Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - S.SubZero

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Applications / Re: UPDCD and WARP Update Kit
« on: 2008.02.16, 22:22:33 »
I made a Warp 4.52 disc that seems fine.  UPDCD seems to have trouble with app integration when it's an app that is newer than UPDCD is (ie. newer versions of Seamonkey).  I ended up tossing some apps in the TOOLS folder and then just installing them separate at the end.  It's still nice to have them on the CD though.

2
General Discussion / Re: Sometimes the truth hurts.
« on: 2008.01.14, 23:00:02 »
Have you ever written a document with Word that consisted of more than 40-50 pages? That's when the problems usually start. And at over 70-80 pages things get ugly. All that assumed that you use style sheets in the proper way instead of formatting headlines and the like seperately. Otherwise the pain starts earlier.
I don't open that size of document very often, but it has been several years since I've had Word or any Office app outright crash on me.  At least in your example it's a big Word document.  I can usually hang the WPS in OS/2 4.52 simply by playing a couple of rounds of the Klondike Solitaire app that it comes with.

Any OS/2 user who says the SIQ problem doesn't exist or "they never saw it" is lying.  It's the Achilles' Heel of an otherwise fairly solid OS. 

3
Security / Re: Read this
« on: 2008.01.13, 17:52:21 »
Windows gets targeted for these kinds of attacks because it's the platform in use by the vast majority of users, and the vast majority of inexperienced users.

I fully believe that the concept of a completely 100% secure, unhackable, unvirusable operating system that still provides expected functionality to the user is impossible.  At some point the need to provide a function for users becomes the function that allows these things to happen.  I mean you could have Windows absolutely locked down, unable to access the web, no open ports at all, no internet connectivity, no keyboard, nothing, and yeah, it probably won't get a virus.. but then it would be unusable.

Firefox is a perfect example of what happens when you cross the safe line for the sake of functionality.  Firefox was written FROM SCRATCH to be this perfect, unexploitable, 100% safe browser.  It met that goal for a short time, but the minute they added some function that it HAD to have, the security bulletins and updates started.  It didn't help that a zillion people downloaded it Mozilla happily bragged about it, and got the attention of the seedy types looking for new victims.

Windows is a big, porous OS.  This does not necessarily make viruses and trojans unavoidable.  There are measures the user can take to prevent them, both with software and common sense.  Apply those Windows Updates, stick to familiar sites, use ad blockers, learn how to notice subtle changes in the system, and don't run strange EXE's sent from anyone, even people you know.  It's not rocket science.

4
It never ceases to amaze me, how quickly people are to give up the privacy rights that their parents, (and/or grandparents),  DIED for you to have.
While privacy is certainly a right, it's a right controllable by the individual.  You certainly are under no obligation to ever surrender any info you consider private.  By doing so you just limit yourself to activities that do not require that info.  You don't *have* to give your social security number to a bank, but if you don't, don't expect to get that loan.  Simple.

Ask yourself, "why would they want this information?" And you can bet your bottom dollar that the answer will never with your interest in mind nor your future well being.
I posted this on another forum:
User: "Vista sucks it crashes it takes alot of memory it doesn't run my apps it's unstable it blows blahblah"

MS: "Let us see what apps you run, and we can fix the specific problems and improve your experience."

Users: "SCREW YOU I DO NOT GIVE UP MY PRIVACY GRRRR!!!"

Computers do not run the handful of tiny apps they used to.  For MS to hand-test every single known application ever made for Windows since the very first one on every hardware configuration that can run Vista would take thousands of people years to do.  This is not practical.  So it makes sense for them to ask users to test for them.  Instead of just whining about a problem, they can reproduce it, and SHOW it to Microsoft directly.  What a concept!

The funny thing is open-source OS users will happily paste huge chunks of code and process lists and share all kinds of "private" stuff to get help with problems.  Willingly.  Nobody even has to ask, they just start doing it.

5
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. 

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
Quote
I 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)

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

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.

6
Virtually 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.

OS/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.
Still 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.   

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.



7
...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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

8
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). 

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.

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.


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).

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.

9
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.

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.

10
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.

11
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.
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. 
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.

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.

12
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.

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?

13
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. 
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* and *this*.  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)

14
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.

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.
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* for beta software.  Where did I hear that?

15
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3