Image Map Image Map
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: Os/2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ohio/USA
    Posts
    7,686
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    OS/2 was pretty much dead after Warp 3 shipped, Win95 launch just finished it.

    OS/2 2.x on an IBM PS/2 is kind of fun to run since everything is supported. Support for anything outside of Ethernet, SCSI and Tokenring on commodity hardware of the time is not that great. Also updates are a royal pain in the rear of floppy flipping.
    What I collect: 68K/Early PPC Mac, DOS/Win 3.1 era machines, Amiga/ST, C64/128
    Nubus/ISA/VLB/MCA/EISA cards of all types
    Boxed apps and games for the above systems
    Analog video capture cards/software and complete systems

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    32,543
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Also OS/2 News still active.

    I wouldn't venture that Win95 did OS/2 in--the latter was far more stable than any version of Win9x. On the other hand, things were pretty much over when NT 4.0 debuted. You could still find OS/2 embedded in various applications, such as ATM devices. And remember that NT could run OS/2 console applications.

    There is information about setting up OS/2 Warp 4/eComstation on VirtualBox on OS2world (it's a great way to test out systems on modern hardware--VB abstracts the host hardware so that no matter what you're using as a host, the hardware interface is standard.) Very handy if you want to run, say, an early version of Xenix on your modern super-by-gosh-bleeding-edge system running heaven-knows-what.
    Last edited by Chuck(G); August 1st, 2015 at 11:00 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,072
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I had v4 running on MS Virtual PC 2004 on an XP P4 box with 512meg of ram running along side Red Hat 6.2 and Dos just for the hell of it.
    Last edited by Caluser2000; August 1st, 2015 at 11:08 PM.
    Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,441
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Lou Gerstner's announcement of the reduction of push behind OS/2 came slightly before Win95 got released. I think the real problem was the out of control spending on Workplace OS, OS/2 for PowerPC, and regular OS/2 with sales nowhere near the level needed to break even.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NorthWest England (East Pondia)
    Posts
    2,249
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    I think OS/2 had many problems. In many ways some are the same problems Linux has, one of which is it needed a techy to manage it. I think the biggest one was that IBM made the same assumption BT made about ISDN, that is:-

    1. Folks had to have it.
    2. You could charge a premium price for it.

    If you don't think this is true for Linux look at the price for a RedHat support contract and then when you have an issue with UBUNTO try and explain to your risk manager you chose a release with no commercial support....

    OS/2 wanted to be every ones answer to every ones prayer. I think IBM saw mainframes and AS/400 vanishing, which they almost have, and wanted to be first on the game with a new wonder machine. Just like the "Future Systems" project they tried to deliver too much software on hardware that wasn't yet up to the job.

    When Windows/95 came out it ticked 90% of the boxes for 90% of the people, and as some one else said, that's just enough to get elected president. Windows/95 came with TCP/IP built in. For MOST WARP releases it cost more than the basic OS. Yes there was dial-up support, but in reality that meant IBM was charging more for the TCP/IP LAN interface than they were for the rest of the OS.

    Then there is that old chestnut of reliability. In practice OS/2 was no more reliable than Win95. It has a major flaw in its input queue processing so if any app gets stuck and stops processing its input the whole OS locks up. I used it for a while as we tried to down port an application from SunOS to a commodity PC platform. It just didn't cut it.

    http://arstechnica.com/business/2013...gedy-of-os2/5/

    in practice, once you knew which apps caused problems in Win95 you went and found a different one that didn't cause problems, so it stayed up pretty much all of the time. Because its really a very sophisticated DOS extender its really very quick . On the other hand with with OS/2 you were lucky to find one native app, and it wasn't quick...
    ... and as for modern Windows, well I have been retired for 12 months but we used to run about 300 windows servers in my last job. We seldom had a windows crash. On the other hand the Linux appliances, well they were appliances...

    We still see the same mentality today. No one buys a piece of software because it ticks fewer feature boxes on a comparison test, then they complain what they have bought is complex and hard to use, well of course...
    Dave
    G4UGM

    Looking for Analog Computers, Drum Plotters, and Graphics Terminals

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    32,543
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Well, for perhaps 90% of the user community out there, writing documents, running spreadsheets, email and web browsing functions would probably be sufficient. What half the stuff is on a Windows computer is for baffles me utterly. At least in Linux, I can pick and choose what I want--anything from a simple CLI-only system to a full-blown GUI desktop with all the gewgaws. I don't believe that Linux is any more reliable than other OSes, but you can omit troublesome features. Neither Windows nor OS/2 nor OSX allows me that luxury.

    Creeping featurism is a disease that mankind has yet to conquer. I don't imagine that systems 10 years from now will be much faster than today's or significantly expanded in functionality, but that the OS platforms will be proportionately much larger--and the minimum ante for a system will have gone up considerably.

  7. #27

    Default

    Ah, this used to be one of my favorite topics, and for a reason. MS's attacks against it eventually got even worse (Microsoft Munchkins for example). And don't forget DR-DOS and AARD code etc too (OS/2 never depended on DOS)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,072
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    Well, for perhaps 90% of the user community out there, writing documents, running spreadsheets, email and web browsing functions would probably be sufficient. What half the stuff is on a Windows computer is for baffles me utterly. At least in Linux, I can pick and choose what I want--anything from a simple CLI-only system to a full-blown GUI desktop with all the gewgaws. I don't believe that Linux is any more reliable than other OSes, but you can omit troublesome features. Neither Windows nor OS/2 nor OSX allows me that luxury.

    You can start OS/2 in cli only mode quite easily. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/Stupid...mand_Line_Tips

    "6 Using OS/2 without the Workplace Shell:

    To use OS/2 without loading the Workplace Shell, replace the following line in your CONFIG.SYS

    SET RUNWORKPLACE=<drive>:\OS2\PMSHELL.EXE

    with

    SET RUNWORKPLACE=<drive>:\OS2\CMD.EXE

    where <drive> is the letter of the drive on which OS/2 is located.

    Note that you can always invoke the Workplace Shell by typing PMSHELL at an OS/2 command line. It can consequently be removed by closing it from the Window List."

    You can use alternative shells as well.
    Last edited by Caluser2000; August 2nd, 2015 at 05:34 PM.
    Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    32,543
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    I sort of remember something like that--too bad that I don't run OS/2 anymore.

    So how do you get Windows 10 started in cli mode, without the GUI? Some sort of recovery mode?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,072
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Charissa: the updated install disk creation files for Warp v4 are IBM created for thinkpads systems with hdds greater than 8gigs are called warp4iu1.exe and warp4iu2.exe. You can get them at this page http://greyghost.mooo.com/pccbbs/mobiles/ along withe the readme file warp4iu.txt

    They'll work on a generic system in conjuction with the original installation boot disk.

    g4ugm mention of SIQ is quite valid and it was never really resolved but later OS/2 variants were better behaved. I think I used a program called Buster to keep an eye on processes.

    Couple of screenshots of my old setups. The first was on v4 on a Celeron 400 based machine running XWorkplace shell, FP14 and a couple of other enhancements. I was still dialup at time but it was networked to a Linux and Windows 98 box. The second and third on my DecPc with 486DX2/66 mentioned earlier with the Warp v4 Server network client installed on the second pic and the Connect package on the previous. The servers client package far better than the "Connect" network package and works with a plain vanilla v3 installation with no problems at all and gives you DHCP support.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Caluser2000; August 3rd, 2015 at 12:22 PM.
    Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •