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

Cross Platform AND runs MS Products

[RogrWilco]

If it won't bluescreen, then I'm sold!

Re:Cross Platform AND runs MS Products

[RogrWilco]

It runs Win16 natively, the WorkPlace version will have Connectix's Virtual PC that can run any flavour of Windows and Linux.
Although if I understand VPC correctly, it will still have to run the windows sofware, hence the bluescreen. Oh well, back to Wine.

Re:Cross Platform AND runs MS Products

[Flywheel]

It won't - you'll get a black'n'white trap screen instead :o)

If you keep away from alpha and beta drivers, then it is quite stable. Also use the WarpZilla browser (Mozilla port) instead of the Netscape 4.61 (has an issue with the WPS)....

Like Linux it is quite frustrating when it freezes, because you know that the base system is working... the message queue is just stopped....
If it is an internal WPS problem then the WPS restarts automatically.

WPS = WorkPlace Shell = primary Shell (Like the XFree86 XServer)
PMShell = Presentation Manager Shell = Secondary GUI shell (Like the Window Manager of UNIX systems)

Platforms

[Traxton1]

For those of you who just can't pick one platform. Not, dual booting, what is that, like the equivalent of quadruple booting?

Re:Platforms

[Aaaaaargh!]

For those of you who just can't pick one platform. Not, dual booting, what is that, like the equivalent of quadruple booting?

You forgot to mention "(booting) without the wait!" OS/2 rules! Well, it used to rule. Ok, it never ruled, but damn, it could have and should have! The WPS was rock solid. And a fully re-entrant virtually bomb-proof kernel? I almost enjoyed watching my Windows programs blow up without taking down the whole system. Too bad IBM was running the show and gave up the desktop "war" when they finally had a product with real potential (3.0 and up). Hmm, I've still got a few of the Blues (Warp Connect) sitting around somewhere...

How to make software projects fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these two the same story ?

Technical superiority isn't everything

[coupland]

When OS/2 2.0 came out it was far superior to Windows 3.x from a technical perspective. It always has been and always will be. Unfortunately application compatibility has always been the key. Why run Linux, OS/2, MacOS when you can run Office faster under Windows? Until the MicroSloth Windows / Office hegemony is broken we'll have to keep on neglecting terrific operating systems just because Office doesn't run as well on them...

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[spicyjeff]

Have you tried Office v.X under Mac OS X? Beats the Windows version hands down in speed, features, and prettiness.

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[Locutus]

that's not going to last long. Microsoft will start laying off all those Mac programmers who are NOT keeping Windows in the "right" light. Word for OS/2 kicked ars and so did most of the applications which were ported correctly to OS/2 ( read threaded ). Microsoft killed those projects every which way they could because they made Windows look bad. Which it was/is.

I've heard from another that MS Office on OS X was really nice but this will be the last time. Bookmark this and come back in 1.5 years. You'll see.

LoB

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[6odm]

>Unfortunately application compatibility hasa lways been the key.

Nah. All you need is well defined (and propably free) filetypes, so it ain't OS dependant anymore.

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.

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[pyser]

I can't help but agree with your observations right up until the last paragraph, when I had to cringe and go "ooooh, I don't think I'd freeze dry Fido" (yes, I named my dog after the BBS network; his nickname is 1:120/1347). I'm one of those OS/2 Refuseniks and I still use Warp 4 for about 40 percent of my productivity, partly because it runs DOS like nothing else does and partly because of its highly intelligent GUI, features like shadows and sticky-note templates, and apps I just can't find for any other OS.

Maybe as a fanatic I'm elated and hoping for a revival, but like those of us who are also Linux evangelists, we have to be content to win the war on another front for now. OS/2 was once described as having its head kept alive in a pan; maybe Serenity is providing a mutant body and some rudimentary grafting. You can't make it as a hobbyist OS anymore, like Amiga; the revived OS/2 will have to find its market if it's going to survive and grow. I'm just glad to see some progress after being left for dead by IBM.

