disk with another one - in addition you can add new drivers (like SCSI, etc) that dont come on the disk.

I had one eCS 1.2MR install that would not go on a certain piece of hardware (the IDE drivers didnt support the weird SATA chipset). The newest version of the drivers does support it. I simply mounted the CD, replaced the IDE driver (and added the license key to the disk in a readme so I could import it directly from the CD) and re-burnt it. Done deal.

In addition, there are tools out there that help you modify the install disks to overcome installation issues due to lacking or outdated or incorrect/buggy drivers.

On top of that, with EVERY version of OS/2 since at least v2.1, OS/2 came with instructions on how to modify the installation disks to replace and/or add drivers in order to get it to install on hardware that was not supported when the version first came out.


On Windows, it takes a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same thing. And heck, until Vista, you couldnt even install Windows on *ANY* machine that had SATA (unless the machine had a BIOS setting to translate the SATA interface over to IDE so XP would recognize it). You would need the SATA driver disk to install, or the OEM XP Install disk (which didnt always work... numerous OEM's; including HP & Compaq, would forget to put the SATA drivers on their otherwise generic XP install disk, rendering the entire install set useless).


Since much of what OS/2 does during the installation process is controlled by the config.sys file and by scripts, it is VERY easy to (a) customize an OS/2 install with just minor computer knowledge, (b) change or add drivers, or (c) create your own custom network/other media installation setup. As a matter of fact, there's TONS of documentation on how to do that. With a Warp Server machine (any version - as well as long before Warp's release), you can even set the server to be your "install drive" and it will walk you through each step including creation of the thin client boot and network portions so the install gets done from the server through the network. The entire process can also be tailored to install what you want, how you want. It took MS years longer to get that feature sort of working.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:30:35
Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.06, 19:41:05
People ARE forced to use Windows. Go read the findings of the antitrust court. Most people don't realize they are forced, or they would rebel. The "applications barrier to entry" is what forces people to "choose" Windows.


Let me clarify this point for lwriemen,

Go read the findings in the U.S. Antitrust cases (NUMEROUS, including ongoing ones), and in the EU Antitrust case (which just earned MS a half a billion dollar fine), as well as tons of smaller cases on U.S. state and personal level.

Interesting (disgusting really) reads... including the numerous documents where they admit to trying to kill or stifle competition, trick consumers into thinking that Internet=IE, PC=Windows - and nothing else is part of a PC.

Do you have any idea of how many people (when I did tech work for CompUSA and elsewhere) would come in and tell me "When I clicked on the Internet, this happened." thinking that IE *IS* the Internet? Or how many people thought they were offline because they didnt click on the "Internet" (IE)?

Or how many people would come in asking to buy a Windows?
"You mean a PC, right?"
"Is it Windows?"
"No, but it comes with it"
"Well, I dont want it then. I want a Windows with 2 (somethings) of RAM so I can _____"
"No, you dont understand, you want a computer with Windows ON it"

Similarly, people would think that Office was part of a PC, again thanks to MS's deceptive marketing. But because of that, how many of them do you think would even consider OpenOffice? "Is it Office 2007? I was 'told' that a PC has to have/is that (by MS's ads)"
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 23:16:13
This isnt unique. Think of Apple and (in my eyes) its far more decptive and cult-ish approach. Every Digital Audio Player is NOT an Ipod. Tell that to 100+million people with stupid fckin white earbuds and a superiority complex that would make Napolean blush. People who arent savvy arent savvy, does not mean they were duped, but they simply do not understand the terminology.

In regards to how many eCS installs I have trashed, it has helped me to learn. I have butchered many windows installs in my younger days, but I have come to a point where I am more than proficient enough to where it never throws me something I cant handle (and since wink2k, Ive really no need for these skills). In fact, the only recent reformat I had to do for windows was courtesey of Feisty Fawn and GPARTED, coupled with Zeta's aggressive install routine = wrecked partition tables (my fault as well, I coudnt get the desired result with DFSEE).

As for reading legal documents, they are out of my interest and my ability to interpret. Any legal document is inherently loaded, just the same as the scientific documents I must read for my day to day learning. Atleast I am savvy enough there to guide myself...

Also, Im tapping out for now  :P
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:21:16
I prefer os/2 and other alternative operating systems so I'm not exactly in the Microsoft fan club..  BUT I just don't buy that anyone is really being forced to use Microsoft products nor that it's not possible to create a competitive product.
Strongly coerced by standards and brainwashed by marketing, maybe, but not forced.

The fact is that every great product is usually a great risk against established odds, and when good enough it usually replaces the old.

After 1983 the commodore 64 sold almost 20 million computers (which I believe is the largest number of a single computer model ever sold). Do you not think this created a strong "barrier to entry" for other computer systems and platforms?
Regardless there are no commodore computers being sold today - they where replaced with something better, just like what will most likely happen to microsoft eventually.

Ok so you will probably say that microsoft controls technology standards which makes it nearly impossible to compete with them.
(office documents, html standards etc).
While that's true that they are using their position to maintain dominance, it's not impossible to thwart them. For example using wine or emulation, people don't "have" to stick with windows.

My wife prefers to use IE browser regardless of how I have explained how it's not as secure and also Microsoft uses it to control internet standards to keep competition out.
Yet for some reason unknown to me she still prefers it.
Many people prefer it, many people don't know or care to know about the alternatives. I see preference & ignorance, but no forcing.
That same ignorance can be used against Microsoft as well.. For example every time I work on someone’s computer I install Firefox (and encourage them to use it as it is more "secure"). Not sure how many people take my advice, but I'm pretty sure those that do - do not exactly "research" my opinion, they just assume I know what I'm talking about.

Furthermore it seems inevitable to me the open source software will dominate eventually, with all of the heavy hitters pushing it (IBM, SUN etc) and by the fact that it's mostly free. Microsoft can't really compete easily against free if the free product keeps getting superior.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 06:30:53
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:27:47
I dont know if you realize this, but you can replace virtually any driver (that will cause it not to install) on the eCS install disk with another one - in addition you can add new drivers (like SCSI, etc) that dont come on the disk.
Yes, as long as you keep up with that you're fine.  Integrating entire fixpacks not only takes care of this, but it also trims down all those post-install reboots.  My install shaves off five separate reboots for fixpack stuff, and means that any of those potential problems during install are taken care of.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:27:47
On Windows, it takes a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same thing. And heck, until Vista, you couldnt even install Windows on *ANY* machine that had SATA (unless the machine had a BIOS setting to translate the SATA interface over to IDE so XP would recognize it). You would need the SATA driver disk to install, or the OEM XP Install disk (which didnt always work... numerous OEM's; including HP & Compaq, would forget to put the SATA drivers on their otherwise generic XP install disk, rendering the entire install set useless).
To be fair, in 2001 the number of external ways to get data into a PC during an install was kind of limited.  The USB keychain thing hadn't really happened yet, and most PCs of the day had floppy drives.  At least with Windows the third party would ship their hardware with a solution.  It wasn't hinged on someone else who may or may not deliver a solution.  I personally never had a problem installing XP on SATA, I did so way back in 2003 without any special driver.  To level the playing field, since your OS/2 + SATA problem was solved with an existing OS/2 install you could use to make a new disk, it would only be fair to give the XP person the same crutch, and for that crutch I would just throw nLite at the problem (http://www.nliteos.com/).  Easy, painless driver integration, and you can throw in a service pack, hotfixes, updated IE, whatever.

I was not aware of a problem with OEMs (like Compaq which hasn't existed as a company since before SATA) wasn't including SATA disks with their hardware.  Do you have any links regarding information on this?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:38:58
I also think the main thing that has kept microsoft dominance is basically a lack of guts by other companies - not really anything microsoft is preventing.
I mean IBM could have killed MS windows if they had commited themselves to os/2 and really pushed it. Os/2 was better then windows 95, and it was really a lack of firm commitement and good marketing that did them it.
They where afraid of losing short term profits, and gave up the golden goose.

Likewise if dell, hp, gateway etc wanted to kill microsoft all they have to do is stop shipping windows and sell only linux pc's. If all of the mainstream computer companies did that the game would be over for microsoft quick. Sure, Dell would be too scared to make such a "drastic" move because they would be risking short term profits and the future of the company itself... but all great companies make such moves.

If the competitors would stop whining about monopolization and just make the bold moves they need to make, there would be nothing to talk about as far as Microsoft is concerned.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.07, 08:36:40
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.06, 15:21:41
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.06, 08:21:47
The last version of the SNAP for OS//2 supports ATI's X850 series video card.  I believe that it is included with eCS.  For someone as successful as yourself, the acquisition of eCS would not represent a serious financial hit as it would be for, say a student, like Saijin_Naib.
One of the ways I maintain the financial freedoms my success provides me is not throwing money around needlessly. I'm certainly not going to make any monetary investment into OS/2, it's too fleeting of a moment for me.

This is the first statement that you should have disclosed to our friend who is doing his OS/2 research.   You should have stated that you are not qualified --either because you are not willing to allocate the appropriate knowledge, experience, and monetary resources-- to provide an fair and unbiased assessment of the operating system functionality.  Clearly, the comparison was being done against an (some) operating system(s) with far more monetary and/or human resources, as would be WinXX and Linux distros, respectively.

Needless to say, this is an example of the (insightful) responsibility for one's free will that an individual acquires.
[...]
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.06, 15:21:41
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.06, 08:21:47Candidly speaking, you need eCS because you are not technically proficient to upgrade your (older) OS/2 version on your own.  Although some of us continue using the older releases of the operating system, we know how to keep the OS/2 updated either with freely available software and/or through non-redistribution agreements for the drivers that we acquire.
[...]
The X850 isn't here.
[...]
Why do you keep attacking me?  Do you feel personal attacks somehow boost your position? .

Not at all.

I repeat, the last version of SNAP has support for ATI's X850 series video card but, and this is not a personal attack but a fact, you are not technically proficient to upgrade OS/2 to the current level that eCS users are experiencing --video is but an aspect of the OS/2.

Let me think of an appropriate though necessarily imperfect analogy.  If you are no doctor but pretended to revive (and force to compete with newer generations) and old guy like El Vato(your current OS/2) by simply applying a blood transfusion(fixpak) from the pool of slightly younger sources, would probably illustrate the concept --in a more mundane manner-- that I tried to convey in prior post.

In other words, merely because you flipped a switch (or switches as the routine advanced) to initiate and/or complete the blood transfusion does not make you a doctor.  Where is the offense in that observation???

Accordingly, unless an doctor is dealing with zombies, those of us who know the OS/2 do not engage in a mindless process of reinstallation after reinstallation when something does not work in the OS/2.  We diagnose the problem by zeroing into the appropriate entity and/or component; we perform an ..."surgical" procedure to extract and replace the offending driver and or file (executable and/or dll, etc.) that is causing the undesired behaviour.  If we do not have the replacement, we tap into resources that may only be available to you under an eCS license. 

Again where is the offense in my candid statement?
[...]
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 06:30:53
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:27:47
I dont know if you realize this, but you can replace virtually any driver (that will cause it not to install) on the eCS install disk with another one - in addition you can add new drivers (like SCSI, etc) that dont come on the disk.
Yes, as long as you keep up with that you're fine.  Integrating entire fixpacks not only takes care of this, but it also trims down all those post-install reboots.  My install shaves off five separate reboots for fixpack stuff, and means that any of those potential problems during install are taken care of.
[/quote]

Fixpacks should be one reboot... unless you are talking OS and device driver...

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 06:30:53
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.06, 22:27:47
On Windows, it takes a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same thing. And heck, until Vista, you couldnt even install Windows on *ANY* machine that had SATA (unless the machine had a BIOS setting to translate the SATA interface over to IDE so XP would recognize it). You would need the SATA driver disk to install, or the OEM XP Install disk (which didnt always work... numerous OEM's; including HP & Compaq, would forget to put the SATA drivers on their otherwise generic XP install disk, rendering the entire install set useless).
To be fair, in 2001 the number of external ways to get data into a PC during an install was kind of limited.  The USB keychain thing hadn't really happened yet, and most PCs of the day had floppy drives.  At least with Windows the third party would ship their hardware with a solution.  It wasn't hinged on someone else who may or may not deliver a solution.  I personally never had a problem installing XP on SATA, I did so way back in 2003 without any special driver.  To level the playing field, since your OS/2 + SATA problem was solved with an existing OS/2 install you could use to make a new disk, it would only be fair to give the XP person the same crutch, and for that crutch I would just throw nLite at the problem (http://www.nliteos.com/).  Easy, painless driver integration, and you can throw in a service pack, hotfixes, updated IE, whatever.

I was not aware of a problem with OEMs (like Compaq which hasn't existed as a company since before SATA) wasn't including SATA disks with their hardware.  Do you have any links regarding information on this?

Yeah, but Compaq/HP account for most of the PCs sold. Since they included a standard WinXP disk and then driver and apps disks for most of their installs, they were useless on the SATA machines (except the few that had a SATA->IDE option in the BIOS, and customers who knew where that was).

As for modifying the WinXP install, MANY sites that helped do that have been sued or threatened out of existence by Microsoft. It's actually illegal to do what you propose (by the Terms of MS' license agreement). The only method you can use (which becomes difficult to find on their site at times) is the method outline on their site for commercial users.

Keep an eye on those sites (ntlite, etc) and download what you need now, b4 MS pulls the plug on them.

And, dont take that as an attack against u... i think MS's behavior in that matter is really sad, and a big disservice to their customers. :(

-Robert
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.07, 09:10:26

AFTERTHOUGHT: Sun MicroSystems' "The Network is the computer."

Restated in another way, "The Internet is the computer [grid] common denominator" notion has been driving the strategy of entities like Google, so as to effectively threaten the relevance of organizations whose strategic business model relied on income from locally residing applications, i.e., MS's espoused model: "The computer is the network."

IBM's On-Demand notion simply represents a restatement of Sun Microsystems' earlier assertion. It implies that the Internet, with its vendor agnostic protocols, has enabled the collaboration of humans by enabling application use "On-Demand" and not necessarily tied to a specific operating system.  As long as the networking aspect of OS/2 is kept current with the industry, even in 32-bit mode OS/2ers will have access to modern online collaboration applications --take as an example of those the model Software as a Service (SaaS) initiated by SalesForce, and subsequently endorsed by IBM, Google, and Microsoft.

Needless to say, those organizations with an older business model are being forced to adapt and, as in the case of MS, provide hybrid applications whose full functionality still depends on locally installed application instances (think Office Live as an example).

The latter proprietary organization is positioning itself to remain relevant and has "invested" in conservative sanctioned FaceBook as an strategic alliance to engage the collaboration challenges brought about by the revolution of the Internet and its GUI enabler Web  technology.

Google, an open supporter of open standards inherent in Open Source Software (OSS) like Linux, not surprisingly was "snubbed" by conservative oriented FaceBook and has subsequently formed a closer collaboration with MySpace.

Those developments further reinforce Sun Microsystems notion  that could (again) be paraphrased as, The InterNetwork "is" in effect the level at which Computing tasks are executed --the focus shifting gradually from the local computer level.  Though not in "OOH SHINY!!" mode as other proprietary and/or open source capital and/or human resource rich platforms, OS/2 continues to remain a viable computing platform.

...hope that our friend who is doing the OS/2 research has read this last paragraph.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 15:07:50
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.06, 21:28:17
I do need to learn more. And I am trying to do so, hence why I trash/reinstall so often. If I mess something up, I start clean, and try to get past that point. If I wasnt trying to learn, I would not have kept reinstalling...

I think you would learn more by not starting clean each time. Boot to command line, maintenance desktop, and OSDELETE are all powerful tools that save a lot of time. Not to mention excellent third party tools like dfsee.

I think this just one of the harms that Microsoft did to the PC industry. Reinstall used to be the last troubleshooting tactic; now it is often the first. Ctrl-Alt-Del used to be called the Microsoft three finger salute (vs. a one finger salute  ;) ), and was the last thing you tried when your PC wasn't behaving well (SW reboot)(actually HW reboot was the last thing); now it is one of the first things people hit when their PC isn't behaving well.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 15:29:53
Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:21:16
The fact is that every great product is usually a great risk against established odds, and when good enough it usually replaces the old.
There was no choice in establishing the odds. This was the first DOJ remedy applied to Microsoft. (per-processor licensing)

Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:21:16
After 1983 the commodore 64 sold almost 20 million computers (which I believe is the largest number of a single computer model ever sold). Do you not think this created a strong "barrier to entry" for other computer systems and platforms?
You should try to get a better understanding of what the term monopoly means. Commodore never had a monopoly, and they didn't even have enough marketshare to keep (for example) game developers from making a good profit writing games for Apple, Atari, etc.

Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:21:16
Ok so you will probably say that microsoft controls technology standards which makes it nearly impossible to compete with them.
(office documents, html standards etc).
While that's true that they are using their position to maintain dominance, it's not impossible to thwart them. For example using wine or emulation, people don't "have" to stick with windows.
1) Microsoft only controls Window's standards, which often allows them to force other standards to move towards their point of view. Microsoft tends to ignore outside standards, as they don't promote platform lock-in.
2) Using wine or emulation does nothing to erode the "application barrier to entry". The only way to erode this is to make it profitable for ISVs to develop software for alternative OSes. If people can run your Windows software on other systems, then you capture that market with no additional cost. You also don't face losing revenue to that other market.

Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.07, 06:21:16
Furthermore it seems inevitable to me the open source software will dominate eventually, with all of the heavy hitters pushing it (IBM, SUN etc) and by the fact that it's mostly free. Microsoft can't really compete easily against free if the free product keeps getting superior.
This one falls under the George Santayana quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Anyone want to take bets on how long before Linux's marketshare numbers are down around OS/2's after the US courts lift the sanctions against Microsoft?  ;)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.07, 16:25:07
Yeah, I probably could learn more, but seeing as many things are broken from a clean install (RC3 comes to mind) I feel like there is little point in trying to work out whats wrong with a specific issue when there obviously are other issues that I have no knowledge of at work.

Basically, if I have a release that has NO issues post-install, then I will fight to keep it going by doing actual work, not just reformatting.

That was the case this summer. I had eCS 2.0 RC1 on my sisters laptop, and 9gb of pictures/movies from china and it would no longer boot into the WPS. I had NO internet access, and I had to get that information safely off. It took me about a week to figure something out, but I saved the data to my friends computer, and then I reformatted :p

Turns out the official OS/2 display driver from INTEL doesnt work for shit. Go figure :\
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 18:57:35
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.07, 16:25:07
That was the case this summer. I had eCS 2.0 RC1 on my sisters laptop, and 9gb of pictures/movies from china and it would no longer boot into the WPS. I had NO internet access, and I had to get that information safely off. It took me about a week to figure something out, but I saved the data to my friends computer, and then I reformatted :p

Turns out the official OS/2 display driver from INTEL doesnt work for shit. Go figure :\
Here's some tips for non-starting WPS issues:
1. Boot off the recovery disks or eCS install disk and run CHKDSK /F. This is usually what is needed if you ever get the desktop not found message or a previously working system gets to a partial startup of the WPS.
2. Get the checkini or unimaint. Both check for corruption in the OS/2 INI files. I don't believe either of these tools are still supported, but they still should work.
3. Alt-F1 at the boot blob and reset to VGA. While 4-bit 640x480 is ugly, everything else will function.

Recovery disks (floppy or CD) and maintenance desktops are very useful things to have.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.07, 20:54:40
^ Did try all of the above, except for unimaint and cleanini (hard to get when you have no internet access). Resetting to VGA does wonders for making it work again, but my whole issue was I could not look at my photos or videos the way they should have been, making the laptop a little useless. Not sure why the Intel driver fails, but oh well.

Ive had to use the cd for chkdsk /F many times, especially when applying updates to eCS 2.0 because one of them will trash the bootable JFS volume, and you need to repair it.

Recovery desktop is wonderful, but its missing many of the program shortcuts that I would normally go looking to to try and fix features that are broken (when my MPTS was weird and SOCKS would trap after WPS start). What exactly does the Maintenance desktop change over the default one?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 20:57:21
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Fixpacks should be one reboot... unless you are talking OS and device driver...
Base (XR_C005/6), Device Drivers (XR_D003), MPTS (XR_8708), TCP/IP (UN_2334), LAN Services (IP_8608).  All of these tell you specifically to reboot after they are finished installing, and in fact on one occasion one of the lock files got stuck and wouldn't let me install any other fixpacks until I cleared it.
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Yeah, but Compaq/HP account for most of the PCs sold. Since they included a standard WinXP disk and then driver and apps disks for most of their installs, they were useless on the SATA machines (except the few that had a SATA->IDE option in the BIOS, and customers who knew where that was).
This is hardly the case, as HP (Compaq no longer exists and hasn't existed for years) machines typically came with floppy drives, just like Dells and Gateways and whatever else.  I didn't have a floppy drive in my homebuild rig at that time, but I still had a box of disks from when I did have one.  The only time an HP would not come with a floppy drive in 2001 is if the buyer specifically chose not to have one. 
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
As for modifying the WinXP install, MANY sites that helped do that have been sued or threatened out of existence by Microsoft. It's actually illegal to do what you propose (by the Terms of MS' license agreement). The only method you can use (which becomes difficult to find on their site at times) is the method outline on their site for commercial users.
Make sure Microsoft sues these hooligans:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/828930/

Microsoft would only care if one were to package their own "unofficial" updates and try to pawn it off as official MS stuff.  It's also not really kosher to distribute completed ISOs.  That's why software like nLite simply explains to the end user how to do it all themselves.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Keep an eye on those sites (ntlite, etc) and download what you need now, b4 MS pulls the plug on them.
Microsoft launches a brutal attack!.. kinda.
http://tech.de.msn.com/home/computer_downloads.aspx?cp-documentid=5772388

MCP Magazine recommends such tools.
http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1224

It gets it's own wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLite

nLite has been around a long time and does nothing that violates anything in MS's ToS.  You are certainly permitted to have updated install media, in fact MS has switches in their updates JUST to do this.  I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.07, 08:36:40
This is the first statement that you should have disclosed to our friend who is doing his OS/2 research.   You should have stated that you are not qualified --either because you are not willing to allocate the appropriate knowledge, experience, and monetary resources-- to provide an fair and unbiased assessment of the operating system functionality.  Clearly, the comparison was being done against an (some) operating system(s) with far more monetary and/or human resources, as would be WinXX and Linux distros, respectively.
Quite the contrary.  I think the best way to be unbiased is to have no attachment.  If you feel my qualifications are not to a certain level, then that only reaffirms my suitability for an honest answer because I don't have a rigged knowledge.  I'm an average Joe, trying to do things that in Windows would be considered average things.  I want to play youtube videos, or listen to online music, or write a letter, or watch a DVD, or whatever else an average Joe wants to do.  With OS/2 I found these things significantly more cumbersome and primitive to do than in Windows, or Linux.  Heck I'm currently in Solaris 10 x86 and even *this* comes with Flash 9 and RealPlayer 10 already installed and configured (and StarOffice).

For what it's worth, I think in the couple of weeks I played with OS/2 on and off I learned a heck of a lot about OS/2 *and* Virtualbox.  Online resources for OS/2 are kinda choppy, it's alot of deadwood information that is years out of date, idle IRC channels, and spam-cluttered newsgroups (I do miss the advocacy group).  I had to rely on knowledge I had forgotten a decade ago and try to fill in the rest with hopeful Google searches.  I am happy Hobbes is still around, it looks the same as it did all those years ago.  Finding OS2World was like finding an oasis in the desert.  It's just unfortunate that the most lively thread here is this one.  I would much rather be discussing OS/2 tweaks and which ZIP/UNZIP "front end" people like more.

FYI- Solaris 10's "Common Desktop Environment" has a box at the bottom very similar to the old Warp toolbar, complete with the up-sliding drawers.  CDE is ancient, so I will research to see which OS had this particular feature first.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.08, 02:54:20
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 20:57:21
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Fixpacks should be one reboot... unless you are talking OS and device driver...
Base (XR_C005/6), Device Drivers (XR_D003), MPTS (XR_8708), TCP/IP (UN_2334), LAN Services (IP_8608).  All of these tell you specifically to reboot after they are finished installing, and in fact on one occasion one of the lock files got stuck and wouldn't let me install any other fixpacks until I cleared it.
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Yeah, but Compaq/HP account for most of the PCs sold. Since they included a standard WinXP disk and then driver and apps disks for most of their installs, they were useless on the SATA machines (except the few that had a SATA->IDE option in the BIOS, and customers who knew where that was).
This is hardly the case, as HP (Compaq no longer exists and hasn't existed for years) machines typically came with floppy drives, just like Dells and Gateways and whatever else.  I didn't have a floppy drive in my homebuild rig at that time, but I still had a box of disks from when I did have one.  The only time an HP would not come with a floppy drive in 2001 is if the buyer specifically chose not to have one. 

That HP and Compaq are the same company is irrelevant... so is the fact that most of their machines CAME with floppies (hate to break it to u but most of the SATA machines DONT come with floppies - which you WOULD need to install the driver during standard installation via the F6 option). Regardless, you need the DRIVER in order to do that... which was impossible to find on HP's site. They screwed up. Quite simply put.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 20:57:21
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
As for modifying the WinXP install, MANY sites that helped do that have been sued or threatened out of existence by Microsoft. It's actually illegal to do what you propose (by the Terms of MS' license agreement). The only method you can use (which becomes difficult to find on their site at times) is the method outline on their site for commercial users.
Make sure Microsoft sues these hooligans:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/828930/

Microsoft would only care if one were to package their own "unofficial" updates and try to pawn it off as official MS stuff.  It's also not really kosher to distribute completed ISOs.  That's why software like nLite simply explains to the end user how to do it all themselves.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.07, 08:48:31
Keep an eye on those sites (ntlite, etc) and download what you need now, b4 MS pulls the plug on them.
Microsoft launches a brutal attack!.. kinda.
http://tech.de.msn.com/home/computer_downloads.aspx?cp-documentid=5772388

MCP Magazine recommends such tools.
http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1224

It gets it's own wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLite

nLite has been around a long time and does nothing that violates anything in MS's ToS.  You are certainly permitted to have updated install media, in fact MS has switches in their updates JUST to do this.  I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

While a few are still up, and some even have a Wiki page, (and its on an MSN page), that does nothing to change the fact that MS has already gotten rid of numerous others, and THEY have stated it is against their terms of service... check slashdot and you will find a number of articles on it.

And if you read their EULA, you will find that they DO make it against their EULA.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.07, 08:36:40
This is the first statement that you should have disclosed to our friend who is doing his OS/2 research.   You should have stated that you are not qualified --either because you are not willing to allocate the appropriate knowledge, experience, and monetary resources-- to provide an fair and unbiased assessment of the operating system functionality.  Clearly, the comparison was being done against an (some) operating system(s) with far more monetary and/or human resources, as would be WinXX and Linux distros, respectively.
Quite the contrary.  I think the best way to be unbiased is to have no attachment.  If you feel my qualifications are not to a certain level, then that only reaffirms my suitability for an honest answer because I don't have a rigged knowledge.  I'm an average Joe,

Let me summarize the argument:  If you are no "doctor," and in your own words "an average Joe," eCS is for you.  Otherwise the evaluation against current professionally developed/supported operating systems is, by logical necessity, walking on stilts.

In an experiment (especially if the intention is to arrive at an unbiased conclusion) the parameters are applied uniformly across the domain objects under consideration --else the conclusions that are arrived at simply reflect the subjectivity (narrow and familiar notions) of the experimenter/observer.

Reiterating, you certainly did not start with an older OS/2 contemporary WinXX equivalent and start applying the patches to upgrade the same to the current standards against which you are measuring the older OS/2, did you?


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
trying to do things that in Windows would be considered average things.

Again, OS/2 is not WinXX, and in a heterogeneous operating system environment like the one that prevails in the Internet, WinXX is not the measure of everything. Otherwise, we would all migrate to your platform.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
I want to play youtube videos, or listen to online music, or write a letter, or watch a DVD, or whatever else an average Joe wants to do.  With OS/2 I found these things significantly more cumbersome and primitive to do than in Windows, or Linux.

That is not the main focus that you emphasized when you responded to our friend who was doing her/his OS/2 research.  On the other hand, I believe that some of the metrics under discussion were addressed in this thread.  "Primitive" or not, look around in the forum and you will find people doing all of those "average" tasks --and more.

If you adopt a more responsible stance and ask them in an appropriate manner, they will help you with your issues.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
Heck I'm currently in Solaris 10 x86 and even *this* comes with Flash 9 and RealPlayer 10 already installed and configured (and StarOffice).

Why is that a surprise?  Sun MicroSystems has been repositioning its operating system to take on Linux.   Solaris is a "fully" supported platform --implying that there is a lot of human and capital resources behind Solaris.

To help it achieve its aim, Sun has recruited  Ian Murdock, the founder of the Linux Debian GNU/Linux distro.  Possibly engaging in either substantiated and/or unsubstantiated assumptions --like yourself, Sun assumes that Murdock knows "a thing or two" about open source (and possibly so since Ubuntu uses Debian as its base).

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
For what it's worth, I think in the couple of weeks I played with OS/2 on and off I learned a heck of a lot about OS/2 *and* Virtualbox.  Online resources for OS/2 are kinda choppy, it's alot of deadwood information that is years out of date, idle IRC channels, and spam-cluttered newsgroups (I do miss the advocacy group).  I had to rely on knowledge I had forgotten a decade ago and try to fill in the rest with hopeful Google searches.  I am happy Hobbes is still around, it looks the same as it did all those years ago.  Finding OS2World was like finding an oasis in the desert.

You can express your appreciation to Kim Haverblad, the enabler for the collaborative nature taking place in the site.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
It's just unfortunate that the most lively thread here is this one.  I would much rather be discussing OS/2 tweaks and which ZIP/UNZIP "front end" people like more.

Perhaps if you had began your incursion into the forum with an unbiased and constructive approach, the thread would have taken a totally different twist.

It is never too late to ask --with the appropriate issues known in hindsight-- about the more "average" uses of the OS/2.  For instance (and addressing the zip utility front end), in my collection of software from 1996 I have a file manager utility produced and/or distributed by Clear & Simple, Inc.: Disk Jockey (< http://www.chingonazo.com/diskJockey_OS2W3.JPG (http://www.chingonazo.com/diskJockey_OS2W3.JPG)   >).  By simply double clicking on a compressed file, it is "cute" enough to show the compressed contents (in this case a current version of a compressed FireFox release).

Notwithstanding, when a user knows that behind the GUI the utility is actually decompressing the file into an temporary directory (either in your hard drive and or memory) subsequently proceeding to display the contents to the user,  I find that its "intuitive magic" is no challenge for my typing:

pkzip /view file.zip

it saves me the time to chase GUI buttons for file etc., etc.

Of course, it does not imply that other OS/2ers here do the same as I do.  OS/2, like Linux, offers an user more than one way to "skin a cat."  For one thing I am using the licensed version (read paid for) of PkWare's Pkzip for OS/2 (whose development stopped before the millennium was over --but that still performs the job).  Notwithstanding, there is an freely developed equivalent out there used with GUI utilities for OS/2.  I believe that X WorkPlace has, among other GUI features, an more up to date pkzip GUI alternative, ask around.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
FYI- Solaris 10's "Common Desktop Environment" has a box at the bottom very similar to the old Warp toolbar, complete with the up-sliding drawers.

That is what I remarked in certain prior post, did not I?  Being a member of the Sun Developer Network, I will dare to assume that I know "a thing or two" about that platform.

I believe that  you will find a couple of relatively recent screenshots of that platform around here.  OS/2ers know that their community extends far beyond the limits of the pond in which they are active.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.07, 22:18:52
CDE is ancient, so I will research to see which OS had this particular feature first.

Since you are at it, you may want to research more thoroughly (certainly, placing your baggage of assumptions stacked on the side --next to those "resumes") the conclusions that you arrived at on the domain of virtualization technology --and how the different approaches affect the virtualized operating system.  Those continue to escape your grasp.

"And, dont take that as an attack against u...," if I may borrow a sentence from RobertM, our moderator --I am a provider/implementator of virtualization solutions;  correctly or incorrectly I will assume that I know "a thing or two" about the domain under consideration.

