Review of eComStation OS/2 1.0

JigSaw writes: "OSNews features a long and in-depth article about the latest version of eComStation OS/2 1.0. eCS 1.0 is developed by Serenity Systems after they licensed the technology from IBM when the latter had abandoned any hope for the success of OS/2. The article also has information about the future version of eCS, 1.10, which it will be branded as Entry level, Upgrade and WorkPlace. The Workplace version will include all the software one needs to run Java2, Win16 & DOS applications 'natively', and it also includes an X11 server plus a full copy of Connectix's Virtual PC that can run any flavour of Windows and Linux. In fact, eCS OS/2 Workplace will include a full Linux distribution as part of its VirtualPC package."

Comments

Better off without IBM :)

[niola]

IBM really f**ked this one up. When OS/2 Warp 3 came out back in '94, it ran its own apps, as well as Windows 3.1 apps. The cool part was that because of the way it used protective memory addressing it actually ran Windows 3.1 programs faster, and less crash-prone. Only IBM's marketing department could drop the ball on something so cool. They could have come after M$ with both guns blazing, but instead they half-assed it. It wasn't even an issue of compatability then either. Windows 95 wasn't out yet so all the top selling packages on the market then ran on OS/2...

I really hope these eCom (gay name) people get it right :)

--Jon

I'll give them credit, but

[llamalicious]

Crappy UI aside, OS/2 Warp 3 was one of the most rock solid, fast systems I ever got to use, and it was that way long before NT ever came around.

Having noce worked at a large Air Conditioning company (who will remain anonymous, but who has their name on a large [and non-airconditioned DOH!] dome in Syracuse NY USA) we used to run upwards of 100 OS/2 machines for the sole purpose of maintaining the entire international email system, and it worked, by-and-large very very well. Had IBM early on worked to improve the UI, enhance the kernel and memory access, beef up hardware support and come up with a serious file/print server to compete with M$'s (then new) NT 4, they might still be using it today.

As it were, NT 4 Wks and Server came out and had a faster kernel, way fast networking and a friendlier (~laff~) UI... so we switched. Switched so much in fact that we pared it down to 20 or so NT boxes for the price of 100 OS/2's...

As far as I'm concerned, IBM had the desktop arena by the balls and totally blew it. (no pun intended)

So hats off to you eCom, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but methinks M$ is far too entrenched, and Mac OS X and Linux far too visible with developers to give OS/2 a real shot at the desktop or development platforms right now.

What I'd really like

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be IBM to release the WPS and PM source code to the public, allowing then the porting to other operating systems of the best graphical user interface ever designed.
Just to give an example, it was -really- object oriented. you could derive and create a persistent object on the screen with a single function call, you could inherit properties from other objects (windows, icons) and asssign to one (some, all). Also, after creating 100 links to a file, if you moved that file every link updated itself to move to the new location (it worked like a charm, nothing in common with craps like MS Active Desktop).
That was possible in on a 486 with 8 Mb of ram. I just wonder how it will run today on a Beowulf cluster of...:)

OS/2 was so stable that.......

[AppyPappy]

I called our OS/2 guru everytime it blew up. I called him twice in two years.

If I did that with Winders, the tech would come over here and shoot me.

Ahhh....Microfuckus COBOL running on OS/2. Now that is REAL code. You would actually watch the code being processed. Made you dizzy as Hell. It taught you to keep your procedures in sequential order.

We ran it on a IBM PS/2 Model 70 (386) with 8 meg of RAM. And you could run Kings Quest II on it as well. Is there a downside to this?

Re:They Amplified the Original Flaw

[DrXym]

Certainly that was a problem, but others and possibly the biggest by far were:

1. IBM
   
   I contracted for them for 8 months and I have never seen such disorganized company. The PC division was promoting Win3.1 while another division was trying to sell OS/2. Our group never got to reuse code from another group and the OS/2 developers played second fiddle to the Win3.1 ones. The left hand hadn't a clue what the right was doing. By the time they started putting it in the hands of home users with discounts and cover CDs it was already way, way too late.
2. Usability
   
   The UI for OS/2 - the Workplace Shell was fine in principle, but crap in practice. It looked drab, was inconsistent, it needed too many mouse buttons and it was only "logical" if someone taught you the WPS logic. I think usability was a dirty word in IBM since the WPS was just perverse; commonly used options being buried in the fifth page of some settings dialog, and usused appearing in the popup menus. And no two OS/2 applications looked or behaved alike because apparantly no one in IBM saw fit to share code such as toolbar classes. Apps did have to comply to a bizzaro UI compliance standard called CUA which meant they handled Shift+Insert the same way and other superficial similarities but that was it. I have a sneaking suspicion that some genius in the upper echelons of IBM actually thought unfriendly apps was a good idea to drum sales from selling training.
3. Microsoft
   
   We know all about that one. They put the boot in and IBM (the world's largest computer company) mumbled not very convincingly about unfair competition. But whatever dirty tricks Microsoft were playing, they still had more of a clue about usability. They have people an easy to use (certainly easier than OS/2) operating system. And apps such as MS Office looked consistent and clean.
   

Now I programmed OS/2 and loved the thing, but it was and is screamingly obvious why it was doomed. IBM had its head up its butt (just like Commodore with the Amiga) and simply dithered around wondering why every one was buying someone elses supposedly inferior product.

An analogy would be a master chef wondering why people doesn't buy his delicious cakes when makes them to look like a giant dog turd. I wonder why not...

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[Greyfox]

OS/2 forced Microsoft to evolve. While OS/2 was gaining on Microsoft in the market share department, Microsoft was busily improving their OS. Meanwhile IBM was sitting there with its thumb up its collective butt. If OS/2 had been improving at the same rate as Windows, it would easily have come out on top. Instead of redesigning some of the core areas where there were major problems, they elected for mostly cosmetic changes to the UI. Any attempts to address real issues, such as the problems with the single system input queue or the ease with which the desktop could be corrupted were simply hack jobs.

Very few developers made use of the advanced features of the OS either, especially inside IBM. There were ports of various programs which were obviously simple recompiles of Windows 3.1 code. I wouldn't touch many of IBM's GUI apps for OS/2 because they'd go off to do processing and bog down the system input queue. So even though you had this way cool multi-tasking multi-threaded OS, it was still very easy to bog down the whole OS by simpily not processing messages on the system input queue.

Politics was the death blow to OS/2 though. If you couldn't even get an OS/2 PC pre-installed from IBM's PC division, there was no way anyone else was going to offer it. The install was hideous enough that your average end user did NOT want to deal with that and IBM was not about to address shortcomings of the PC archectecture that made the install process so bad -- and there WERE things that could have been done to work around a lot of those problems.

OS/2's death can be entirely blamed on IBM's inability to keep up with Microsoft. They were outmaneuvered, plain and simple. OS/2's current reanimation as the walking dead and probable eventual rise to Amiga-like hype-godhood can probably be blamed on a few users who don't want to let go. The same sorts of people, no doubt, who freeze dry their pets once they die.