Re:Technical superiority isn't everything

[coupland]

Sorry dude but you are f*cking stupid... OS/2 never had a market share advantage on Windows. In addition, OS/2 was *always* technically superior to Windows, even after Windows 95 was released. If you don't realize that then you're not too smart at all...

Your assertions are ignorant and without merit, too bad you weren't around when these events happened, I'm sure you wouldn't have seemed so silly...

Re:*BSD is dying

[sulli]

No, OS/2 is dying. Get with the program!

Whats in a name?

[swordboy]

eComStation

Wow... That is the most "buzzword compliant" name that I have ever heard.

Who do I make the check out to?

Re:Whats in a name?

[snoozerdss]

LOL thats the funniest thing I have read in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:Whats in a name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely iWebNetCommunityBusiness Inc.Ltd.Corp.

Re:Whats in a name?

[LordNimon]

I actually run eComStation at home, and I don't know anyone (outside of the Serenity, thepeople who make eCS) that actually likes that name. But, I suppose Serenity thinks that it's a good name for the suits. Whatever.

Re:Whats in a name?

[bonzoesc]

Sounds like eNetiConAppliance Online. But one of them is from IBM, and the other is from sweet merciful Lowtax, hero among men.

Re:Whats in a name?

[hyyx]

I guess we should be lucky it's not "eComCyberStation2000i."

VA C++

[chiph]

Hmmm. I always did like the workplace shell and SOM. Maybe it's time I pulled my copy of Visual Age C++ out of it's hiding place.

Chip H.

Re:VA C++

[chiph]

And it was a shame that they dropped it, too. The IBM OpenClass GUI Framework was very elegant and easy to use. Plus, the OS/2 workplace shell was all OOP, based on SOM. If you wanted a new window, you just inheirited from one. We didn't see that kind of technology again until BeOS.

In general, I think you're making the mistake that just because a piece of software isn't the market leader (or came from Finland), that it's no good. I think a better benchmark of alternative software's success is whether Microsoft "innovates" based on it. If you're running Warp, drag the warpcenter bar to the bottom of your desktop. Gee, doesn't it look like Windows 95 now? Right-click and get a context menu? Windows 3.1 didn't have it, but Windows 95 did.

Chip H.

This is not a goatsex link, either

[Bi()hazard]

You can find a lot of information on ecomstation here. They have information on product contents, options, and availability, as well as support, previews, and links to reviews, distributors and resellers.

Wow

[christurkel]

That is one ugly UI !! Well, good to see an old but good OS chugging along!

that'll be fun

[NMerriam]

which it will be branded as Entry level, Upgrade and WorkPlace

I can't imagine what a nightmare this idiotic Laurel and Hardy naming scheme going to be to support.

Which version do you have? Upgrade? An Entry level upgrade? you can't upgrade from workplace, thats a lower version. You want to buy an upgrade? Do you want the full version of upgrade or the upgrade of the entry level version of workplace?

This makes me happy

[standards]

It's nice that this product still has a life.

Many dedicated people spent their years developing OS/2. It'd be a shame to completely dispose of it, so it's nice that someone is continuing to put love into the product.

Of course, it'll never make a dime, but still, I'm happy. It's better than the fate of so many other software products, whose source code ends up in a warehouse on an obsolete format of tape.

Re:This makes me happy

[LordNimon]

Of course, it'll never make a dime

IBM still makes a profit from OS/2. As for whether or not eCS is profitable for Serenity, only Serenity knows that.

OS/2 Distros

[os2fan]

eComStation is a kind of OS/2 with a Linux Distro feel to it, aka Linux and the kitchen sink.

It has lots of interesting things in it, handled through an integrated but separate installer. I like that. The installation stuff is not kept in memory every time the system boots, as is it in the Registry.

It looks cool, even. Boots off a cdrom to a GUI. Like that.

What I find distressing is that while the distro has a lot in it, it sends out a disinsentive to ISVs to compete with it. I suspect that the inclusion of IBM Works and Win-OS/2 gave OS/2 users access to word processors that ended up driving the market away from the OS/2 word processors like Describe.