Cheers  :)!
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.08, 12:15:05
Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 18:57:35
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.07, 16:25:07
That was the case this summer. I had eCS 2.0 RC1 on my sisters laptop, and 9gb of pictures/movies from china and it would no longer boot into the WPS. I had NO internet access, and I had to get that information safely off. It took me about a week to figure something out, but I saved the data to my friends computer, and then I reformatted :p

Turns out the official OS/2 display driver from INTEL doesnt work for shit. Go figure :\
Here's some tips for non-starting WPS issues:
1. Boot off the recovery disks or eCS install disk and run CHKDSK /F. This is usually what is needed if you ever get the desktop not found message or a previously working system gets to a partial startup of the WPS.
2. Get the checkini or unimaint. Both check for corruption in the OS/2 INI files. I don't believe either of these tools are still supported, but they still should work.
3. Alt-F1 at the boot blob and reset to VGA. While 4-bit 640x480 is ugly, everything else will function.

Recovery disks (floppy or CD) and maintenance desktops are very useful things to have.

Shoot, sorry gang, I totally missed this one... There is a line you can add to your config.sys that will often help with the "desktop cannot be found" message... it is one of these two if memory serves (but I am no t sure which):

SET DESKTOP=C:\DESKTOP
or
DESKTOP=C:\DESKTOP

(of course, replace c: with the drive letter that has the desktop directory)

I ensure I have desktop archiving enabled, that way I dont have to rely on that method (which doesnt always work, and is sometimes indicative of a more serious issue in the INI files)... then I just restore an archive and am up and running.


And definitely check out the INI tools that lwriemen recommended... even when your system isnt having problems, they are great for removing unneeded entries from the ini files, which will keep things running faster, as well as longer without issue.

-Robert
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.08, 12:22:20
A Zip Front End I find extremely useful is eZip from www.subsys.de/ezip

Looks pretty much just like a folder. It has a few minor quirks (you dont want to drag large files out of the archive... if you do, you have to hold the mouse button down over the target folder till it is done decompressing them... but you can simply use the "Extract to" menu option for those - which gives you a lot more options anyway) but nothing making it unusable.

Oh, and I change the "Ready" bitmap (the little red thing on the bottom right of the screenshot) to a green bitmap... normally it's dark red for ready or glowing red for "doing something"

It supports zip files (of course) with unzip/zip installed (free, from Hobbes) as well as rar files (with unrar which is free from Hobbes) - and creates templates for them so you can create zip "folders" by dragging and dropping from a template just like you would with a regular folder. It also supports zip in zip in zip... etc files (ie: nested zip files), and allows you to run or edit or view objects within a zip file.

And of course, it supports drag-n-drop

The only thing I wish they would do is check the drop object before they start decompressing files...

I also write simple REXX scripts to handle some of my ZIP and UNZIP functions from the pop-up menus. As a matter of fact, theres a REXX DLL that u can use as well to streamline and expand on that stuff quite nicely (though I am currently not using it... pretty simple to just have a REXX script set/make a directory to zip or unzip to - though using it and lets say DrDialog, would allow a nice progress bar and some other neat stuff).

-Robert


(Screenshot is of "Details view" - I think there are 2 other view options...)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.08, 23:32:05
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.08, 02:54:20
That HP and Compaq are the same company is irrelevant... so is the fact that most of their machines CAME with floppies (hate to break it to u but most of the SATA machines DONT come with floppies - which you WOULD need to install the driver during standard installation via the F6 option). Regardless, you need the DRIVER in order to do that... which was impossible to find on HP's site. They screwed up. Quite simply put.
Very few machines on HP's site today can be configured without Vista.  So far I found one, a $3000 multimedia PC with one hard drive.  Likely it's not RAID, so the controller will support standard IDE mode.  You make it sound like EVERY SINGLE machine that ever got branded with an HP (or Compaq?) logo ABSOLUTELY will not run XP because they will not allow a floppy disk and absolutely offer NO option to make the SATA answer like legacy IDE.  No person on earth can install XP on an HP box.  Ever.  Is this what you are saying?  Or are you saying a very small number of people running configurations that they were ignorant about when they configured it, won't install XP?  I bet you it is VERY easy to build a box that OS/2-ECS will not install on.  It's downright *hard* to build a box XP will not install on, and you practically have to do it on purpose.

Vista, as you know, can accept drivers from a variety of sources during the install, and does not require a floppy disk to install them.

Also, for the die-hards, floppy connectors still come on most motherboards.  Intel has a couple of boards without them now, which will trickle down and the floppy drive will finally go away.  Finally.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.08, 02:54:20
While a few are still up, and some even have a Wiki page, (and its on an MSN page), that does nothing to change the fact that MS has already gotten rid of numerous others, and THEY have stated it is against their terms of service... check slashdot and you will find a number of articles on it.
What numerous others?  Besides sites that re-package Microsoft's own updates as their own?  Like I said, nLite absolutely, positively, undeniably offers ABSOLUTELY ZERO Microsoft code.  None.  Zero.  There's not a lick of Microsoft update or anything in the program they offer.  The only thing it does, is take your existing updates, integrate them into the install, and make you a nice, updated install disc that can save you time and save Microsoft bandwidth.  You're not understanding this at all.  You see one Slashdot article about a site hosting Windows updates (which has always been a no-no) and you extrapolate that to "anything that does anything to Windows will get shut down."  You know that's not true.  There's a zillion sites out there that have been out there for ages and Microsoft loves them and Microsoft even sometimes buys them.

You sound paranoid.  *This* is the irrational-ness that comes from too much Slashdot and Inquirer.  They breed the neo-cons of the computer world.  Microsoft isn't out to get you, don't worry!  There's no Red Dawn!

Microsoft's own site tells you how to do the things nLite does (as my link shows).  It's not some voodoo magic that is locked away in a vault somewhere.  It doesn't violate a EULA and doesn't break laws.  It simplifies a process Microsoft WANTS users to do.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Let me summarize the argument:  If you are no "doctor," and in your own words "an average Joe," eCS is for you.  Otherwise the evaluation against current professionally developed/supported operating systems is, by logical necessity, walking on stilts.
First off, ECS would be nice to try, but the Live CD looks brutally limited and dated (Firefox 1.0.7?).

Secondly, Serenity's site lists nothing I either can't get free for OS/2 4.52 (from Hobbes) or otherwise simply don't need.  Xworkplace?  Check.  AE Editor?  Check.  InnoTek stuff?  Check.  Warpin?  Check.  ISDNPM?  Er..   ECS is OS/2 4.52 with fluff.  *My* 4.52 install is a newer service level all around than ECS 1.2R is.  I'd be curious to see what ECS 1.2R would be without that C:\ECS directory.  OMG THE THEMES!  :rolls eyes:  If I'm ignorant about this please correct me, as I am reading off Serenity's site right now and really, I see nothing of interest.  I especially see nothing warranting dedicating an entire PC to ECS, and ECS will not install in Virtualbox (resource.sys trap at CD boot, which ALSO happens on real hardware). 

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
In an experiment (especially if the intention is to arrive at an unbiased conclusion) the parameters are applied uniformly across the domain objects under consideration --else the conclusions that are arrived at simply reflect the subjectivity (narrow and familiar notions) of the experimenter/observer.
I draw most of my data from comparisons with XP, which came out around the same time as OS/2 4.52 (late 2001).  Really, XP came out in October and OS/2 4.52 in December.  Call 4.52 a maintenance release if you like, MS didn't really consider XP a big deal either... Win2K is NT5, XP is NT5.1.  A double irony, OS/2 went up over half a version number, while XP went up .1.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
That is not the main focus that you emphasized when you responded to our friend who was doing her/his OS/2 research.  On the other hand, I believe that some of the metrics under discussion were addressed in this thread.  "Primitive" or not, look around in the forum and you will find people doing all of those "average" tasks --and more.
I said they were tasks that were doable (to an extent) but they are clunky and complicated to set up.  Flash for Windows can be done in about 4 mouse clicks.  Flash for OS/2 (of a version that can play Youtube) involves consideraly more work.  Mind you, for that you get exactly a Flash that can play Youtube videos.  Any other video-related site (like cnn.com) would not work.


Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Perhaps if you had began your incursion into the forum with an unbiased and constructive approach, the thread would have taken a totally different twist.
I answered a question.  It was unbiased, as I never said what OS I was using (for the record, I was in OS/2 in a VM under Vista x64).  I also never tried to directly compare OS/2 to any new Windows (I mentioned Windows 2000).

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Since you are at it, you may want to research more thoroughly (certainly, placing your baggage of assumptions stacked on the side --next to those "resumes") the conclusions that you arrived at on the domain of virtualization technology --and how the different approaches affect the virtualized operating system.  Those continue to escape your grasp.
Please list the conclusions I came to.  I'm not approaching virtualization from the back-end, I'm approaching it from the front-end.  One of the biggest issues I think OS/2 faced was people on the back-end not understanding the people on the front-end.  Microsoft understood the people on the front-end, at a time when it was critical to do so.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
...Humm, there are no comments on the GUI zip utilities that, as far back as 1996 existed for OS/2.   Nor were there any comments regarding the alternative GUI utility resource that our moderator provided. 

And that brings me to a  necessary question ...Are you here for help or to provide any constructive criticism on the OS/2?  Or are you here merely to find out how many OS/2ers can you take to Zarathustra's cave ...er, that pond whose "wetness" property you can not seem to let go?

Additionally, I did not see any more comparisons to Solaris and/or Linux on such "important" applications as Flash and games –notwithstanding,  the current wedge against the OS/2 remains.

I thought that you finally had acknowledged the fact that if there are different operating systems, it is because some of us do not regard your operating system as the standard measure of computing.  Yet by your insistence on focusing on shallow metrics for arriving at your "data" you continue to miss that essential point: OS/2 is not (nor needs to be) like WinXX for us to use it.

For some of us, the Flash and movie stuff is irrelevant for we engage in real computing activities; notwithstanding for others, "clunky" or not, the OS/2 will get the job done for that multimedia stuff.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Let me summarize the argument:  If you are no "doctor," and in your own words "an average Joe," eCS is for you.  Otherwise the evaluation against current professionally developed/supported operating systems is, by logical necessity, walking on stilts.
First off, ECS would be nice to try, but the Live CD looks brutally limited and dated (Firefox 1.0.7?).

Secondly, Serenity's site lists nothing I either can't get free for OS/2 4.52 (from Hobbes) or otherwise simply don't need.  Xworkplace?  Check.  AE Editor?  Check.  InnoTek stuff?  Check.  Warpin?  Check.  ISDNPM?  Er..   ECS is OS/2 4.52 with fluff.  *My* 4.52 install is a newer service level all around than ECS 1.2R is.  I'd be curious to see what ECS 1.2R would be without that C:\ECS directory.  OMG THE THEMES!  :rolls eyes:

As an "average Joe" that is the only feature that you would be able to understand.   For users like you, coming from WinXX and placing so much emphasis on Flash and movies, eCS marketing arm assumes that a pretty GUI is what you want –why do not you let them know otherwise?   Needless to say, explaining the professionally developed ...humm "backend" --as you referred to it-- features would be out of your understanding.  Why would marketing engage engineering to dwell on those for someone who, evidently, up to this point in the thread has been merely regurgitating his/her prior babblings???

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
  If I'm ignorant about this please correct me, as I am reading off Serenity's site right now and really, I see nothing of interest.  I especially see nothing warranting dedicating an entire PC to ECS, and ECS will not install in Virtualbox (resource.sys trap at CD boot, which ALSO happens on real hardware).

As I see the biggest impediment to an unbiased evaluation of the OS/2 are your MS induced notions.  First was the virtualization "instability" that for some reason I, or as a matter of fact others, are not experiencing in actual hardware.  Subsequently came the issue of the "expensiveness" of the eCS;  then it proceeded to issues of "average uses" of the OS/2 that –naturally-- do not measure up to your implicit "wetness" property of your pond (and what some have referred to as group mentality) of WinXX.

Accordingly, this is becoming sort of an concocted attack on OS/2, veiled under the guise of a purported "unbiased" evaluation by an purportedly former OS/2er that became indoctrinated into another environment. 

I can not help but be reminded of that certain enthusiast propagator of a certain religion who, not ready to convert others due to his engagement in games ...er, human pleasures, fell into the grasp of the Borg collective ...er, "savage" religion (whatever that means).   His psyche was re-educated to turn against his former brotherhood, and in the process the convert disparaged those former ways while exalting those of his master.
   
(Albert Camus, the atheist French Existentialist actually made that observation on that familiar human pattern of those who fall short on individuality.  Camus subsequently wrote an literary essay to illustrate that peculiar trait of collectively induced behaviour in The Renegade, one of six short works in his anthology, Exile in the Kingdom.)

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
In an experiment (especially if the intention is to arrive at an unbiased conclusion) the parameters are applied uniformly across the domain objects under consideration --else the conclusions that are arrived at simply reflect the subjectivity (narrow and familiar notions) of the experimenter/observer.
I draw most of my data from comparisons with XP, which came out around the same time as OS/2 4.52 (late 2001).  Really, XP came out in October and OS/2 4.52 in December.  Call 4.52 a maintenance release if you like, MS didn't really consider XP a big deal either... Win2K is NT5, XP is NT5.1.  A double irony, OS/2 went up over half a version number, while XP went up .1.

OS/2 W4's base is from around 1996-1997.  It was subsequently enhanced with the fixpaks and an stable and cutting edge Java component to serve the large enterprise deployments in existence under support contracts.  Needless to remark, the OS/2 aim never shifted to the consumer.
 
Obviously,  and even if written in your own words, you still do not grasp the concept that OS/2's aim has been different than WinXX.  The latter's code base, as judged from the behaviour of the innumerable members of that "family" has not remained consistent but actually half done hacks to focus on the marketing aims of each subsequent release.  Why do you think that I referred to them as in alpha and beta development releases???

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
That is not the main focus that you emphasized when you responded to our friend who was doing her/his OS/2 research.  On the other hand, I believe that some of the metrics under discussion were addressed in this thread.  "Primitive" or not, look around in the forum and you will find people doing all of those "average" tasks --and more.
I said they were tasks that were doable (to an extent) but they are clunky and complicated to set up.  Flash for Windows can be done in about 4 mouse clicks.  Flash for OS/2 (of a version that can play Youtube) involves consideraly more work.  Mind you, for that you get exactly a Flash that can play Youtube videos.  Any other video-related site (like cnn.com) would not work.

I, for one, do not have a need (or desire, as a matter of fact) to use that conservative resource.  I subscribe to the New York times and from time to time read articles from the Los Angeles Times.  My needs are not your needs; my choice of operating system is simply one more way to emphasize that --I thought that you had mastered that which was written in your own words in a certain prior post.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Perhaps if you had began your incursion into the forum with an unbiased and constructive approach, the thread would have taken a totally different twist.
I answered a question.  It was unbiased,

If this is your notion of "unbiasedness" when you pretend to compare the performance of an operating system  --in a virtualized setting-- against that of an equivalent "front end" marketing refocused equivalent, then you need to go back and reexamine the definition of "unbiasedness."  An appropriate and "unbiased" approach is required of anyone who is responsible for, say, the review of candidates' resumes for an competing position.

Seen from that perspective, it is no wonder then that the outsourcing of vital engineering processes continues to be sent to "developing" nations since those more serious local candidates "need" to engage in "gaming" to be considered "adequate."

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
as I never said what OS I was using (for the record, I was in OS/2 in a VM under Vista x64).  I also never tried to directly compare OS/2 to any new Windows (I mentioned Windows 2000).

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.08, 09:16:35
Since you are at it, you may want to research more thoroughly (certainly, placing your baggage of assumptions stacked on the side --next to those "resumes") the conclusions that you arrived at on the domain of virtualization technology --and how the different approaches affect the virtualized operating system.  Those continue to escape your grasp.
Please list the conclusions I came to.

"Know thyself, first," attributed to Socrates, but actually in the general knowledge of many more ancient cultures than the Greek would better address that request. Review what you have posted and ...

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.09, 00:13:24
  I'm not approaching virtualization from the back-end, I'm approaching it from the front-end.  One of the biggest issues I think OS/2 faced was people on the back-end not understanding the people on the front-end.  Microsoft understood the people on the front-end, at a time when it was critical to do so.

