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.
Where 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.
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?
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.
Are you attacking my intelligence too?
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.