What is really needed, in both the OS/2 and Windows worlds, is competing Distros. Wouldn't that be just grand. :)

marketing integration

[Alien54]

Unfortunately application compatibility has always been the key.

heck, I feel like a rant tonight.

Yep, unfortunately, MS quality control seems to have been aimed at the level of how many things we can we get away breaking ( like Lotius, etc) without people running away in terror.

right now, they could put out complete crap, and people would still buy it because they have to, not because of any apparent merit. Marketing and accounting love it, but it is a complete insult to the engineers, not that account or marketing would care much.

It is like engineering a new hardware widget. Some cool engineer invents something and does a damn good job. the prototype is excellent. it then gets fed to the production engineer, who work damn hard at trying to produce the widget as cheaply as possible, and still have it work.

MS engineers probably produce great shit, then it hits the marketing integration tem, and the result is crap. It doesn't survive well being integrated with the Microsft marketing vision.

It would be like seeing borgified art.

Re:marketing integration

[Sj0]

The anointed successor to MS-DOS for Intel 286- and 386-based micros; proof that IBM/Microsoft couldn't get it right the second time, either. Often called `Half-an-OS'. Mentioning it is usually good for a cheap laugh among hackers -- the design was so baroque, and the implementation of 1.x so bad, that 3 years after introduction you could still count the major apps shipping for it on the fingers of two hands -- in unary. The 2.x versions are said to have improved somewhat, and informed hackers now rate them superior to Microsoft Windows (an endorsement which, however, could easily be construed as damning with faint praise). See monstrosity, cretinous, second-system effect.

That's really sad. You do realize that we got to version 4 with OS/2, and version 3 was nothing to scoff at either. Windows 1.x sucked more ass than some sheiza porn star. the equivilant Linux kernel(first release, think "I'm linus, and I want people to try my new kernel.") was pretty bad too.

Basically, the moment MS got out of the project, OS/2 became great, if unappreciated.

Windows:a shell far worse than the DOS 6.2 DOSSHELL command.

Re:marketing integration

[DrCode]

I'd disagree a bit. My guess is that marketing drives the MS culture. So the engineer who comes up with a pretty-looking GUI, like those fading menus, gets the promotion and notoriety; while the one who figures out a way to make Windows crash less gets passed by.

Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[William Tanksley]

Facinating stories -- I was an OS/2 user back when Object Desktop (whoops, I forgot their real name -- Stardock?) was trying to rescue OS/2. I was really disappointed when they failed. They did a REALLY good job in all their other work, though.

Question: I see a new feature in the next version of eComStation, network boot. In this, the entire OS is stored on the disk of one machine, and the other machines boot entirely from it -- all config files, everything. All processing is done on the clients, but the files are stored on the server. That's convenient!

I know X can do part of this, but it still puts the processing on the server; NFS can do another part, but it's enormously slow and bulky (and VERY odd to work with).

So is there any complete solution I can install on a 'terminal' PC so that all booting, storage, and so on is done on a central system, but all processing and running is done on my system -- and it all just works, whether I'm using console or X, svgamode or KDE?

I'm sure that when MOSIX is done that'll be easy :-). That would be the ultimate solution, I suppose -- but on the other hand, this would make a MOSIX cluster much easier to set up, since the individual machines couldn't be independantly misconfigured.

-Billy

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[mikeee]

Yeah, this can be done, in about 15 different ways.

Typically you end up with a perfectly normal linux, but all your filesystems NFS-mounted from the central box.

Most of the commercial UNIXes were pushing this scheme - "diskless workstations" - at one point, but it never took off. Might be worth reexamining now, though.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[DigitalDreg]

It's called a diskless workstation. And for the most part, it has been discredited.

Disks used to be expensive. Not any more.

Disk management used to be a chore. For those of us who are conscientious about it, it still is. For must users, a disk is just something to fill up, and with 40GB drives being common this is hard to do.

Remember quotas on disk systems? Ha .. only my ISP imposes a quota now, because they are cheap. (Well, my employer is trying with my email system, but that's a different issue.)

Remember network computers? More than an X Station, but slightly less than a PC? Ha .. also discredited. A network computer was a glorified diskless workstation. You don't see too many of those being deployed, except in tightly controller environments.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[Penguinoflight]

Yes, Boot over nfs does exactly that. Etherboot doesn't. The machines I was testing for such use were token ring so etherboot wouldn't work. KDE and X? KDE defintaly uses X, if you can run X, you can run kde (if you have 2.5gb ram :-). SVGALIB apps work, but the stability wasn't that great, back in the linux 2.4.0-test11 days :-)

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[Bishop]

Search Google for "linux diskless howto" and you will get several links. Most *nixes can net boot. Sun hardware supports netboot out of the box to the point that netboot is the default if no hard disk is installed. Even lowly dos can netboot with the help of netware. It is old school. In the early nineties we figured out that netbooting sounded a lot cooler then it really is.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[RelliK]

Remember network computers? More than an X Station, but slightly less than a PC? Ha .. also discredited. A network computer was a glorified diskless workstation. You don't see too many of those being deployed, except in tightly controller environments.

Not so fast. NCs died because Microsoft dissed them and did their best to kill them. It worked. But guess what they are doing now? What's the whole idea behing .NET and software as a service? That's right, it's a network computer! I guess that once again goes to show that nothing is invented until Microsoft invents it.

BTW, I do agree with your comment that network computer is nothing mode than a glodified diskless workstation. Except that now it's got Java in it and everyone knows Java is cool. Or something.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[Lothar]

Diskless UNIX workstations are more common than you think. Especially within classified networks. It saves the problems with someone stealing your diskdrive and you don't have to lock the door.

At our company diskless UNIX workstations (Ultra 5/10/60 - Solaris 2.6!!! (not solaris 8 - oh no - too modern :-( ) have been the policy for quite sometime. Its quite neat and saves sysadmins and backup people a lot of hazzle. The important thing then is a fast network.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[firewort]

While I love and still run Warp 4, the system of network booting that just works, as you described it, is fulfilled by NetBoot on MacOS X Server.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[kimchueng]

Question: I see a new feature in the next version of eComStation, network boot. In this, the entire OS is stored on the disk
of one machine, and the other machines boot entirely from it -- all config files, everything. All processing is done on the
clients, but the files are stored on the server. That's convenient!

Yes, you can do it in Linux too. The one big difference - as far as I can tell - is that there is no FIT support in the Linux remote boot facilities.

FIT tables is a little known feature in OS/2 since day 1 (late 80's). It allows the system administrator to set up a file translation table on the server for each of the workstations. From the workstation side, none of the applications know any difference. To an editor, c:\config.sys is still c:\config.sys. However, because of the FIT table, c:\config.sys becomes a UNC name - automatically, transparently. So, in effect, you can boot from one server, run your application from another server, with no change in application software.

More interestingly, the FIT entries accept wildcards. You get automatic READ and READ/WRITE separation by using this feature. So, for a 1000 station organization, you only need to store one copy of the READ ONLY files on the server and each would have their own READ/WRITE area. That's how we were able to demonstrate setting up a new machine in 30 seconds or less (see the Peter Coffee article mentioned in the OSNEWS article).

I am not aware that the Linux remote boot can all that.

BTW: The issue is "remote booting" - not "diskless operation". You can remote boot and continue to use local hard disk. For NT/2K/XP, you want to do that because the footprint for these guys are so big that a local copy (read only, MD5 signature) cuts down on the bandwidth requirement.

People that said "remote booting is discredited" doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. This year, several companies in Europe goes through OS/2 upgrades. They were able to update 6 digit numbers of machines without leaving their desk. All done within a week - 4 minutes per server, and minute and a half per station. They did all these without even touching any of the machines.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[Arandir]

Oh you bastard! I'm stuck on Solaris 2.5.1. Aaargh. Stupid shitty ass X11R5. Can't build KDE on it. Gave up on GNOME after severe brain hemorhaging during the build process.