"Front, back, right/left side, top/bottom side,"  whatever you want to call it in your "average Joe" jargon.  It does not relieve you of the responsibility for knowing its implications "before" babbling out something that simply fits your preconceived notions.  I could, out of ignorance and self-satisfaction like yourself, talk garbage about the performance of WinXX when virtualized, say under open source Xen, like in this screen shot (< http://www.chingonazo.com/xenFedora7_64-bitWinXppStart.png >) --but I know better.

For starters, the first thing that one would notice under a WinXX virtualized instance would be the the crappy driver issues –that has been addressed by XenSource and Novell in their subscription based offering, with Novell offering its Virtualization Pack under SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED).

Indeed, I will tell you that which you are not perceiving:

You do not grasp the notion that unless the source code of the operating system kernel under consideration is open and modifiable to run in paravirtualized mode, it will "necessarily" trail substantially behind its natively hardware installed counterpart in performance and stability. 

You do not apprehend that the performance of an virtualized operating system is necessarily slower and unstable than if it were performing natively in actual hardware --especially when quirks like the WinXX drivers issue mentioned above are not taken care of.  When an operating system is resource rich, those problems will be addressed --as XenSource and Novell did.  On the other hand, if there is next to nothing support for that operating system --like is the case with OS/2-- well, ignorance or prudence will drive the conclusions drawn on the performance.

By what percentage is the performance affected?  Probably would be the natural question. 

That depends on the quality and maturity of the virtualization product –when MS Viridian comes out, it will not support live migrations, for instance.  Notwithstanding, (other) proprietary solutions from VmWare as well as those from open source alternatives like XenSource and Virtual Iron, as well as some based on KVM, do support live migrations of virtual machines now.

That also depends on whether the operating system has been fully virtualized with hardware (CPU) virtualization extensions.

That depends on whether the operating system has been virtualized in full software virtualization mode.

And that depends on whether the operating system has been paravirtualized (read closer to native installation performance) –which OS/2 is certainly not being done under Virtual Box and/or Virtual PC.  Accordingly, any conclusions of yours that the OS/2 performance under virtualization must reflect its performance on an native hardware installation is, by logical necessity, a shallow assumption and walks on stilts.

Against the backdrop of all of the above, could I ask you a favour???  Please, re-evaluate your reasons for visiting this "oasis" of the OS/2.  And if you can not be constructive (we need constructive input) nor seek advice on your "average" uses of OS/2 (we love to help out around here), then this is possibly not the right place for you.  OS/2 is not WinXX; OS/2 is not Solaris and/or Linux.  In short OS/2 does not have the capital nor human (or both) resources as those other alternatives and the comparison with an resource rich operating system is by default specious.

With all due respect, this discussion has become as redundant (and irritating) as answering the (reformatted at best) questions of a little 10 year old kid over and over who lacks the capacity  (or does not want) to acknowledge a basic concept; her/his voluntary instructor is in effect sending her/him back to kindergartner for her/him to learn the very basics as this last post in the thread is finished, capisci ??? 

(Door closes and El Vato is gone to México in his 1968 Plymouth Fury III)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.09, 17:21:12
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
And that brings me to a  necessary question ...Are you here for help or to provide any constructive criticism on the OS/2?  Or are you here merely to find out how many OS/2ers can you take to Zarathustra's cave ...er, that pond whose "wetness" property you can not seem to let go?
The statement, "I do miss the advocacy group", may be a telling factor.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52
SubZero,

Here are some points contrary to your "argument" against OS/2 and eCS:

Windows isnt superior... it's just more prevalent. And I have yet to find it more stable than a properly configured WSeB or eCS system on good hardware.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Terry on 2007.11.10, 02:46:16
Even without the in-depth "under the hood" experience of some in the the OS/2 community, it is a privilege to share the long-standing operating system stability track record that is OS/2.

Some of us eCS'ers are end-users who did no more than actually take the time to understand what OS/2 could do over ten Micro$oft kernels in the past => meaning the days of OS/2 v2.1 and DOS/Windows v3.1 dual-boot partitioned on a state-of-the-art 2 gig hard drive, and then Windows 95 replacing Windows 3.1 while hogging more of the hard drive's real estate.

There is an extremely easy test to determine the capabilities of the latest Windows Vista Home Premium vs. the latest eComStation by using the same program on the same hardware setup without running either operating system inside virtualization but a dual-boot scenario:

Load Lotus Word Pro and print just a one-page document, immediately Load Lotus Word Pro again and print that same one-page document, while both documents are printing load Lotus Word Pro a third time on top of the first two Lotus Word Pro loads and print that same one-page document once more, and keep doing just that again and again and again...

...now, which operating system will be left standing before one of them has a system crash?

We all know what the answer to that simple question will be without ever performing that simple test.  It isn't "rocket science" to recognize the how an operating system will perform.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.10, 04:52:06
No we dont, and I feel that you are heavily baised in favor of OS/2. Windows, whether you feel the need to admit it or not, has come a long way since the days of Win 95/98. That however, is simply not something that is to be appreciated in this forum seeing as its an OS/2 eCS community forum. However, if we are to tout the virtue of being unbiased, I do believe it should go the other way as well. When I had a w4 machine, I definately prefered it to the windows machines my friends had, though at the time, I did not understand what the difference was. After many years I have found that Windows 2k and XP (2k more so) are incredibly stable, provided that the user KNOWS what they are doing and how to handle the operating system. If you have read any of my previous posts, you will see that I have admitted to a very poor track run with eCS owing mostly to my unfamiliarity with it. However, when I say that one is more stable in certain applications or faster than another, I do so by providing RESULTS from tests that I perform. You sir, however, do NOT, indicating a high degree of bias and fan-boydom which frankly, I find a bit disconcerting considering you are not some impetuous child, like I could rightly be considered. But in any case, you are free to have your opinion, but I would prefer if you could perform the test you have outlined and please, post the results here so that we may see them. I am a very emphaitc supporter of the value of knowledge gained through scientific pursuits.
/rant
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 07:09:30
Saijin_Naib,

I presume you are commenting on Terry's post. On a technical standpoint, I can discuss it (and if someone finds me copies of both the Windows and OS/2 version of Lotus Word Pro, I'll run the test).

WinVista has the advantage of allowing a similar (and in some cases greater) memory addressing space - but it also has the major deficiencies of wasting a LOT of resources (still, to this day) to do so, and a very poor threading model, and very poor SMP support. While Vista will support SMP on a few more machines than eCS (which is changing with the new ACPI tools, which should keep it in FAVOR of eCS - which will also run on numerous specialized SMP servers that Vista WONT run on), Vista does not make use of the additional cores or CPUs for any single app running. Hence, lists of SMP enabled apps are all over the Internet (here's one: http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-854892.html). OS/2, as I mentioned, doesnt have that problem. That alone means that any such test like Terry outlined can benefit, because the thread scheduler can move threads from CPU to CPU, which in many cases can reduce system bottlenecks (tough to explain how in non-technical terms, but I can try if you would like).

Also, back to the resources issue... you can duplicate the resource issue by loading lots of copies of anything on Windows, track your memory usage (in something better and more accurate than the tools that come with it), and see what it frees up when done, and how much it is using for each copy. Native OS/2 apps, and well written ports consume less resources and (usually) free their resources properly when exiting, so a similar test with OS/2 will show a far different resource usage.

As a matter of fact, another wonderful example is doing something that incurs a big swap penalty on both OS's... for instance load a __________ (or bunch of ___________) that grows your swap file to a few HUNDRED megabytes, or even a gigabyte... (1) OS/2 will usually be more responsive, and (2) when the programs (or whatever) are closed, OS/2 will free the physical ram footprint they were using, then swap back anything else *as needed*, AND then shrink the swap file to it's normal size - all in idle cycles. That increases overall performance when freeing allocated RAM, over the Windows method which generally results in wasted swap space, and incomplete clearing of the no longer used memory footprint (meaning you also get more of those resources back - both RAM and disk).

So, there is a test you can run for yourself... as a matter of fact, you can download the trial of PMView for both OS's and try it... open tons of them... open tons of large images in them each... close them, see what happens before, during and after the test...

After reading your post, I do think it best if you try the test yourself. Try it on both a single CPU and on an SMP machine... either way, OS/2 will win... hands down.

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.10, 07:26:05
In the words of my man Rodney King:
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?"

Thank you.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
...Humm, there are no comments on the GUI zip utilities that, as far back as 1996 existed for OS/2.   Nor were there any comments regarding the alternative GUI utility resource that our moderator provided. 
If you want a comment I'll give you one.  I couldn't find ezip in any format except a zipped archive.  That's the one in my original post.  While the interface is considerably nicer than the command line, it still has moments of "I should be able to do this, why can't I?" to it.  It just feels like it takes more to do things than it should.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
Additionally, I did not see any more comparisons to Solaris and/or Linux on such "important" applications as Flash and games –notwithstanding,  the current wedge against the OS/2 remains.
I saw no further comment as necessary.  I'm not going to beat a dead horse.  Games?  Neither Solaris nor OS/2 is going to win this one, tho Solaris comes with more ways to spend idle time.  Flash is more important than you may realize, given that many websites are beginning to assume the user has it.  One only needs to spend time in a browser that can't do Flash to realize how much the web has adopted it, even sites that don't necessarily need it.

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
I, for one, do not have a need (or desire, as a matter of fact) to use that conservative resource.  I subscribe to the New York times and from time to time read articles from the Los Angeles Times.  My needs are not your needs; my choice of operating system is simply one more way to emphasize that --I thought that you had mastered that which was written in your own words in a certain prior post.
Did you know the front page of nytimes.com has flash embedded in it?
Did you know the front page of latimes.com has flash embedded in it?

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
If this is your notion of "unbiasedness" when you pretend to compare the performance of an operating system  --in a virtualized setting-- against that of an equivalent "front end" marketing refocused equivalent, then you need to go back and reexamine the definition of "unbiasedness."  An appropriate and "unbiased" approach is required of anyone who is responsible for, say, the review of candidates' resumes for an competing position.
Nothing I talked about was affected by running the OS in a virtual machine.  A dated desktop is still a dated desktop.  The SIQ problem is still the SIQ problem, one that has plagued OS/2 since long before anyone ran it in a virtual machine.  The app problem was around since long before Virtualbox was a gleam in a programmer's eye.  Again you speak of "performance".. In what context?

Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
You do not grasp the notion that unless the source code of the operating system kernel under consideration is open and modifiable to run in paravirtualized mode, it will "necessarily" trail substantially behind its natively hardware installed counterpart in performance and stability.
You throw around this "performance" word, and claim that I have some performance comment that is negative.  I actually said that OS/2 runs *fast* under Virtualbox.  It runs fast!  OS/2 runs fast under Virtualbox.  Under the Virtualbox, OS/2 runs fast!  Fast, OS/2 runs, Virtualbox using.  OS/2 R TEH FAST IN VB!  How many more times do I need to say it? ; ;

I did not make any attempt to blame any virtualization shortcoming on OS/2.  Stop trying to make it sound like I did.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 10:26:04
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
...Humm, there are no comments on the GUI zip utilities that, as far back as 1996 existed for OS/2.   Nor were there any comments regarding the alternative GUI utility resource that our moderator provided.
If you want a comment I'll give you one.  I couldn't find ezip in any format except a zipped archive.  That's the one in my original post.  While the interface is considerably nicer than the command line, it still has moments of "I should be able to do this, why can't I?" to it.  It just feels like it takes more to do things than it should.

eZip is a Zip Front End - since you thus need ZIP/UNZIP to make it work (which already come on eCS), installing the package is easy. Download it to some folder, right click on the folder, select "Open Command Line", type "unzip ezip.zip" (or whatever the name is), follow the installation instructions. And if you are running OS/2 Warp (which doesnt come with it), simply saying "Hey gang, I downloaded eZip (and forgot to read the website where it says "You need ZIP/UNZIP... get it here"), how do I unzip it?" - we would have responded "Hi S.SubZero, go to Hobbes, and type in UNZIP, and grab the latest one. It's a self extracting archive... put it in your OS2\DLL directory and run it, or make a directory for it and run it there - then add the directory to your path and dpath statement" (not mentioning that you missed that section on their website - because we all make mistakes - I've done ones just like that).

As for moments of "I should be able to do..." I have no clue what you are talking about. You can very easily do whatever with it, and it has a plethora more capabilities and options than the built in Windows counterpart. The ONLY drawback is in trying to drag and drop large amounts of files from a zip container - which can simply be done through the "Unzip to..." option, without the delay. Modifying the behavior (to avoid that delay) is very easy, but I dont have VisPro REXX (or I would do it).


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
Additionally, I did not see any more comparisons to Solaris and/or Linux on such "important" applications as Flash and games –notwithstanding,  the current wedge against the OS/2 remains.
I saw no further comment as necessary.  I'm not going to beat a dead horse.  Games?  Neither Solaris nor OS/2 is going to win this one, tho Solaris comes with more ways to spend idle time.  Flash is more important than you may realize, given that many websites are beginning to assume the user has it.  One only needs to spend time in a browser that can't do Flash to realize how much the web has adopted it, even sites that don't necessarily need it.

And is being taken care of by Paul Smedley with the Gnash port. That will give us a highly reliable, quick, not as bloated alternative - and like all of Paul's work, should (a) work well from the get-go, or (b) will be tweaked or fixed by him as people point out issues with it. More likely given Paul's track record it will be (a)... but in either event, Paul is always very quick to respond to both personal emails and forum posts about the software he ports - and has always been very helpful.

So, you are right, eCS does need an updated Flash... but that is soon to be a moot point.


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
I, for one, do not have a need (or desire, as a matter of fact) to use that conservative resource.  I subscribe to the New York times and from time to time read articles from the Los Angeles Times.  My needs are not your needs; my choice of operating system is simply one more way to emphasize that --I thought that you had mastered that which was written in your own words in a certain prior post.
Did you know the front page of nytimes.com has flash embedded in it?
Did you know the front page of latimes.com has flash embedded in it?

Many Flash sites work properly under eCS... some that check for Flash 9 or 8 dont, and some that require it but dont check will either work or be quirky... but again, read my comment above.


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
If this is your notion of "unbiasedness" when you pretend to compare the performance of an operating system  --in a virtualized setting-- against that of an equivalent "front end" marketing refocused equivalent, then you need to go back and reexamine the definition of "unbiasedness."  An appropriate and "unbiased" approach is required of anyone who is responsible for, say, the review of candidates' resumes for an competing position.
Nothing I talked about was affected by running the OS in a virtual machine.  A dated desktop is still a dated desktop.  The SIQ problem is still the SIQ problem, one that has plagued OS/2 since long before anyone ran it in a virtual machine.  The app problem was around since long before Virtualbox was a gleam in a programmer's eye.  Again you speak of "performance".. In what context?

EVERYTHING you talked about is affected by running OS/2 or eCS in a virtualized environment. If you read some of the forums elsewhere, and posts/announcements by companies who have worked on virtualization software for OS/2, you will see that making a virtualized environment that even RUNS OS/2 is difficult (check out Bosche for one, which goes into technical detail about the issue).

Heck, some companies, citing how difficult it was, gave up entirely on getting their virtualization software to run OS/2.

Nonetheless, eCS does NOT perform as well, or as stable in a virtualized environment, especially because its thread scheduler and the method it uses memory is vastly different than Windows... that is definitely a cause and certainty for PERFORMANCE and STABILITY problems in a virtualized environment.

Now, as for the app problem (I am presuming you mean a lack of the games you want), I dont see how lack of apps (games or otherwise) is a PERFORMANCE problem - so I dont know why you bring that up in your rebuttal to El Vato. Makes no sense.


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 09:31:49
Quote from: El Vato on 2007.11.09, 14:56:28
You do not grasp the notion that unless the source code of the operating system kernel under consideration is open and modifiable to run in paravirtualized mode, it will "necessarily" trail substantially behind its natively hardware installed counterpart in performance and stability.
You throw around this "performance" word, and claim that I have some performance comment that is negative.  I actually said that OS/2 runs *fast* under Virtualbox.  It runs fast!  OS/2 runs fast under Virtualbox.  Under the Virtualbox, OS/2 runs fast!  Fast, OS/2 runs, Virtualbox using.  OS/2 R TEH FAST IN VB!  How many more times do I need to say it? ; ;

I did not make any attempt to blame any virtualization shortcoming on OS/2.  Stop trying to make it sound like I did.

