Despite the attempts by some people to "talk up" OS/2 (see below), or
"talk down" my "exagerations" of real experience, all of
the surveys of what is actually being used, today, in all environments
(not just, as the guy below says, for the "consumer market" or "desktop")
show what all of us know are the real major players in OSes and OS/2 is
not even on anyone's radar any more. Its a Windows-*nix world and that is
it. Now if people here just _like_ it for their own use, I'm not going to
argue. I gave my _real life_ experience and I need to get work done, not
play "hobby" or in those commercial applications where OS/2 got itself
established (for some specific function) and it works for them and they
see no need to change.
As one who really did read the books (I have six), I can say that it is
not well do***ented. If you have access to the IBM books (redbooks, etc),
or you actually grew up as a knowlegeable sup****t person or actually
participated in deveopment, etc., it might be something different to you.
I have had my share of error messages and crashes. Some people may just
live by 'playing' with their computers but I need to get the work done and
I can say that DOS, even some versions of Windows (and I don't like
Windows or Bill Gates), and Linux/BSD are better to invest your time
getting, installing, and using. If you want to approach OSes as if you are
some academic professor, with plenty of time on your hands or a big
budget, then that's different. No matter where I read anything about
computers and software, there is mostly buzz about only Windows or the
*nixes (Unix, Linux, BSD, or OS-X).
I've got my OS/2s and books, here, still waiting to give away free to for
anyone to pay ****pping costs. I've got more im****tant things to do.
For those curiosity seekers, and people with time on their hands, it might
be a useful experience (and you can get some work done with it, but the
disadvantages are there, too, and guys like below just don't seem to want
to talk about them). And, I've yet to see anyone just concentrate on the
reality: OS/2 is dead. What 98-99% of everyone out there, everywhere, is
using something else. Its been that way for about a decade now.
Yes, this is a DOS-relevant post. OS/2 does run DOS aps. I've done that,
too. I'm not impressed with HOW it runs some DOS aps. My advice: Run your
DOS aps under real DOS.
Oh, yes, if you want a small footprint OS, then get www.tomsrtboot.com,
Linux on a 3.5 floppy. One floppy, self-booting, self-extracting, more
stable OS, with lots of utilities and more powerful fdisk. I've used this
a lot, too.
===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
On Mon, 14 May 2007, msg wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
|