Solaris 8 is available from our IT. But we don't have any of our vital applications available for Solaris 8, and IT isn't willing to upgrade any of them.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[zog karndon]

NCs died because Microsoft dissed them and did their best to kill them. Oh please. NCs died because they were dickless workstations with a new label pasted over them. Dickless workstations died because the performance sucked. God, I remember running a Sun 3/80 w/o local disk - the performance quadrupled with a local disk cause it didn't need to swap over the ethernet.

Re:Interesting! Can Linux do that yet?

[crucini]

A good starting point for this kind of stuff is the bpbatch home page.. And yes, NFS is generally used to mount the shared storage. I haven't found it to be that awful. It does have its quirks.

Good kernel...

[WasterDave]

I always thought the OS/2 (warp onwards) kernel sounded good, purely from the idea of a fully re-entrant kernel that booted (including GUI) in 4Mb. So, this came as a pleasant surprise:

Another cool trick you can do with OS/2 is that you can turn off and on any additional CPUs you may have, on the fly.

Holy shit. And....

OS/2 (reportedly) scales wonderfully on machines up to 64 CPUs.

And so runs a good chance of being a kick arse server kernel. Are we going to see Debian/OS2?

With a price of $299 for the normal version and $399 for the version that supports SMP

So that's a no then. Oh well.

Dave

Re:Good kernel...

[Batou]

While I agree - the kernel is one of the best in the business for a client OS - it doesn't scale well past 8 or so CPU's. It'll run, but you'll see better results clustering.

Re:Good kernel...

[kimchueng]

You can also do it legally - right from the US, rather then going to some Russion waltz site - by getting a fully operational demo CD directly from Serenity. The only features not on the demo CD is printing and NetBios networking (TCP/IP is there).

The demo CD is being beta tested as we speak.

The ISO image will be avilable once we locate the proper venue to do so.

Finnally!

[farrellj]

This is great!

I did a lot of work under OS/2 years ago...and in 1995, I was doing full-motion video in multi-media applications for Trade Shows and Public Information Kiosks using touchscreen systems. One of my applications, Touch Ottawa/Hull, won a design award! I basically moved from OS/2 to Linux, and didn't have to suffer under the Windows for my personal use. Unfortunaely, I am a consultant, and I have to be able to help Windows LUsers when needed. But, luckily, most of my current stuff has been with Linux!

ttyl
Farrell

Re:Finnally!

[kimchueng]

On my desktop, I am now running Red Hat Linux, Win2K, OS/2, and WinME - simultaneously: booted from eCS.

Get eCS/WorkPlace when it's released. May be I can then say: Welcome back!

Howard Stern

[autopr0n]

Howard Stern used to use OS/2 Back in the day (around '95), I heard him talking about it once. I doubt he still does.

Even more strangly, Rush Limbaugh uses MacOS.

Re:Howard Stern

[Rude Turnip]

He used to talk about it *a lot* and the alt.fan.howard-stern newsgroup actually turned into on OS/2 advocacy group for quite some time. Howard saying "Jeff Schick from IBM" 1,000x is burned into my mind permanently. I got into OS/2 around 1994/1995 because of Howard Stern. I even called into his show as "King of All OS/2 Users" and talked about the OS/2 command prompt. Howard described me as "another geek who can't get laid." For several years after that, he was right.

Shhhhhh!

[infinite9]

Shhhhh not so loud! I'm just now finishing up a project to get a major credit card company off of OS/2 once and for all. If they "discover" this, they may buy it and extend my contract!

Re:Shhhhhh!

[RogrWilco]

Wow, subtlety must be one of your qualifications. And they're still running OS/2? What are they migrating to? Should I buy stock?

Re:who

[RogrWilco]

Actually, my voicemail server at work runs OS/2. Does a damned good job of it too. Just don't ask it to do too much else.