No... there is the problem... you run OS/2 *in* a virtualized environment, complain about it's speed and it's stability, but fail to realize that it could entirely be caused by the virtualized environment - and not the OS itself. You keep ignoring the points at hand. We have been trying to tell you that many of the performance and stability issues you claim OS/2 has is DUE TO the virtualized environment you run it under. You keep ignoring and sidestepping each comment. Now you are claiming it runs FAST in VirtualBox... which is counter to your claim it runs slow in your tests... which is it? Regardless, many of the claims and complaints you have had can be traced right back to the fact that it is running IN VirtualBox instead of on real hardware. My Netfinity and the 6 eCS servers I have installed for clients prove that. Others here have posted their experiences as well - which are also contrary to yours.

Yes, OS/2 isnt perfect, but other than the Flash issue (being resolved), mentioning the SIQ issue (which since Warp 4 hasnt been too big of an issue, and since a later fixpack and the inclusion of CAD with eCS has barely been an issue) - other than that, you have yet to claim anything broken or worse about OS/2 over Windows - other than it doesnt have a plethora of games or big name software. And each of your claims still ends up indirectly or directly claiming that those "problems" are performance and stability related (because you seem to like coming full circle back to that).

I really dont understand your point here... any of them. I dont know why you are even here, or still using eCS.

There was a guy in the newsgroups years back, who sounded just like you. He claimed to be (in his own words) an avid OS/2 fan and user, and used that as the cornerstone for wild, erroneous complaints about OS/2. You keep ignoring almost every part of any post that brings up a counterpoint... either by totally skipping it in your replies, or by answering it with something totally unrelated or totally wrong. There are times I truly wonder if that person is you...



Regardless, here's the oddest thing about this whole thing. You seem to have a ton of complaints about eCS/Warp... yet continue to use it - FINE. No one is stopping you, and I dont in ANY way begrudge you that choice. The part that makes no sense is this... this forum, outside of IBM and some of the gang at Serenity, probably has the biggest collection of OS/2 experts on the planet.

Instead of continuous rants about how "OS/2 does this poorly", "OS/2 crashes when I do this", "OS/2 needs this", "I cant figure out how to do this (because OS/2 isnt intuitive)"... why dont you simply find the right forum section and start a topic saying "Hey, how do I do this on OS/2?" or "OS/2 is crashing when I do this? Can anyone help me fix that?"


Look around on the forums and you will see what I mean in those last two paragraphs. Heck, dig through my post history for that matter... I for one, after using OS/2 *CONTINUOUSLY* since v2.0, am still learning about new things it can do (or new ways of doing the same things). Often, that means I need help with a specific thing... so... I post a question here... and you know what happens? A half dozen people jump in with solutions, suggestions or more questions to narrow down my exact needs to then follow up with an answer. Keep digging through my posts and you will also find I (and many others) are also on the giving end of that help and support when someone else asks a question.

Heck, on the OS/2World front page alone there is:
- Creating Java Icons on the Desktop? (answered)
- How ican join OS/2 on active direct... (answered and ongoing for more questions)
- dbExpert(?)  (answered and ongoing for more questions)
- GUI sftp client?  (answered)

Maybe many of your issues are simply because, unlike the people who started those questions (and then received answers to them), you choose to complain about the issues as opposed to asking one of us how to solve the issue. Beauty is we wont candy coat a problem with nonsense... we'll either find you an answer or say "That cant be fixed, it's an issue with this base component of OS/2 which IBM wont release the code to" (and there are posts on the forum to prove that).

Interestingly enough, we are slowly finding, through the resourcefulness of others, that numerous things we thought werent changeable without the source code actually ARE! For instance, not too long ago, numerous of us posted that getting larger icons and adding PNG support wasnt possible without the source to certain components of the WPS/PM - we were proven wrong.

But either way, maybe it's time to stop this ridiculous argument, and for you to actually choose to utilize this forum in a similar fashion to how the rest of us do. Having a problem? Have a complaint about OS/2 that you want resolved? Ask us. Unless it's something you KNOW is out of our powers to deal with like "Gee, there arent enough games... can someone fix that?" you will find that with our combined knowledge, someone here will be sure to help.

Think about that for a while... here's a great starting point:

With that in mind, think how your OS/2 experience could be right now if you came to this forum and made a post like this:

Quote
Hi,

I'm running OS/2 Version ___ under VirtualBox Version ___ on an XP system with 4GB RAM (1GB assigned to the virtual session). I'm having problems with the OS/2 session locking up or becoming unresponsive. Does anyone have any suggestions, or is there any more info you may need to help me resolve this?

Thanks,
S.SubZero


I guarantee you that you would get replies and offers of help.

Think on it before you keep complaining about the issues you have (that others say is NOT the norm), without stopping to ask someone for help.

-Robert
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:12:48
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52Virtually any OS/2 service (media, folders, the WPS, kernel, file system parameters, the firewall, networking features and components, hardware and driver control) can be controlled or modified in a plethora of methods, including the new methods and settings boxes included with eCS (or added to OS/2 via xWorkplace). Virtually all of these can also be controlled from the commandline, or via custom apps, via REXX (directlly through REXX calls or through a REXX script that modifies the parameters in an ini file).
One of the tricks here is that if the solution you want doesn't already exist, the chance that it will is slim.  Creating REXX scripts for stuff is fun I'm sure, but it's not something many users really want to be troubled with, especially when other OSs don't require programming to do things.  As far as "plethora of methods" of doing things, that's currently more than the "zero" methods I have in OS/2 of controlling the volume control with UNIAud.

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52OS/2 scales FAR better than Windows (and even Linux) on multiple CPUs. Today with virtually every CPU coming with 2 or more cores, that (to me) is a major issue. If I have mutliple CPUs (or cores) in my system, I expect my OS to use them.
One of the clarifications I have been looking for is OS/2's ability to use multiple cores.  ECS very carefully words the ability for OS/2 to *install* on multi-core systems, but there is no mention of utilization of those cores.  Nobody I have asked knows, and even Google has proven useless.  I also think your overall statement of utilization is a bit hopeful, as I am sure it's possible to code an OS/2 app that scales to multiple CPUs or cores poorly.  There is also the fact that OS/2 is an older, less resource-intense OS that has more headroom for additional CPUs/cores to begin with.
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52Still on the SMP front, OS/2 SMP (Warp Server Advanced, WSeB, eCS v2, eCS v1 with SMP) has ALWAYS supported up to 64 CPUs, while MS struggled (and was VERY late) to get their 2 then 4 then 8 CPU support out the door, and needed IBM's help to manage 32 and the (I've never seen, but MS has claimed) 64 CPU support.
Well IBM is a hardware company.  It makes perfect sense for software makers to ask hardware makers how to support their hardware.  Also, while OS/2 SMP may be more scalable, Windows is more available.  Windows has also supported 2 CPUs even in the home-friendly incarnations for several years now.   

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52
Windows isnt superior... it's just more prevalent. And I have yet to find it more stable than a properly configured WSeB or eCS system on good hardware.
You're not looking very hard then.


Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:41:04
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 10:26:04
EVERYTHING you talked about is affected by running OS/2 or eCS in a virtualized environment. If you read some of the forums elsewhere, and posts/announcements by companies who have worked on virtualization software for OS/2, you will see that making a virtualized environment that even RUNS OS/2 is difficult (check out Bosche for one, which goes into technical detail about the issue).
VMWare says they can't get it to work.  Nobody else appears to be having a problem.  I tried VMWare, and while they support 64-bit guests which is cool, the software is big and bulky, and doesn't like Vista x64 at all.  Virtualbox runs OS/2 4.52 fine, without the bulkiness.  Then again, all of the major players in virtualization have kind of downplayed the importance of OS/2 virtualization.  The VB guys even said the vast majority of their customer base was Windows users running Windows virtualized.  Note that Parallels exists primarily because of a need to virtualize OS/2.

Bochs can certainly run OS/2, but Bochs does things a bit different than virtualization software, it's more of an emulator. 

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 10:26:04
Nonetheless, eCS does NOT perform as well, or as stable in a virtualized environment, especially because its thread scheduler and the method it uses memory is vastly different than Windows... that is definitely a cause and certainty for PERFORMANCE and STABILITY problems in a virtualized environment.
I think ECS runs poorly in VPC2007 because VPC2007 handles OS/2 begrudgingly and with low priority to improvement.  I think ECS fails to install on VB for the same reasons that could affect real hardware.
http://news.ecomstation.com/article.php?id=1396&group=ecomstation.support.virtualpc#1396
QuoteI have a core 2 duo PC and tried to install eCS 1.1 and eCS 2 beta 4,
but both failed with the same resource.sys trap I get when I try with
real hardware (on the same machine)

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 10:26:04No... there is the problem... you run OS/2 *in* a virtualized environment, complain about it's speed and it's stability, but fail to realize that it could entirely be caused by the virtualized environment

I am officially stepping out of this thread because all you guys are doing now is putting words in my mouth.  I do encourage *anyone* with an unbiased, fair mind to read over every single one of my posts and quote where I said OS/2 was slow without *specifically* saying it was because of virtualization.  Mind you, once again, I will say VB RUNS OS/2 FAST.

I will not continue to be insulted like this by the users *and* moderators.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 11:57:27
Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:41:04

I will not continue to be insulted like this by the users *and* moderators.

I have YET to insult you. Dont put words in my mouth. On the contrary, I offered to HELP you with what issues you are having. My offer still stands. Nor did I say *you* said OS/2 was slow because of virtualiztion. *I* said it was slow because of that. I definitely think you are misinterpreting my words - so at least ask me to clarify what I am saying next time. Why would I insult you and then offer my help?

So again, you are still missing my point. You say you are having certain issues... I have offered to help, and have advised you that others here would as well.

For instance, the dual core issue... have you tried the newest ACPI builds? there have been some major revisions since beta 4(?). Try RC3 and let us know. If you are still having problems, some people here have already posted tips.

At this point, I will only respond to your posts if they are a request for help or information since you seem to be misreading my posts. Perhaps english isnt your first language and I just am not making myself clear enough to make up for that? (and DONT take that as an insult - it's not - we have numerous non-native-english speaking members). I'm just trying to understand why you think *I* have insulted you. I've repeatedly asked you to respond to the same points - and you have not. You keep misreading what I say (namely most recently the virtualization issue - which I went on for paragraphs about). I want to understand why you dont understand what I am saying so I can explain it more clearly, and I want you to ask for help with your problems so we can resolve them instead of just hearing over and over again that you have them - when you shouldnt (and that isnt an attack on you either... it's just a fact... I've run into my share of problems with OS/2 on certain hardware or in certain environments... an it just wont work right - period - until the cause is found and resolved. Thus, with help, you shouldnt have the problems you are having).

So, how about we drop this thread, and you post what you are having problems with - that way we can tackle this from a more constructive position, and help you resolve them. With some of the issues you have touched on, your continued tenacity at running OS/2 is to be applauded, so let us help you focus that tenacity into getting it running stably and properly.

Robert
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.10, 12:22:45
As I said, I'm ignoring the "debate" and am going to try to offer you my help... so...

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:12:48
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52Virtually any OS/2 service (media, folders, the WPS, kernel, file system parameters, the firewall, networking features and components, hardware and driver control) can be controlled or modified in a plethora of methods, including the new methods and settings boxes included with eCS (or added to OS/2 via xWorkplace). Virtually all of these can also be controlled from the commandline, or via custom apps, via REXX (directlly through REXX calls or through a REXX script that modifies the parameters in an ini file).
One of the tricks here is that if the solution you want doesn't already exist, the chance that it will is slim.  Creating REXX scripts for stuff is fun I'm sure, but it's not something many users really want to be troubled with, especially when other OSs don't require programming to do things.  As far as "plethora of methods" of doing things, that's currently more than the "zero" methods I have in OS/2 of controlling the volume control with UNIAud.

You dont need to write a REXX script for the functionality I described... you COULD if you want. Or better yet, if you want certain functionality (via a program, via a pop-up menu, whatever), simply ask, and I am sure I can whip something up in my sleep. I dont expect everyone to be REXX programmers... I was just mentioning it could be done... and again, if you have a certain need, I can almost assuredly and quite willingly do it.

So, want some of that added functionality for your zip/unzip files? Let me know...

Now, as for UniAud and your volume problem, download the appropriate UniMix and/or UniMixPM. I'd grab both. One issue I have with UniAud (and certain software) is that one particular program I use, when first initialized, resets the volume, which requires me opening the mixer and changing the level from the near 0 the program sets it to, back to it's normal setting. If THAT is the problem you are having, that too is no big deal. Let me know. I already wrote a REXX script to take care of it, and would gladly send it to you. You can create a program icon for it so it resets the volume by clicking on it, or you can add it to your startup folder if your volume issues are simply that the volume is too low or high when the machine starts. So, again, let me know. I'll be glad to help.

Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:12:48
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52OS/2 scales FAR better than Windows (and even Linux) on multiple CPUs. Today with virtually every CPU coming with 2 or more cores, that (to me) is a major issue. If I have mutliple CPUs (or cores) in my system, I expect my OS to use them.
One of the clarifications I have been looking for is OS/2's ability to use multiple cores.  ECS very carefully words the ability for OS/2 to *install* on multi-core systems, but there is no mention of utilization of those cores.  Nobody I have asked knows, and even Google has proven useless.  I also think your overall statement of utilization is a bit hopeful, as I am sure it's possible to code an OS/2 app that scales to multiple CPUs or cores poorly.  There is also the fact that OS/2 is an older, less resource-intense OS that has more headroom for additional CPUs/cores to begin with.


Don't worry, it doesnt just install on multiple CPUs, it uses them as well. Somewhere in the eCS announcements, that fact is listed (you can check Serenity's site if you want to verify that yourself).

The list of SMP aware versions of OS/2 are as follows (all in the list will support up to a max of 64 CPUs/cores):
- Warp Server 4 *Advanced* (Standard does NOT support SMP)
- Warp Server for e-Business (ANY release - gives you the SMP option during install on SMP machines)
- eCS (any 1.x version) WITH ADD-ON SMP UPGRADE PACK ONLY
- eCS 2.x (NO add-on needed)

Now the differences in support vary as follows Warp Server 4 Advanced, WSeB and eCS 1.x with SMP Upgrade will support multi-CPU setups that meet the MP1.1 and MP1.4 specs (usually a few year old single core multi-CPU setups, like my Netfinity, and newer soon to arrive xSeries). They will also support SOME dual core CPUs (older ones that followed those specs).

eCS v2.x will/should support the latest (and presumably all) multi-core CPUs since the ACPI support is based off the same base code and specsas everything else that supports multi-core. The betas were not as advanced in that support compared to RC3 (RC3 if I recall correctly is at ACPI level 3.? while I think the betas were at v2.?)

So, there's your SMP answer... if you have any other questions about it, feel free to ask.


Quote from: S.SubZero on 2007.11.10, 11:12:48
Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52Still on the SMP front, OS/2 SMP (Warp Server Advanced, WSeB, eCS v2, eCS v1 with SMP) has ALWAYS supported up to 64 CPUs, while MS struggled (and was VERY late) to get their 2 then 4 then 8 CPU support out the door, and needed IBM's help to manage 32 and the (I've never seen, but MS has claimed) 64 CPU support.
Well IBM is a hardware company.  It makes perfect sense for software makers to ask hardware makers how to support their hardware.  Also, while OS/2 SMP may be more scalable, Windows is more available.  Windows has also supported 2 CPUs even in the home-friendly incarnations for several years now.   

Quote from: RobertM on 2007.11.09, 23:28:52
Windows isnt superior... it's just more prevalent. And I have yet to find it more stable than a properly configured WSeB or eCS system on good hardware.
You're not looking very hard then.

21 years of being a tech... for DOS and Windows based machines, yes I am... please dont let a couple other people's negative experiences prevent you from learning how to make OS/2 as stable as it should be. My Netfinity IS used all the time... from the console/keyboard. Daily. For hours a day. As is this Thinkpad.

