Sorry to bore people. This is my last response on the subject; further
conversation should be directly to me via a private e-mail or made in a
more appropriate USENET venue. I would suggest comp.os.os2.misc.
* * *
Here in alt.msdos, Straydog <asd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spake unto us, saying:
>On Fri, 11 May 2007, Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>> Interesting, since Warp 4 is two years newer and has a lot of drivers
>> (especially video drivers) that Warp 3 does not.
>
>The Warp 4 that I got (actually 3 different boxes sontaining software)
had
>a whole second CDROM disk with drivers. All useless if you can't get the
>primary OS installed. And, all of the boxes I tried W4 on but would not
>install, installed W3 without a problem except one with a very slow boot.
I don't disbelieve that you had issues. There's a lot of strange PC
hardware out there. But if you had multiple boxes, you either had a
nonstandard distribution (something somone sold you?) or you had some
additional software that wasn't part of the base package.
The OS/2 client has never been sold in multiple packages.
The official IBM OS/2 Warp 4 package is in a single box (with a headset
microphone if you're lucky) with four CDs:
* OS/2 Installation CD (IBM Part 84H3109)
* Device Driver Pak (IBM Part 84H3110)
* Application Sampler CD (IBM Part 84H3111)
* Lotus Notes Mail 4.1 CD (Part number not on CD)
I have two copies (one full, one upgrade), purchased directly from IBM
at the time of its initial release, and both came with microphones for
use with VoiceType Navigation and Dictation. Which I've never used.
>I'd like to know what fraction of people who bought ECS got it to work?
Ask in the OS/2 newsgroups. It's not on-topic here. I've installed it
here on vanilla IBM and Compaq machines as well as on a no-brand box
that my wife used, but those are older machines and are far more likely
to be compatible than ones purchased today.
A Google Groups search will also provide some insight into eCS install
issues, etc. It's obvious that a lot of people are using it, meaning a
certain percentage of folks seemed to have success on newer hardware.
>I strongly doubt, based on what I learned, that ECS is going to solve
>most of those problems. And, ECS is not cheap.
No, eCS is not cheap, but for folks wanting to use OS/2, it's the only
legal option at this point in time (aside from picking up older copies
of OS/2 on eBay, of course).
>Sorry, I've wasted enough time on OS/2 and why are you talking it up
>on a DOS newsgroup?
I'm simply addressing what appeared to be unsubstantiated trash-talking
in a group that I happen to regularly participate in. Search Google.
IOW, I'm not advocating its use -- I'm correcting your exaggerations.
Besides, one could make the argument that OS/2 VDMs (and any questions
or comments about their viability) are quite on-topic here.
Not only does an OS/2 VDM emulate a DOS kernel by default, but an OS/2
Virtual Machine Boot [VMB] uses a real MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, OpenDOS,
FreeDOS, or CP/M boot diskette image (saved as a file) to run software
inside the virtual machine.
Each VDM has a real DOS kernel in that case (with several different
ones being juggled at the same time if you wish), not an emulation.
It's a nice way to test DOS software as a programmer (for example).
>If I have to find a consultant (the OS2 newgroups were useless and I
>spent a lot of time reading posts there, years ago, and asked for help)
I've been active in the c.o.os2.* groups since 1995, and I really don't
remember them ever being an unhelpful place, but a lot depends on the
quality of questions asked and the information provided by the user.
Also, rare installation issues are sometimes hard to handle effectively
because it's hard to troubleshoot something we can't reproduce.
That's true for almost all operating systems, and it's probably the
most frustrating type of problem for both new users and experts.
>> There was one upgrade slipstreamed in with the 1st Warp 3 variant --
>> the initial release only sup****ted SLIP dial-up networking, but later
>> Warp 3 red-spine boxes contained PPP dial-up as well.
>
>And, that is buggy, too. Not all dialup networks will handshake with the
>W3 ppp dialup. Maybe half will, the other half won't . I spent time with
>this, too.
Not if they used Microsoft's proprietary MS-CHAP, no. IBM sup****ted the
formal PAP and CHAP userid/password standards which existed at the time,
but some ISPs uses MS software and caused issues under Linux as well.
And Macs.
If your ISP used MS-CHAP, you would probably have to use a third-party
dialer like In-Joy. It worked fine with MS-CHAP.
>> There is no license enforcement or other technical reason why OS/2 apps
>> from one Warp 3 package should not work on another.