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

Re:Better off without IBM :)

[spankenstein]

Actually OS/2 2.1 had windows 3.1 compatability.

I'm seeing a lot of...

[RLiegh]

"I used to run OS/2 back ..." posts, which is understandable...

With the progress of hardware in the last 4 years (since the last release of OS/2, IIRC) and software in the last 6 years (w32-wise), it doesn't IMHO make a lot of sense to run an OS which may not even support your hardware, and even if it does, is there even new software (aside from GNU & the odd shareware droppings) wich will run native on it?

What can you get from this you can't get from GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? (both support win16 apps under WINE, unless I'm mistaken)

Are there any "I've been using OS/2 since.." posters instead of "I used to use..." posters out there in /. land?

PS the pricetag is hefty for an nostolgia OS, IMHO.

Re:I'm seeing a lot of...

[i-sob]

I used OS/2 every day of my life from 1993-1999.
That reads like an epitaph but that's what I get for leading my post with melodrama :)

I switched to Linux and Mac OS after OS/2 (read my profile), but last week I bought a new Athlon box to play with. Feeling nostalogic and curious to see OS/2 on modern hardware, I fought a losing battle with the Server for e-business installer for a few hours on Saturday. (Yes, I downloaded the new IDEDASD.)

I'll try again this weekend. OS/2 can still be a great niche OS. I'd love to have it on one of my desktops again, but I don't think Serenity Systems will be around for long. The price is exorbitant, drivers are still sparce, and the name/marketing is awful.

Side-note: Server for e-business was the second-to-last official IBM release of OS/2 prior to licensing to SS. It had most of the major features of eCS: HPFS386, new TCP/IP stack, JFS, and the new kernel (4.5 is the rev, I believe). OS/2 Warp Convenience Pack was the last IBM consumer-oriented release. Good to know if anyone's interested in picking up a usable copy on eBay.

Re:I'm seeing a lot of...

[Geezle2]

I have used OS/2 since 1993. I have never (except when required at work) used any version of Windows.

I have OS/2 on my primary development machine here at work (and on the poor victim-of-untested-code too!) I have a Debian test system here as well as a Win2K machine but they are just for testing the code that I am responsible for. All of my real work is done on OS/2. Sure, the victim machine is just a 486 but my main workstation is slightly more modern PIII 500 with all of the bells and whistles. . .I'm not missing anything there. . .

My main home machine is a dual Athlon beast with even more bells and whistles. . .I will admit that I dual boot this creature though. . .between eComStation and OS/2! I have a couple other machines for playing with the likes of Linux(Debian)and the HURD but I don't really use them for anything besides seeing what the latest themes are for Enlightenment(aren't they sooo cute?) or trying the latest ports for the HURD. For completeness, I also have a Mac and a SparcStation for playing with. . .I don't really spend much time with them though.

"is there even new software wich will run native on it?" Perhaps I've been living in a cave or something but I haven't noticed any rad new must-have apps out there. I have seen incremental improvements in word processors and the like but I haven't seen anything worth shelling out cash for.

Let me ammend that. I really like the latest version of Beyond Compare (I am a programmer after all) but that runs fine on OS/2.

What can you get in eCS that you cannot get in the various flavors of *nix-like OSes? How about a truely useful GUI. I can really appreciate the effort that has gone into making X look pretty but ergonomic it is not. After all of the improvements to X over the years, I still find myself opening a terminal window whenever I need to interact with the OS living under X. One really has to face the fact that even after all of the changes to the toolkits and window managers, X is still about fun to use as a dental drill (on oneself!). The key to the previous sentence is 'use'. I really enjoy playing with the desktop effects in Enlightenment and things like that. What I am refering to is the day to day use of the system to get work done. The *nixen currently available just are not all that pleasant to use (yet).