Yes, it's not all rosy... as I said in one of my earlier posts, my older (mostly HP, with various added crap) machine crashes a lot (which was since I mixed and matched different memory modules in it - which the OS/2 docs specifically state isnt a good plan if you want a stable machine). I live with it because that machine is slated to be replaced with the Systemax I have. My newer Systemax Intel based machine doesnt. OS/2 is pickier about hardware, and my HP compared to the Intel or my 2 IBMs proves it.

So, instead of worrying about why a bunch of people are telling you it is more stable than you claim, while a bunch of people are telling you (or posting elsewhere) that it isnt stable... lets instead work on helping make YOUR setup more stable. I think that's all that really matters in the end.

-Robert
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: melf on 2007.11.10, 18:59:05
As the question came up in the beta newsgroup at http://news.ecomstation.com/article.php?id=2058&group=ecomstation.beta#2058, I just want to show these data regarding eCS on my dualcore (LG F1 22PTV), regarding respond and bootup times on winXP vs eCS. I define bootuptime as the time until harddrive acticity is near zero, not until desktop shows. Both cores are working in both OS. OO preloads in both systems. !:st and 2:nd refers to opening program first and second time. eCS installed on JFS, winXP on NTFS.

winXPeCS RC3
bootuptime   3 min 0 sec   1 min 15 sec   
FF 1:st   7 sec   9 sec   
FF 2:nd   3 sec   2 sec   
OO 1:st   10 sec   5 sec   
OO 2:nd   2 sec   2 sec   
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2007.11.10, 22:21:51
Here are my results. I measured boot time as the time beginning immediately following my enter keystroke on the IBM boot-manager until the point where the desktop is displayed and the HDD activity is negligable (read: none). Note, for XP, I do not have auto-login enabled so I must press enter when the login is displayed, adding a bit of time to the boot. I timed program times as the time until the program is loaded, fullscreen, page is displayed (browser http://www.blackle.com) or ready for text input (office suites). I chose OpenOffice writer for eCS and XP, and Office XP Word for XP. I do NOT have pre-load for OpenOffice, firefox, or OfficeXP on my computer.
Firefox on both platforms is the 2.0.0.9 release with the Phoenity Modern Skin.

eCS-HPFS
boot: 1:33
FireFox1: 22
FireFox2: 14
OpenOffice1: 39
OpenOffice2: 37

XP-NTFS
boot:36
FireFox1: 6
FireFox2: 2
OpenOffice: 30
OpenOffice: 4
Internet Explorer 7-1: 1.48
Internet Explorer 7-2: .97
Office XP: 5
Office XP: 2.36
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: kim on 2007.11.11, 20:39:21
Ouch this thread grew a bit over the last couple of days. Well, what can I say; I just hope that all of you can get along outside this thread and that there isn't any hard feelings that needs to be sorted out.

About choosing technology; It's all about personal preferences, what works best in a given situation or just that you want to pick a system that you like. There will always be something faster and better; but not always.... That's why I went back to use the good old filofax again after that I've had way too much issues and problems using Palm and Psion PDA's.

Have fun & behave!
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.15, 15:25:17
Quote from: kimhav on 2007.11.11, 20:39:21
About choosing technology; It's all about personal preferences, what works best in a given situation or just that you want to pick a system that you like.
Choice was one of the points of contention in this discussion. For some reason, some of the participants still couldn't understand that there is no choice for the average computer user. Just to clarify the point, here is my profile of Joe Average, computer user.

Joe Average:
- doesn't understand the underlying technology
- wants to be able to interact with other computer users (web, email, document sharing)
- upgrades hardware by buying a new computer
- buys based on price
- wants to be able to go into <some chain> store and buy software off the shelf
- Computer choices are Mac or PC (where PC is synonymous with Windows)

Everyone starts out as Joe Average these days. When I was Joe Average (middle - high school (age 14 - 18)), there were lots of choices. My family had a VIC-20 and an Osbourne 1, but I had friends whose families had Commodore 64, Atari 800, or Apple II. In college, those choices would become DOS, Windows 3.x, OS/2, Amiga, Mac, or *NIX (Anyone remember Coherent?). Joe Average could go into any <chain store> and buy software for his computer choice. This is comparable to the gaming console market we have today.

Competition was exciting and healthy for the computing market/industry. I figure anyone who buys into the Microsoft FUD line, that competition meant no one could share any data, is either too young to remember when competition existed, or  was stuck in a company where departments with different computer systems had trouble sharing data.

From my point of view, sharing data meant finding a common format. If one didn't exist, then a business opportunity existed. These opportunities were being exploited, which means that eventually standards would supercede incompatibilities. 
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.16, 05:45:50
Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.15, 15:25:17
Choice was one of the points of contention in this discussion. For some reason, some of the participants still couldn't understand that there is no choice for the average computer user. Just to clarify the point, here is my profile of Joe Average, computer user.
For the most part I agree with you with your profile of the average joe computer user, but I don't agree with you that to be one is not a choice.
Let's look at your list:
- doesn't understand the underlying technology
No one "made me" learn underlying technology, I choose to invest myself into it. When I was younger I read many books on both hardware and software and as such am more comfortable then the average Joe with it.
So yes most people choose to not invest the resources into learning.. but that's a choice. I don't know how to fix my car that well and I bring it to a mechanic, so yes I'm not empowered but I choose not to be empowered to net other benefits for myself (free time).

- wants to be able to interact with other computer users (web, email, document sharing)
Which of course any operating system can do, and choosing to restrict yourself to just the mainstream one is of course a choice. :). You could argue it could be the most sensible choice for them, but it's still a choice.
- upgrades hardware by buying a new computer
Again they are "choosing" to accept the cost of disposable appliance instead of investing into learning how to fix and upgrade what they have.
- buys based on price
So they choose to prioritize price in a buying decision.
- wants to be able to go into <some chain> store and buy software off the shelf
Choosing convenience of being available now over other benefits
- Computer choices are Mac or PC (where PC is synonymous with Windows)
Choosing to not look at all of the alternatives, but just going with the flow of what is packaged up and available in retail stores or adopted by the mainstream.

I agree with you that I definately liked the days that more mainstream choices existed, but we're here because the majority of people choose to make it that way.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.16, 06:19:30
Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 15:29:53
1) Microsoft only controls Window's standards, which often allows them to force other standards to move towards their point of view. Microsoft tends to ignore outside standards, as they don't promote platform lock-in.
Yes I understand that microsoft windows standards right now are the dominant ones, so much that they effect non windows platforms via the web and office formats. I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree that they are all powerful and not able to be thwarted. It's easier to win when one doesn't view oneself as a victim and focuses on innovating.

Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 15:29:53
2) Using wine or emulation does nothing to erode the "application barrier to entry". The only way to erode this is to make it profitable for ISVs to develop software for alternative OSes. If people can run your Windows software on other systems, then you capture that market with no additional cost. You also don't face losing revenue to that other market.

I think you underestimate the effect of emulation in the real world.
Yes it is not a panacea that will solve everything. But the fact is it DOES make it possible for people to switch platforms without too much pain and support the future development of that new platform.
I need to run certain windows applications for my job. If there was no emulation my only choice is to either duel boot (which I hate doing so would not) or sticking with windows. This is true for many people.
Having emulation makes it possible for me to shift 90% of my computing time to the alternative os (and support the alternative os by buying software for it).
Likewise, I don't agree that it does not put pressure on the windows software companies. I have certain windows applications that I had paid revenues to upgrade each year. Now that I have switched to ECS I am actively looking for os/2 vendors to REPLACE those windows applications, therefor causing the windows vendors to loose my business.
They can choice to ignore me, but at their own detriment.
If enough other users who adopt the alternative os do the same, they can't simply can't ignore us without going out of business.
Microsoft purchased virtual pc and killed it on alternative platforms like os/2 for this reason specifically.

Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.07, 15:29:53
This one falls under the George Santayana quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Anyone want to take bets on how long before Linux's marketshare numbers are down around OS/2's after the US courts lift the sanctions against Microsoft?  ;)
The point is this is not repeating the past.
Microsoft typically creates a similiar appication, lowers the price to kill off the compition, and then raises the price.
In this case the price of the compitition is 0. They have never competed against a vendor that charges nothing and who's workers work for nearly free just for the idiologically drive to kill off microsoft :).
You think too highly of microsoft and their power, especially considering the huge movement that is as we speak in the process of chewing them up and spitting them out.
If only a few more states follow this lead, microsoft is toast, and yes I would be happy to bet you on that.
http://www.rssgov.com/gils/archives/000051.html
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.16, 06:23:50
Also I read an article recently interviewing young microsoft executives, and they basically admitted very softly that they knew microsoft's dominance in software was no longer certain and that is why they branced out to consumer electronics such as the xbox and zune player. If they themselves are not so sure of themselves in standing up against the open source movement, why are you? :)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: BigWarpGuy on 2007.11.16, 18:24:57
Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.16, 06:23:50
Also I read an article recently interviewing young microsoft executives, and they basically admitted very softly that they knew microsoft's dominance in software was no longer certain and that is why they branced out to consumer electronics such as the xbox and zune player. If they themselves are not so sure of themselves in standing up against the open source movement, why are you? :)

This could be why MS is talking about lawsuites against open source even though they have yet to mention which patents have been infringed upon. If they did not consider open source a threat to MS, they would not even care about it; IMO.  8)

I think there is enough of a market for more than one operating system.  ;D 
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2007.11.16, 20:09:25
While I agree with os2monkey on a lot of his points, something I think we should keep in mind is that many people in this day and age do not realize there is a choice for Operating Systems (or even browsers for that matter). During my years in retail, we had numerous customers who wanted a MAC thinking a MAC was Windows - simply because it is a computer, then decided they DIDNT want a MAC because "it isnt a computer" [because "it doesnt run" Windows (regardless of it's ability to do so with BootCamp or Parallels)].

So, while what os2monkey says is true, it does not fit the real world "Average Joe User" scenarios as they currently exist. MS has done a great job of "equating" the following:

A computer=Windows
The Internet=Internet Explorer
Word Processing=Office/Word

Many people do not understand, do not want to understand, are unable to understand, dont care, and/or unwilling to care (pick one or more of those) that such a scenario is NOT the case.


As for BWG's post about the lawsuits, *I* think (through previous MS track records) MS's statements and (not so) veiled threats is an attempt to force smaller *nix/Open Source vendors to bow to pressure from MS in signing their ridiculous agreements - which in turn limits their viability in the Open Source marketplace through a plethora of methods (including but not limited to a loss of trust from many Open Source users, pressure from MS to stifle them as competition, etc). I am sure (again from previous track records) that many smaller OSS developers see it as a way of potentially not being sued out of existence - and hopefully still having some chance at remaining viable in the marketplace.

Heck, as the facts stand, numerous companies have been swallowed up by MS through lawsuits THEY initiated (against MS) due to software that MS has "incorrectly" appropriated - one of the most famous being Stac Electronics. If I were an OSS company, I know I wouldnt forget those lessons... and heck, if a company "in the right" who initiated the lawsuit to protect themselves couldnt survive combatting MS - then how could a company who MS claims is "in the wrong" manage to? The truth of those allegations hardly matters when the lawsuit is costing far more than those companies can manage to afford to pay - they WILL lose - simply, if for no other reason, because they cannot afford to win.

And as BWG also pointed out, yes there is enough of a market for more than one OS... but MS is NOT going to go down without a fight. I believe their latest attempts (with the whole OSS patent issue) is to minimize as many of those suits and damage as many of their OSS competitors as possible to make that fight much less of one. So, yes (also in agreement) MS does see (F)OSS as a threat - as they do Apple.

In that, I think Apple is being (one of) the biggest helps for the (F)OSS industry, because many people, who thought otherwise, are beginning to realize that there are alternatives (ie: in seeing that MacOSX is an alternative, it opens their minds to the thought that there are other alternatives besides Windows). Of course, MS has been very good in ensuring that certain things are not (and probably will never be) feature compatible for MacOSX (like Office) to help leverage back some of that mindshare towards their Windows platform.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.17, 06:44:06
Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.16, 05:45:50
For the most part I agree with you with your profile of the average joe computer user, but I don't agree with you that to be one is not a choice.
Based on your definitions of choice, which were completely orthogonal to the point, I think your choice of the "hear no evil" monkey for an icon was a good one.  ;)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: os2monkey on 2007.11.17, 07:26:38
Quote from: lwriemen on 2007.11.17, 06:44:06
Based on your definitions of choice, which were completely orthogonal to the point, I think your choice of the "hear no evil" monkey for an icon was a good one.  ;)
I look forward to hearing specifically how my definition of choice is "orthogonal to the point". Almost 1/2 of your post was talking about "choice" and defining how the average user basically has none. Your right that I didn't comment on the rest of it, because I didn't disagree with the rest of it. I simply talked about how I don't agree that people are these zombie's walking around without free will, programmed by microsoft. People might CHOOSE to be zombie's because it allows them to have more free time or because they prefer it for many reasons. I don't disagree that microsoft uses it's power to maintain itself in a way that is obnoxious to the rest of us, I just disagree with the lack of power you give to the rest of us. That's where we disagree, and i'm happy to accept you have an alternative viewpoint :).. because after all we all have a choice :).

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: lwriemen on 2007.11.17, 17:16:27
Quote from: os2monkey on 2007.11.17, 07:26:38
I look forward to hearing specifically how my definition of choice is "orthogonal to the point". Almost 1/2 of your post was talking about "choice" and defining how the average user basically has none. Your right that I didn't comment on the rest of it, because I didn't disagree with the rest of it. I simply talked about how I don't agree that people are these zombie's walking around without free will, programmed by microsoft. People might CHOOSE to be zombie's because it allows them to have more free time or because they prefer it for many reasons. I don't disagree that microsoft uses it's power to maintain itself in a way that is obnoxious to the rest of us, I just disagree with the lack of power you give to the rest of us. That's where we disagree, and i'm happy to accept you have an alternative viewpoint :).. because after all we all have a choice :).
Now this is better. I guess I need to clarify some things. You and I and the rest of the OS/2 World.com community aren't Joe Average users. Once you start wanting to improve what comes out of the box from the computer store, in unintended ways, you are no longer Joe Average. There are a lot of Joe Averages using Macs, but none using Linux or OS/2. I would guess that Joe Average accounts for over 80% of personal computer users.

BTW, Joe Average doesn't equal zombie, programmed by Microsoft. Joe Average is just buying what's available. The findings in the anti-trust trial of Microsoft proved that Microsoft limited what was available. This led to the applications barrier to entry, which is the single biggest reason there is no choice.

The rest of us do have power that we exercise by making choices, but we are limited in our choices by Microsoft's monopoly. We don't represent enough buying power to force software or hardware companies to support us, so we have to rely on the programmers among us to provide us with more choices. We also have to rely on government to limit Microsoft's ability to abuse their monopoly.

Free will is not the same as choice, because you can't choose what's not available.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: kim on 2007.11.20, 12:27:27
Sorry this is kind of OT; but I couldn't help myself; here is a little video clip (http://www.blip.tv/file/340692/) that might lighten up this thread...
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Dennis on 2007.11.21, 03:56:31
OK, so I'm not 'Joe Average' because I run OS/2 & eCS. I have also used windoze since 1990.
Comparison:

OS/2-eCS easy to develop apps, stable as a rock, easy to work with and solve problems

Windoze Confusing, nobody speaks or writes understandable English(I'm in the US)--it's all 'computerese which to me is done so one has to pay for 'support' to get a problem solved. Trying to put anything together as an 'app' is confusing, difficult, etc.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2008.09.08, 08:28:12
Crimosoft is now OPENLY astroturfing with employee "bloggers" supposedly
eliciting commment from developers to influence what Windows 7 will become:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/, and they're getting screenful after screenful of
informed invective that I'm happy to say puts my efforts into shadow.

Giggles and groans abound. Here's just what first caught my eye from their
PAID flacks pretending they're "listening":

── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ──
* Removing code.  Sometimes customers just want to remove code.  With small
footprint disks many folks have looked to remove more and more of Windows just
to fit on SSDs.   I've certainly seen some of the tiny Windows installations.
The supported tool for removing code from Windows is to use the "Turn Windows
Features on and off" (in Vista) user interface.   There are over 80 features
in this tool in premium Vista packages today.

