• 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

OS/2 Vs. Windows... The Debate Rages On

Started by S.SubZero, 2007.11.02, 08:49:11

Previous topic - Next topic

RobertM

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.


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


Saijin_Naib

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.

RobertM

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.


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


Saijin_Naib

#18
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.

The Blue Warper

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...]

S.SubZero

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.

El Vato

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?

S.SubZero

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.

DavidG

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.

Terry

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/

100 M$ Windows Vista/XP Idiosyncrasies...

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.

El Vato

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!

Saijin_Naib

^ 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

lwriemen

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.

Saijin_Naib

#28
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.

S.SubZero

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* for beta software.  Where did I hear that?