>
>Sorry, bub, I tried the TCP/IP stack from a differnt box. Installed fine,
>did not work. I did this repeatedly on different boxes. So, there may be
>a whole basket of hardware compatibility issues here, too.
Trying to install something like Warp 3 Connect's TCP/IP stack to a
base OS/2 Warp 3 non-Connect installation could pose issues, yes, since
one of them (Warp Connect) contains a lot of software which is related
to peer-to-peer networking (but not TCP/IP) that the other one doesn't
provide and wouldn't have installed.
Otherwise, I don't see the point of even trying. What would be gained?
If you have an old pre-PPP Warp 3 and a new one, install the new one on
both boxes and be done with it. The license is the same.
>> The previous poster appears to be spreading serious misinformation.
>>
>> I've used a wide variety of DOS programs including a variety of major
>> applications and games in OS/2 VDMs (mostly via vanilla VDMs using the
>> default emulated DOS kernel, not using a VMB (Virtual Machine Boot))
>> since 1992. I got into OS/2 specifically to run/juggle DOS software.
>
>Fine, if you are happy with it. I read all of below and I can tell you
>that it is the worst OS of all of them and not because I came in wanting
>to find that. I've played a lot of DOS, Win3.1, Win9X, BSD, and a lot of
>Linux and I really WANTED to find OS/2 as an alternative to Microsoft.
Sounds to me like you had some serious issues with the installation as
well as with the video performance/stability related to a selection of
DOS games (which will often perform nonstandard operations to talk to
the hardware and which usually require a certain amountof VDM settings
tweaking), and you (understandably) found that to be frustrating.
I do empathize with that (God knows I've spent enough years helping to
walk folks through such issues on USENET, Delphi, and elsewhere), but
that doesn't really justify the sort of overgeneralizations that I read
here in your posting.
It's those overgeneralizations that I want to address, not the fact
that OS/2 obviously failed to meet your expectations. Sometimes even
the best operating system fails to install on someone's hardware, and
in the early and mid-1990's there were a lot of crappy drivers written
for non-Windows systems.
>I only gave part of my list of bad experience and I was left very
>unsatisfied and I don't know what you mean by "used here" below, but I
>did not get very far into playing DOS aps in a OS2 full screen or window
>before I found bugs, crashes, poor color problems (on all the versions
and
>on all of the boxes), and if it was a DOS ppp dialer or a Win3.1 dialer,
>it would not connect with the modem.
Video issues, especially ones related to running a DOS game and then
doing a switch back and forth between that game and the PM desktop),
were not that uncommon. Most of them were due to crappy video drivers,
and those were OS/2's fault in most people eyes (perhaps justifiably).
The fact that I knew about OS/2 long before I purchased this hardware
helped me to avoid most of those issues. In 1996, you were a fool (or
in most cases rather uninformed) if you tried to do much fancy under
OS/2 with a Windows-focused video card like an Imagine 128 (to pick a
rather infamous example). Matrox was the way to go, hands down, and
their original MGA Millenium card was a godsend under OS/2 and was
*considerably* faster than the I128 for gaming under DOS as well.
I'm sincerely sorry that you ran into such issues, and I wish I could
have been more helpful back then. The best answer was probably not a
good one for you to hear, though: get a better video card, one which
has been proven to work well with OS/2. Sometimes you need to buy PC
hardware to fit the software mix, not the other way around.
>And, I recall that some of OS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was co-developed with Microsoft
Yes, IBM and Microsoft co-wrote the 16-bit version of OS/2 that was
released as OS/2 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. IBM did some rewriting after the
project caused the two companies to fall out, and OS/2 1.3 had a lot
of rewritten code (and was faster and more stable).
OS/2 2.0 (released in early 1992) and later are 32-bit rewrites of the
operating system, and most of the Microsoft code was replace with the
release of OS/2 2.1 in 1993. By Warp 3 in 1994, you're using IBM code
almost exclusively (except WinOS2, of course, but that was rewritten as
a DPMI client and heavily optimized by IBM).
>Fine with me if you are happy with your OS2. For me, it was the biggest
>waste of my time and money.
It's far past the time to advocate OS/2 as a viable solution to anyone
(except perhaps to hobbyists and open-minded DOS enthusiasts).
I'm more concerned about generalizations being made which are provably
incorrect and/or grossly inaccurate. I think I've addressed those.
'Nuff said. Questions/comments to me or comp.os.os2.misc. Thanks.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner
>>>---> Mableton, GA
USA
Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
|