Many folks want the list of Windows features that can be turned on / off to be
longer and there have been many suggestions on the site for things to make
available this way.  This is more complex because of the Windows platform -
that is many developers rely on various parts of the Windows platform and just
"assume" those parts are there.  Whether it is a media player that uses the
windows address book, a personal finance package that uses advanced print
spooling, or even a brand new browser that relies on advanced networking
features.  These are real-world examples of common uses of system APIs that
don't seem readily apparent from the end-user view of the software.
── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ── ──

Just a few comments because the two paragraphs are so packed with arrogantly
mistaken premises that a full critique would run long.

1: "this [removal] tool in premium Vista packages today" ── Translation: you
have to PAY EXTRA to be able to GET RID of "features".

2: "a media player that uses the windows address book" ── ICK, ICK, ICK. I
want a media player that JUST plays media. Is that too LITTLE to ask?

3: "a personal finance package that uses advanced print spooling" ── My god,
how many megabytes does it take them to print out a page full of numerals?

4: "a brand new browser that relies on advanced networking features" ── Back
to their old tricks, binding the browser into the kernel, and SECRET functions
not available through published API.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2008.09.08, 22:06:56
Quote from: ddan on 2008.09.08, 08:28:12
Crimosoft is now OPENLY astroturfing with employee "bloggers" supposedly
eliciting commment from developers to influence what Windows 7 will become:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/, and they're getting screenful after screenful of
informed invective that I'm happy to say puts my efforts into shadow.

Sadly nothing new. The only thing that has changed since the pre-Win95 days is Microsoft's methods - which were simply updated to reflect newer "technologies" such as the Internet. Back in the pre-Win95 days, they would write press releases for Win95, and send them to the various print media outlets who would either print them as they were, or with some subtle changes or re-wording with one of their (the magazine's) writer's name at the top.

At least this method is a little more open and obvious. We only caught the Win95 fiasco because they sent CompUSA the press release kit as well, and we'd compare it to the various articles in the various printed publications (such as the various Ziff-Davis pubs) we sold at the store - meaning the general populace was horrendously ignorant of such behavior going on.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Ben on 2008.09.08, 23:09:46
Greetings.

RobertM, that's how I remember it.

The corruption and back-room deals employed by M$, was, (and is), a matter of course.

Back then this was truly ridiculous in its indulgence, and equally ridiculous in how it was allowed to happen as the courts and the government agencies, went through the motions, giving just a wafer-thin appearance of doing its job.

These practices dragged, (by design), all of commerce, (and thus, the computer industry), down and into, a new, world-wide state of degradation that permeates business, as a whole, (hole?), today.

M$ manipulated statistics, greased palms, trashed the remaining business morals and did little to hide it. M$ also, in my opinion, influenced judges individually, and the Dept. of Justice, (ha), systematically, revealing roots of power that go deep, all the while recognizing no public authority as it was lifted up into the upper stratosphere of corrupt commerce. A megalopoly that sits atop the money pile that we think of as an active and living, economy.

Windows was and is, a useful tool, and I don't mean for those that have to use it. Just think about it, how could such an invasive, water-bloated, balloon of amorphous code ever have become the standard?

Marketing is powerful, more so than most know, but, by itself, marketing could never have gotten this  s w o l l e n  bag of error-codes and mashed drivers, up and onto a horse, let alone get it into the race!

Yet rolling, puffing, farting and belching, somehow it rolled over the horse, down onto the start line, weaving and hissing across fence posts and gateways, half the time going in the wrong direction, while an army of servants, their pockets and shirts stuffed with newly-printed fiat money, somehow maneuvered it, using twenty-foot poles, grease, sweat and deception, over the finish line and up onto the podium! To finish first! All the while professional jockeys on their sleek steeds were forcibly held back, only there as a show, for a competition that never really existed.

Lacking the ability to finish on its own merits, it is clear that Windows was a 'must be'.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ModZilla on 2008.09.09, 01:50:05
When/while I worked for IBM there were tools being developed which would cost millions to bring to market...R&D products which did not exist and might never had existed if it were not for risk capital and a vision of how this or that thing could be used and by whom. When there is an idea, and you couple it with capital and you ara willing to take on the BIG risk you can launch something that never before existed and the competition for the product is at that point nil...as no other product line exists to compete with it. That is the ideal, and unfortunately according to ROB most people do not know how to do much else than point and click, they may have an intellimouse, and an MS keyboard and an MS game or two, plus an Xbox and an Xbox three sixty, having bought into the consumer ideal. So on the one hand its ideal to have no competition going in...after awhile having no choice but to buy buy buy even though the BSOD is still very much alive and well, there in effect can be no competition as no one [your avg jo aka j.q.publik-] knows or cares about the difference between OSes, open whatever...they just want something that works plain and simple, it its a breadmaker and someone tells them its the best not only because the thing kneads well but bakes slices and dices it and hell even pours on the peanut butter...but in the world of computing control is a big factor in that decision as opposed to better features, control by nixing out as many other potential choices as possible, weather it be browsers, mice, game boys, or xboxes...soon ibm will probubly back down to MS as they take over the mobo/chip process and then you will begin to see the assault against/on intel, amd, and even lessor known chip slicers and etchers...I was ALSO involved in the early years when chips were grown in our garage...the Apple II was yet to be assembled in theirs and look where they have gone with the ipod, guess big bill got a big kick out of the ipod...but who really needs Em? ...market forces be what they are, its easy to sway j.q. public and put one over on 'em esp whe he/she is unaware of the fact that choice is important, without we'd all be forced to eat our greens after every cycling event to/from the office...Bejing is full of classrooms underground, you can go there and learn about who will get you, buy a bike and be happy, and if you stay in the hole long enough we will all be "safe" from the big capitalists:Big Green Meanies from the West who cant seem to quite get it right even though they try...so we are all going the wrong way perhaps, as nasty consumers lagging behind what is known as the big conspriracy theory...global poppy dookie!   
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2008.09.09, 03:06:48
Quote from: ModZilla on 2008.09.09, 01:50:05
When/while I worked for IBM there were tools being developed which would cost millions to bring to market...R&D products which did not exist and might never had existed if it were not for risk capital and a vision of how this or that thing could be used and by whom. When there is an idea, and you couple it with capital and you ara willing to take on the BIG risk you can launch something that never before existed and the competition for the product is at that point nil...as no other product line exists to compete with it. That is the ideal, and unfortunately according to ROB most people do not know how to do much else than point and click... 

Not quite stated as an accurate portrayal of the meaning I intended, regardless of whether it is accurate or not. My point was (Which I think you misunderstood) that Microsoft has equated certain things with their products as if their products were those things.

Here's another real world example (where it doesnt work)... you sneeze, and ask for a Kleenex(R) to wipe your nose. I would guess that 99% of people out there are in reality asking for a facial tissue, and using the brand name of the "most well known/famous" - but there's where the difference exists... people know that Kleenex is facial tissue, and know that facial tissue is not necessarily Kleenex.

Due to Microsoft's advertising and propaganda campaigns coupled with their anti-competitive, illegal actions to ensure limited exposure of competing products, people equate IE as the Internet... as opposed to it as one (of numerous) methods of using the Internet. "I was using IE yesterday and found...." should mean "I was using a particular browser (which is one of multiple ones I could have used) and found..." - instead, many computer users equate it as the same as saying "I was using the Internet to find.... I didnt use Firefox because (a) I didnt even know it existed - and/or (b) even if I did, it's not the Internet... Internet Explorer is the Internet... I dont know what Firefox has to do with that. I know this, because IE is the 'Internet', because that's what the icon says it is on my computer... and Firefox isn't"

The key part of my statement, which you reduced the meaning of by applying one of many options or combinations to everything, is bolded below:

"Many people do not understand, do not want to understand, are unable to understand, dont care, and/or unwilling to care (pick one or more of those) that such a scenario is NOT the case."

You chose to pick one as my meaning, thus applying that section inappropriately. The intent was, depending on the "Joe-Average Computer User" one, or more of those would apply... pick which one or more applied to the particular "Joe-Average Computer User" - not you pick which one you think I mean applies.

And by "unable to understand" I am not implying a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of ability to understand more technical aspects of computers. Instead, I am referencing the simple "fact of life" that if the knowledge and information is not out there (as it relates to other choices) for them to ingest, they will be unable to understand anything but what it is they are being exposed to (in this case, referencing the often "singular" solutions from Microsoft, with no exposure/knowledge about alternatives... this can be applied as a direct reference to things lie Microsoft's actions to ensure that a competing browser was not released on OEM installed machines, or that OEMs would not install OS/2, or pressuring the media to print incorrect articles (if any at all) about OS/2 - thus preventing the "Joe Average Computer User" from being able to understand about such things, since all they were "taught" is that only Microsoft solutions (pick whichever applies to the particular individual) (a) exist, (b) do the job, (c) are the task at hand (again, such as IE=Internet as car=car), and (d) work on a PC.

Hopefully that helps make my post more understandable.

Sorry if there was confusion in my wording...
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.09.11, 21:45:08
What is the point of OS/2ers bashing "Windows" when from all appearances "Windows" is now comfortable hugging "Linux" rather that it's "Half Brother" IBM's OS/2.  8)

Re:

Quote

Microsoft, Novell partner on virtualization

One of the nice advantages of server virtualization is the ability to run Linux and Windows on the same server. One of the headaches, though, is getting help when something goes wrong.

Microsoft and Novell on Thursday said they are going to try to make things a little easier. The pair announced that they will jointly support a virtualization scenario in which Suse Linux is running as a guest operating system under Microsoft's Hyper-V virtualization.

The companies said partners such as Dell will test the setup at the joint lab the two companies have in Cambridge, Mass. It's the latest fruit of a nearly 2-year-old alliance between the two companies.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10039101-75.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0


Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2008.09.11, 22:44:26
Crimosoft wants to "hug" Linux the way Aliens wanted to "hug" Sigourney Weaver. You are evidently playing the "mad scientist" role of insisting that we should "study" what's clearly out to eat us alive.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.09.11, 23:18:51
Quote from: ddan on 2008.09.11, 22:44:26
Crimosoft wants to "hug" Linux the way Aliens wanted to "hug" Sigourney Weaver. You are evidently playing the "mad scientist" role of insisting that we should "study" what's clearly out to eat us alive.


Is there not the understanding that "you become what you eat"; then, if this is truly the case why not get yourself consumed (swallowed up) like the dude was according to that Biblical Story; in that way you find out exactly what is inside the "Black Hole"!  8)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2008.09.26, 18:41:50
I now find my reply to 'What is the point of OS/2ers bashing "Windows" when
from all appearances "Windows" is now comfortable hugging "Linux" rather that
it's "Half Brother" IBM's OS/2.' to be too glib.

That's actually a deep philosophical and even religious question which of
course has been answered many times. Rephrased, it's: What is the point of
resisting evil? (Especially when it's SO easy to go along with it as most
people do, and they visibly profit from it, too.)

Well, IF you recognize an evil, then you're pretty much obligated to resist
it, or you're complicit. Yielding to it as a practical matter should be done
only as necessary to continue the struggle. But as Crimosoft itself sneers, if
they're not stopped at SOME point, then THEY are NOT stopping short of
complete monopoly. ── You should learn from history of how hard CHOICE has
been fought for, how easily it's lost. ── Even if the struggle were futile ──
it's not ── then to be at all moral, you MUST protest evil when you see it.

I assume that no one here endorses Crimosoft's business practices, regardless
what is thought of the technical merits ── and "ease" ── of their products.

Crimosoft has a stated goal of eliminating ALL competition. Just download:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
Everyone should read it. (You can skip most of the last half, duplicative at
best.)

You can't hope that being friendly to a ravening beast will even cause it to
eat you last. Just try to imagine life IF they achieve their stated goal.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: saborion2 on 2008.09.26, 19:18:25
Re:

QuoteCrimosoft has a stated goal of eliminating ALL competition. Just download:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
Everyone should read it. (You can skip most of the last half, duplicative at
best.)

You can't hope that being friendly to a ravening beast will even cause it to
eat you last. Just try to imagine life IF they achieve their stated goal.

The chances are that with a population of 10,000 or more "Tuxedo Clad Birds" around the chances of survival ought to be very good. And, if you recall the incident with the herd of buffaloes, the lions and the crocodiles then what will prevent "OS/2ers" from battling like the buffaloes did and not get ravaged by the "beast"! Is the power of  "OS/2ers" (like the buffaloes) in the "horns", the "body" or the "brain"? And, remember that in the end (as was mentioned before) "You Become what You Eat; and, may the best "genes" survive. In this game perhaps, it is called - "The Survival Of The Fittest"  8)

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ModZilla on 2009.03.06, 15:06:24
ok, lets say we trashed this one, but I have yet another thought about the raging debate...we are all right on in our conceptions as we each have our own point of view...the fact remains that there is no real business model that is perfect, some feel they buy something that if it is licensed, that they own it anyway and make up a bunch of backup copies, hack it, pirate it in their own offices...I worked for a major Architect in Balto. who had several workstations dedicated on a network with AutoCAD as the product delivery system...we worked our asses off, meanwhile most people including some intructors, in autocad, like myself, didnt know that the app was pirated from machine to machine. Later in life I have found that even the big box stores sell pirated OSes with oem machines, they dont know its pirated either. If everything comes from China, then you have to begin to grow out of side by side business models and see the light. The whole deal is a scam no matter what OS you use. Unless of course you wrote the thing yourself. Too Timely you say? (Isnt there a C_+++++...app that will do this very thing point and click?) 
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: WarpWorld on 2009.09.11, 21:34:25
What's conclusion? Who is better Windows or OS/2  :D
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Ben on 2009.09.11, 23:43:05
Quote from: Bojan89 on 2009.09.11, 21:34:25What's conclusion? Who is better Windows or OS/2  :D

No, no, no!

Without a doubt...

"Bob" was the best OS ever.. made. >:(

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.09.12, 00:26:19
Quote from: Ben on 2009.09.11, 23:43:05
Quote from: Bojan89 on 2009.09.11, 21:34:25What's conclusion? Who is better Windows or OS/2  :D

No, no, no!

Without a doubt...

"Bob" was the best OS ever.. made. >:(



Well, as Ben is correct: Bob was the best OS ever made...  ;D

The answer to your question (Bojan) is whichever OS best serves the users needs. If you asked which is better at threading, it's OS/2. If you asked which is better at running Video Production/Editing Suites, it's Windows (it would be MacOSX if this were OS/2 vs Windows vs Mac). If you ask which makes a better Apache platform, it would be OS/2. And so on and so on.

Best,
Rob
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Fahrvenugen on 2009.09.12, 00:52:26
Of course since Bob was designed to run under Win3.1, you  could likely run it under WinOS/2...   :)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.09.12, 01:11:55
Quote from: Fahrvenugen on 2009.09.12, 00:52:26
Of course since Bob was designed to run under Win3.1, you  could likely run it under WinOS/2...   :)

YAY! Off to eBay to find a copy!!!  ;D
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.09.12, 01:12:22
Speed and usability on low memory/legacy systems: OS/2
Programs/Gaming/Research/Office: Windows
Customizability: Toss up. Both have many things that can and can't be changed :C
Geek Factor: OS/2
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
You give 'em too little credit, saijin! It's a clean sweep for Crimosoft in
these categories:
SPYWARE, PHONING HOME: absolutely Crimosoft "wins"; OS/2 doesn't compete.
ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL TACTICS: Crimosoft, so far ahead as to be out of sight.
DRM -- whether it's working or not is a guess, but in place: Crimosoft
NAGGING, ESPECIALLY STUPIDLY: Crimosoft, OS/2 again doesn't even compete
CHANGE IN GUI FOR SAKE OF CHANGE: Crimosoft, OS/2 barely since Warp.
CHANGED "STANDARDS" WTIHOUT INCREASE OF FUNCTION: Crimosoft
# OF CONCURRENT VERSIONS: Crimosoft
EXTRACTING MONEY FOR TRIFLING IMPROVEMENTS: Crimosoft
THREATS, HINDRANCES TO OPERABILITY: Crimosoft
VULNERABILITIES FROM DEFAULT OPEN PORTS: Crimosoft

I'm only coincidentally here to point out how right I was about Crimosoft
trolling in the "Engineering Windows 7", er, advertising forum, wasn't really
a blog. http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Even posting ended August 10th, I suppose just too difficult to pretend since
everything major had been chiseled into granite a year prior. The site served
its purpose of diverting criticism with anonymous fanboy posts, now it's over.

