• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

Newbie wondering... what makes eCS/OS/2 special, in 2008?

Started by bhtooefr, 2008.11.08, 02:10:17

Previous topic - Next topic

RobertM

Quote from: bhtooefr on 2008.11.08, 18:06:13
Oh, and one more thing... I know this is one hell of a stretch, but...

Quote from: djcaetanoWindows has not the WPS

For some values of Windows (all of them being 3.1x,) it actually does have the WPS.

Oh, yes, that is a stretch. WPSfW, interestingly enough:
- Was written by IBM employees as a fun little project for OS/2 (WinOS2)
- Still runs (even though it is ancient) on the latest OS/2-WinOS2 versions
- Is tiny yet brings more functionality than all of the bloated GUI add-on stuff added to Win95 to make it run like OS/2's GUI.

But that aside, it still doesnt come close to the real thing (the WPS) - it just emulates some of the functions of it.

Rob


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


bhtooefr

Well, and even in 5 minutes, I could see that it had some serious power. I'll have to get used to it...

I do plan on keeping this VM around to play with, and see what it can do. (Either that, or I've got a partition on this ThinkPad (X61 Tablet) that I'm not using for anything... might try running eCS on the metal, that'd force me to take a closer look at it, and not allow the slow, slow VM to influence my impressions of it.)

Of course, how does Odin compare to, say, WINE for Win32 app compatibility? If it compares favorably, that'd help, too.

Saijin_Naib


RobertM

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.11.08, 20:36:39
Not even close.

Sadly, (if memory serves) though Odin uses some stuff from Wine, it hasn't been truly updated in a while. The apps that do run well under Odin run really well, and at least as fast (in some cases faster) than they do on Windows. But without Odin being updated, there are many holes in it's support for Win32 stuff.

Odin would be a great project to be maintained and thoroughly updated. Alas, it seems not to be (though who knows? Last time we all thought that (a year or two ago) a new release suddenly appeared - so who knows what's going on behind the scenes? We may be surprised with a new release in the future).

Robert


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


Saijin_Naib

Can anyone get in contact with the guy that was supposedly making the W.A.P.E project for OS/2 (WINE for OS/2)? I added him to my Jabber list but I'm never online when he is and he's de-authorized me.

BigWarpGuy


Fahrvenugen

#21
For me, working with computers I've always had the attitude of "use the best tool and / or OS for the job you're trying to do".  In some cases that is a version of Windows.  In some cases it can be Linux (or BSD or whatever).  Sometimes it may be a Mac.  Years ago (although sadly not any more) if someone asked me about the best platform for video editing / production, I'd have said Amiga.  And in some situations the answer is OS/2 or eCS.  Not all OSes were created the same, each has strengths and weaknesses.

Admittedly, if I need to run a copy of the latest version of Word or Excel (or any of the office apps), Windows is still the best way to run those apps (either in a VM or natively).  Yes I know OpenOffice will open many of those files, but I've also run into a lot of situations / files that just won't work correctly in OpenOffice (especially things that rely on complex macros and stuff) and it is just more  productive to use a real copy of Office.  Other areas where I still use windows on a regular basis includes doing such things such as audio / sound file editing.  At least once a week I find myself editing a sound file, and when comparing the tools available on OS/2 to the tools that I have in windows, there just isn't a comparison.

On the other hand, I have found situations where OS/2 (or eCS) just is the right tool for the job.  Not to say that its the *only* tool that can do the job, but at the time that I set it up it seemed to be the best option.  The biggest example I can find is in automation and server roles.   This is one area where OS/2 shines.

Here's a real world example:  About a year ago I took over the role of managing the IT infastructure for a small non-profit community radio station when the person who was doing the IT work moved to another city.  The station is volunteer run, has a limited budget, and has limited computer resources.  One system that needed immediate attention was a computer that keeps audio logs of all material broadcast.  For legal reasons, the station is required to keep an audio log of everything broadcast for at least 30 days.  Prior to using computers this had been recorded to tape, but a number of years back it was switched over to a digital system.  For redundancy there are 2 systems that do this, in the event that one system quit working the other would keep going.  When I took things over one of the computers had quit working.

The OS that was being used at the time was Linux.  Originally it had been set up on a build of Red Hat / Fedora, then later at some point it had been switched over to run on Ubuntu Server.  The problem with the computer that died was a dead hard disk.  Once I identified this and got a new hard disk, I debated whether to just run it on Linux again (as the other logger was running) or do something different.

The computer itself is a P4 - 1.8 with 256 MB memory.  Not all that impressive by today's standards, but at the time it was purchased (around 6 or 7 years ago) it was an impressive machine.

In deciding what to use for the logger I had a look at the other running logger (which was an identical machine).  The only thing it did was log live audio from the sound card to MP3's via a few scripts that ran SOX and LAME, it all ran as a CRON job.  As it was (running on Ubuntu Server) the machine was keeping up with its job of logging MP3's, but was using a significant amount of the system resources (around 40% - 45% cpu load, which again isn't a lot,  but still) for the limited task that it was doing.

On my shelf at home I keep a  few spare copies of OS/2 Warp (I've used Warp since '94, and over the years I've collected from various sources - bargin bins, people I know cleaning out software collections, garage sales, etc - additional licenses for Warp 3, Warp 4, and Warp Server... you never know when one will come in handy!), so I decided to see how well Warp could handle the job of audio logging.  If Warp did as well as Linux I'd just donate one of my extra copies of Warp to the station.

So I installed Warp 4 on a new hard disk, wrote a few short REXX scripts for the task at hand.  Within about 2 hours it was up and running logging audio and I found it was only taking about 15 - 20% of CPU cycles. 

I've since added things to what that server is doing.  In addition to logging MP3's it is running 2 web servers (each on a different port), PHP, MySQL, Icecast (for live audio streaming), FTPD, Email, SSH (for remote access), Samba (to allow others at the station to easily access stuff on it).  It also has a DVD burner on it which I frequently use to run backups.  With all of this, CPU load sits anywhere from 45 - 60% (depending on how many are accessing it at any one time). 

Could I have done that on Linux or Windows?  I'm sure Linux could have done it, although to run all the stuff running on Warp at the same level of performance that I'm currently getting I probably would have needed more memory, a faster CPU, or both.  As for Windows, I can say that I definitely would have needed both a faster CPU and more memory.  On OS/2 it just runs and was easy to set up. 

So what attracted me to OS/2 as the solution for that problem?  Simply the fact that I've used OS/2 for years, knew that it could handle the job at least as well and likely better then the other options, and I knew that I could get it up and running quickly without any significant upgrades in hardware (with the exception of course being the new hard disk) made a huge difference in my decision.

Since then I've been glad that I made the choice to go with OS/2 for that logger.  I've also switched the other logger over to OS/2 (about 2 months later the hard disk in the other logger failed, and I took that opportunity to switch Logger 2 over to an even older Pentium 3 / Warp 3 based system - which has no trouble logging MP3's, and we now use the higher powered P4 for another use).  It just plain works, doing what I need it to do and has opened up more possibilities for what we can do in the future.