Re: Last comment on OS/2, VDM issues, etc. (was Re: Dual boot options?)

Straydog wrote:

<snip>

> Yep, OS/2 is TRASH. It is NOT unsubstantiated. Why don't you face up to 
> the fact that OS/2 is used by a very small group of "disciples" and 
> almost no one else cares about it. I came to OS/2 with open arms, 
> positive attitude, but I did not develop a religious feeling toward it 
> like you.
> It did not work for me, it was buggy, it was ***bersome, it had less
> features than even Win3.1, and there are a bunch of other problems with 
> it, too.

<snip>

There is no doubt that OS/2 failed in the market as a consumer-oriented
desktop O/S for PCs, however there is ample evidence that it is a well-
engineered, stable, well-do***ented and affordable O/S when used in
targeted applications; sup****t after its decline, even from authors
within IBM was phenomenal.  As a server platform it excelled in uptime
and configurability, avoiding the miasma of registry headaches inherent
in MS products; as a client o/s for mission-critical applications it also
excelled. I personally believe in the "network computing" model for
the clueless m***** (no complex multitasking/multiuser o/s on the desktop)
which could be implemented using server appliances and display server
clients (even in the same box if necessary) to insulate the user from
misconfiguration and malware. OS/2 when configured with skill is orders
of magnitude more robust than its MS contem****aries.

Microsoft managed to produce a stable server product in NT/2K which
displaced
general purpose OS/2 installations however there are many special purpose
applications that only OS/2 (in various flavors) sup****ts robustly. I used
OS/2 in early 802.11 router projects which were headless and
remote booted, because the hardware was designed around this O/S and there
weren't *nix alternatives at the time.  I also found the platform useful
in integrating mixes of Win3.1 and DOS apps with 32-bit native apps for
complex network applications, in a way that I could not do using DOS
emulators
on *nix (Simultask, DOS Merge, etc.) at the time.

I found that books and do***entation on OS/2 internals and development
were
better written and more affordable than MS equivalents and I was always
impressed by the level of (unpaid) sup****t from IBM and independent
developers;
I received detailed technical assistance, source code, binaries and
do***ents
direct from O/S authors at IBM on a number of occasions, something
unimaginable
from Microsoft.

Also IBM's OS/2 SMB products (LANServer, Advanced Server, etc.) were more
canonical
and interroperated with our LanManager servers better and far exceeded
Samba or
other OSS SMB implementations in performance.

Unlike other posters to this thread, I _would_ recommend trying OS/2 as a
vehicle
for integrating special-purpose Win3.1 and DOS applications into a 32-bit
environment
by making good use of the wealth of on-line do***entation and archived
code; the
O/S has a smaller footprint and resource requirements than any newer
approach with
the same levels of functionality. (My experiences apply to OS/2 2.1 and
3.x).

Regards,

Michael