My favorite was the post on wallpapers, seriously presented as "engineering".
NOW it's clear that was, but SECRETLY so with characteristic Crimosoft EVIL as
their purpose: they've a scheme to literally sell theming as advertising
space, with a way to lock it in place. The scope and perfidy of Crimosoft's
sheer greed is ONLY STARTING now that they've tightened up "security", heh.

Last title is: "What we do with a bug report?" [sic]. Like all Crimosoft does,
any oddity is converted into a feature, at least in the comments, and then the
matter is entirely and forever dropped. I'm not overly alarmed about the
particular "bug", either, but the way it's handled is entirely too typical.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.23, 21:48:11
Phoning home:
Google Chrome (browser and OS)
Google Android

None of the business are exempt from these practices. Greed crosses all corporate boundaries; why you choose to single out Microsoft as the worst is beyond me.

Removed personal remark. Apologies.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.23, 21:53:37
Hi ddan,

Glad you are back... stick around!

Just some supporting comments to your post...

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
You give 'em too little credit, saijin! It's a clean sweep for Crimosoft in
these categories:
SPYWARE, PHONING HOME: absolutely Crimosoft "wins"; OS/2 doesn't compete.

WGA, and "bugs" in semi-recent versions of WMP that ignore user's selections of "Dont ____ via the Internet"


Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL TACTICS: Crimosoft, so far ahead as to be out of sight.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

412 points of fact/law/findings against them - and that doesnt even touch upon the EU's findings - or those of various states.

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
DRM -- whether it's working or not is a guess, but in place: Crimosoft

In some cases, especially absurdly crippling, even though it has done nothing to prevent what it was intended to prevent.

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
NAGGING, ESPECIALLY STUPIDLY: Crimosoft, OS/2 again doesn't even compete

Invalid WGA "this copy is pirated" nagging (I've seen out of the box computers do this with XP as recently as 2006).

Sometimes not even nagging, but sneaky stupidity, such as the recent addition of the .NET framework plugin into Firefox in what was supposed to be a bug fix (that sure as heck didnt seem to fix .NET's most serious flaw/vulnerability - but then again, neither did 6 other attemps).

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
CHANGE IN GUI FOR SAKE OF CHANGE: Crimosoft, OS/2 barely since Warp.

OS/2 barely since V2, even though many things could be added to it (I still run and love Styler/2)

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
CHANGED "STANDARDS" WTIHOUT INCREASE OF FUNCTION: Crimosoft

All the time, and continuing... much like their "all platform silverlight - we promise" that now has new APIs that only run on Windows... never saw that coming!!!


Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
# OF CONCURRENT VERSIONS: Crimosoft

Sadly, they realized they could charge for some of the additional functionality that came standard (or as very cheap add-ons via stuff like Object Desktop, Window Blinds and others) in earlier versions.

Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
EXTRACTING MONEY FOR TRIFLING IMPROVEMENTS: Crimosoft

Windows 7 - which is barely more than Windows Vista with fixes, reduced features (as they move more things to online versions) and some eye candy changes.


Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
THREATS, HINDRANCES TO OPERABILITY: Crimosoft

Continuous compatibility changes to keep their edge for their own products - though that has bitten them in the past as well, such as in various versions of Office that needed updates to run properly in Vista. Of course, since they knew the changes needed, it still gave them an unfair advantage.

Reading various manufacturers' complaints (ATI, nVidia, Symantec, and numerous others), they were not provided the correct information in time to ensure compatibility as things changed since the last betas they were given. Their claims, not mine.


Quote from: ddan on 2009.11.23, 21:35:48
VULNERABILITIES FROM DEFAULT OPEN PORTS: Crimosoft

Of which, they seem to open more with each release - instead of absolutely none except as requested by the user (through action or installation of specific software).

Of course, then, in XP and even to an extent in Vista and Windows 7, they include a crippled, barely effective firewall and pretend it's ok.


Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.23, 21:57:48
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.23, 21:48:11
Phoning home:
Google Chrome (browser and OS)

Can be disabled, cant it? And it honors such a setting, doesnt it?

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.23, 21:48:11
Google Android

I would hope so. It is dependent on Google services to run.

I have an Android based phone. How would I expect it to load, maintain and use my Google contacts, and Google Voice and Picasa and GoogleChat and Android Marketplace and Google Search and Google Maps and NavIt and (do I really need to go on?) if it did not phone home?

Here's something though... I can turn off ALL of that and it will never phone home. By default, various of those features come turned off and required me to enable them so I could use the features.

Also, ALL Google apps (and even third party ones) are very very big on stating exactly what they do on a special page that you have to agree to whenever you install - or even update - an app for an Android based phone.

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.23, 21:48:11
None of the business are exempt from these practices. Greed crosses all corporate boundaries; why you choose to single out Microsoft as the worst is beyond me. But you don't really seem like a rational person so I take everything you say with a beach's load of salt.

So... again, where's the comparison to Google Chrome and Android?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2009.11.25, 21:17:05
@RobertM
Regarding GUI changes: I'm still reeling from the changes to window buttons
made in Warp 3, but have accepted them as actual improvements. But for Windows
and increasingly even in Linux, they just change things without improving.


@saijin
So it's beyond you why I "single out" Crimosoft "as the worst"? -- Because
they're visibly the biggest and the worst. -- Now, please don't argue about
what you state is beyond you.

But cheer up, fanboy. Go_ogle (the proper pronunciation for both porn-oriented
search engine AND a spy network), will soon be known as even more evil than
Crimosoft. Don't get me started. Off topic. Read the thread title.

And I'm not rational, eh? That's so feeble because manifestly untrue that I
feel disappointed, not insulted.

Just last night I began on C. M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons", (c) 1951
World Editions, Inc., a "science fiction" story that seems more profound each
time I re-read it (at about ten year intervals), so I know how to respond to
your attempt at personal not substantive insult: "OH, YEAH? SO'S YOUR MOTHER!"
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 00:32:05
Fine, you feel they are the worst. I disagree.

Google is not to be trusted either. Their moves to buy up medical records and energy companies is shady at best.

Apologies for the inflammatory remark, I will try my best to refrain in the future.

In regards to my mother, despite recent health issues she is doing fine.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 00:53:17
Robert, until you or someone else has rigorously tested every inbound and outbound packet to determine its contents I would not trust that Chrome obeys the user's setting to have its communication to Google cut off.

Just as (I assume) you would not trust the same setting in a Microsoft app.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 00:59:36
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 00:53:17
Robert, until you or someone else has rigorously tested every inbound and outbound packet to determine its contents I would not trust that Chrome obeys the user's setting to have its communication to Google cut off.

Just as (I assume) you would not trust the same setting in a Microsoft app.

I have not tested new versions, but older ones do seem to - something I have found Microsoft apps never do. Though, I wasnt discussing trust in this case. I was discussing track record as well, which is what I use to some extent to determine my trust in a company honoring such things. That, and that your comparison was poorly chosen due to the products' dependencies on Google online technologies.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 01:06:28
Right, I'm aware that it is cloud based. But by nature of that construction, your information is in the hands of Google and you have no control over what they do with it.

On the other hand, a local-based OS will provide you SOME data security and integrity.


Robert, not to frustrate, but what apps/services are not responding to your request to have them no longer communicate?

Are you referring to opting in/out of the Customer Experience Program for Live (Messenger, etc) as well as IE7/8 and Office products? However the data are handled, the improvements are obviously drawn from the usage statistics they collect, so I guess its not 100% useless that they collect these data.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 01:14:23
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 01:06:28
Right, I'm aware that it is cloud based. But by nature of that construction, your information is in the hands of Google and you have no control over what they do with it.

Sure I do. I can choose not to use the products, since choosing to, based on them being cloud based, means I am aware I am sharing my data.

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 01:06:28
On the other hand, a local-based OS will provide you SOME data security and integrity.

Unless it is Windows. Run a packet scanner with all auto/check-for updates disabled, all "Customer Experience" options disabled... tell me what you find.


Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 01:06:28
Robert, not to frustrate, but what apps/services are not responding to your request to have them no longer communicate?

I dont even check anymore, as other than Windows itself, on only one workstation, I dont use other Microsoft software.

But even on the Windows front alone, my XP Pro machine nags the hell out of the OS/2 server through NetBIOS over TCP/IP even with the protocol "uninstalled" (oops, cant uninstall it, can we? we can click what we want and let Windows report we have uninstalled it, but we havent).

The XP machine accounts for a lot of firewall log entries on the OS/2 server coming from an uninstalled protocol.

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 01:06:28
Are you referring to opting in/out of the Customer Experience Program for Live (Messenger, etc) as well as IE7/8 and Office products? However the data are handled, the improvements are obviously drawn from the usage statistics they collect, so I guess its not 100% useless that they collect these data.

No, I'm not. But if I opt out (which I always do), I expect they honor that regardless of their motives (claimed or real). When they do, I will be a little happier with them.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 01:16:54
Of course, the reason (my guess) that NetBeui cannot truly be uninstalled, contrary to the erroneous claim (ie: lie by design) that it is, is because it is used to talk with Microsoft - all while scanning everything it can on a local network for services that are disabled or shouldnt be able to communicate (via an "uninstalled" protocol).
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 02:26:58
I did, I used Wireshark.

The vast majority of the traffic were keep-alive packets to my router.
Next were uPnP messages to my router (it is uPnP enabled).
Next were NBNS messages checking, then confirming my name.
Next were WORKGROUP join messages that then checked the status of the workgroup. It will check every 5 minutes according to the outbound packet.

This analysis was run for about 190s (just over 3 minutes) starting right after boot-up. I did not disable an Customer Experience options nor Windows Update service.

Granted, not exhaustive/conclusive, but nothing obvious nor troublesome presented itself.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 04:26:16
Now disable and uninstall NetBeui and monitor it again. And for a couple days. And load WMP with all "check this that and the other thing" options disabled and go scan a few directories with it.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 05:56:03
NetBEUI is not installed. Just client networking, QoS, and File/Printer sharing.

So far, it has been behaving as expected and no nasty surprises. I may continue the exercise up at school when I have time for it. I need to keep the family computer open for my family to use.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 06:11:30
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 05:56:03
NetBEUI is not installed. Just client networking, QoS, and File/Printer sharing.

That is NetBeui.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:15:32
Whoopsie. But its so useful :'( Let me test it again then.
Note: Uninstalled QoS/File/Microsoft Client from this adapter (Atheros Wireless)
Interesting. The Green results are the keep-alives sent between this machine and the router.
The yellow NBNS messages are sent from my sisters laptop to the router looking for a computer that no longer exists (that machine is now running eCS up at my school).

There was one outbound packet sent to Microsoft Spynet (I am opted in to the advanced membership, so it will send results that are currently unclassified to them for analysis).

The pattern of keep-alives and NBNS lookups by my sisters computer remains consistent during the time of monitoring (about 3 minutes). Only other outbound packets were my WhoIS lookup using FastResolver (to figure out where that one outbound was going), and another to look at my router's DHCP Client pool to determine the source of the NBNS lookups.

All in all, quite quiet.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 06:35:40
Quiet? Look again at all the NBNS packets that should be non-existant. That is "Not Installed - Oh Wait, It IS STILL Installed NetBEUI or NetBIOS over TCP/IP"

Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:36:36
No its not Robert. Its not coming from my machine. As I stated quite plainly before, they are coming from my sisters laptop.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 06:42:02
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:36:36
No its not Robert. Its not coming from my machine. As I stated quite plainly before, they are coming from my sisters laptop.


Oops. Apologies. What about the other few hundred entries?
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:42:34
The keep alive packets? I assume that is fairly normal network traffic between a wireless router and a wireless network card.
But, I'm not a Networking major so...
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: RobertM on 2009.11.26, 06:47:10
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:42:34
The keep alive packets? I assume that is fairly normal network traffic between a wireless router and a wireless network card...

No... the ones off screen. Anyway, give it time. And of course, use the machine. Maybe you'll have better luck than me. Either that or check the eCS Firewall logs.

I can post my firewall logs if it will help.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 06:53:21
The ones off screen are more of the same. I identified the pattern as best I could and the stand outs (the packet to Microsoft Spynet).

If I output the whole log as plain text, all you get are the frame numbers and Hex code of the contents of the packet. Kind of useless to read over to see what was going on.

I'll compare the eCS box and my XP box back at school seeing as they both are on the same subnet (hardwire router) and should be communicating about the same.

However, its not a fair comparison because the eCS box does not have Samba functioning very well so its going to be missing a ton of traffic right there.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2009.11.26, 15:16:44
If my grasp of your procedure and WireShark is correct, you're "begging the question".

Since Windows itself is being tested, you can't believe what a mere program running on it tells you of its network traffic. It's well established that it hides certain files from mere apps (when Sony uses that built-in feature, it's called a rootkit);  reasonable suspicion that it's hiding whatever it wants to most certainly applies equally to network traffic. You need external hardware to check this.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.26, 18:45:45
Wireshark is a well known tool that comes from the Unix world. I don' think this "mere program" is fooled by any OS it runs atop, and seeing as it is used in Universities as a research tool I would hope it is more robust than you are suggesting.

It does not rely upon any of the Windows monitors or services to get its usage statistics, it installs a system-level service that runs independently of the core Windows networking services and sort of "wraps" over them, encompassing all traffic (from what I understand).

My usage may be incomplete seeing, as I mentioned before, I am not an IT or Network Security major, but to the best of my knowledge and the brief walk-through my IT friend gave me via AIM, I performed the test accurately.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2009.11.27, 14:24:07
STILL BEGGING. So who knows whether the "core" services are all there is? ONLY CRIMOSOFT, far as the software goes.

It's not even beyond question that otherwise ordinary packets are encoded and only fully interpreted by special receivers, NOR that the real spyware only starts up in response to "back door" packets that they claim don't exist.

Anything _I_ can think, someone is already doing.

(I'm adding, because I see now that you think you covered "all". -- Er, anything that's wrapped can be unwrapped, selectively. Any service running may SEEM to own the hardware, but the OS can know that, and simply suspend the service when it wants. There's no software that could possibly cover those possibilities when Crimosoft probably knows of WireShark and can specifically handle it, somewhere in their gigabytes.

SO, only hardware can truly work, and would require lengthy monitor and test. They only have to hide a few bytes somewhere that are interpreted only by their own remote server, which then can send requests back IF desired.

They may even have other better ideas; that's truly just off the top of mine.)
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: ddan on 2009.11.27, 15:18:42
Confidence games and the spy world can only work when people DON'T think they're being fooled. Me, I know I'm fallible. Someone tells me I'm smart, I immediately grab my wallet.

A bit more on my theory: the local machine would send only a few extra bytes announcing its ID and presence, at any time, and most importantly, rarely because otherwise extra traffic from millions of machines would be noted. If on a local net, a Windows server would specially interpret it, and, being a bit more compromised, either pass it on or merely note it in case a specific request came in. But because the packets are normal with a bit extra, it doesn't depend on local servers, only needs to get out somewhere. This is all distributed, and includes Windows servers monitoring net traffic, so that eventually, one of the special headers gets  home, and if there's interest, they now know where THAT machine is. If you have a portable computer, it can almost certainly be located similarly after getting onto the internet, presumably recent desktops too.

So you're at best manually looking for RARE instances of literally a few extra bytes somewhere in gigabytes, don't have an absolutely reliable tool to do it with, and probably haven't accumulated much traffic to sift through for what's unrecognizable to you. So negative results of your test are really all that I expect.

When faced with problems like that -- advantage, Crimosoft -- it's reasonable to consider motives and history. Frankly, though I still don't approve, the NSA would be a BIT careless if they DIDN'T have a way into Crimosoft machines, probably others, and it's as certain as sunrise that such capabilities exist.
Title: Re: OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On
Post by: Saijin_Naib on 2009.11.27, 20:07:34
I acknowledge your criticism and I see that it is valid, but I don't have ready access to any hardware solutions for monitoring packets. This is outside of my area of work (Environmental Science/GIS/Remote Sensing) so I don't even know of any helpful people inside my university that would assist me in such a project.

I have not called the results conclusive, but only not indicative of any problem that I am able to see using a trusted piece of software used by IT and Network Security professors and students within my University to perform tests.