To wrap up, I write my code, I run my gnutella servent, I run my apache web server, I firewall my network, I surf the web, I watch my videos, I listen to my MP3s, read my email (virus free!) and a whole bunch more, on a machine with a lean, fast and rock solid OS that is remarkably fun and easy to use. What am I missing? It is hardly a "nostolgia OS" as it easily addresses all of my OS needs. I consider what I got when I bought eCS to be well worth the price.

Re:I'm seeing a lot of...

[Hyped01]

I have been using OS/2 since v2.0 Beta - 1991 or 1992. As for the rest of your post, I think you need to research the situation a little more (perhaps just read the threads on /. for this article even).

OS/2 and eCS can run an increasing amount of Win32 apps *natively* via Odin. OS/2 and eCS can run many *nix apps that have either been recompiled for OS/2 or for XFree/86 or HoB. Someplace inside it is supposedly full POSIX compliance (according to some old IBM brochures... though whether it is still in there is the question (not that it is needed anymore with X and HoB).

As for what you can get from eCS that you cant from Linux or FreeBSD... with VirtualPC, full Win32 (or virtually any other PC OS) support, as well as a better threading model (ie: also handles more network traffic with the right apps), better hardware support than one, and as good as for the other, and support for 64 CPUs.

So I guess what you can get from it, all depends on what you want from it. For me, my OS choice depends on what it is for. My game machine is Win98. My graphics machines are Mac's. My servers are Warp or eCS.

For what it comes with - even without the bundled software, commercially there is no equivalent.

Rob

It'll be interesting to see where this goes ...

[Batou]

Until earlier this year, I worked at IBM Austin on the OS/2 base team, mostly analyzing core dumps and the like. I remember hearing about this there, and was surprised that no one - including anyone in development management - had ever heard of it. While I applaud Security Systems efforts to attempt to market this OS to the public (lets face it - IBM gave up years ago), I'd be very interested to see where this goes from a support perspective. None of the IBM coders who still provide defect support for OS/2 have any involvement in this. If a nasty bug appears in any of the code, IBM isn't likely to fix it, and I'd assume that OS/2 fixpaks won't work with this (last I heard, they were going to charge subscriptions to receive them, anyway). I would assume that SS doesn't have a full code license, as I can't believe M$ would allow anyone a full code license - and FYI, yes they still have a say - even if they completely yanked out the Win-OS/2 code, it's so tightly integrated within PMShell, you'd never be completely free of it as it would most likely require a complete re-write. That's a few million lines of code, large portions of which are entirely in x86 assembly. Hardly a weekend job. ;-)

A few corrections: Unless the guys at SS made some substantial modifications to the boot loader (not very likely), the bit about having to boot off of a HPFS partition is blatently false. Os/2 supports boot off of fat, fat32 (with the danidasd freeware fat32 IFS driver - I forget who made it, but VERY nice), or HPFS386 (the filesystem the eBusiness and earlier server versions could utiliza, albeit you had to purchase it as a seperate license). IIRC, JFS partitions were non-bootable, but there were so many problems with the IFS driver, you'd be insane to try it, anyway.

I can also appreciate what the reviewer was mentioning about LVM - while it is extremely powerful and flexible, it is an absolute bitch. In fact, you can't completely get rid of it once installed on a drive without doing a low-level format (at least for the versions that shipped with MCP/ACP - this might have changed since). It was an in-joke with the support staff that a virus (LVM) had made it into the release build.

Anyway, best of luck to these guys. I might consider purchasing it if it weren't so damn much. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, and if there are still enough OS/2 nuts out there to provide a niche market for it.

IBM can't kill off OS/2!

[nbvb]

Seriously.

OS/2 is what the supervisor PC's that control the zSeries mainframes run!

Open up a mainframe and inside is a Thinkpad running OS/2 to control it...

It's not going anywhere anytime soon...

--NBVB

Re:IBM can't kill off OS/2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify this...

Yes.. the service element (SE) runs OS/2, as does the Host Management Console (HMC).

The SE is used to monitor the processor, as well as providing system control functions (such as telling the processor to power down, or to run a diagnostic tool against an I/O Channel, etc.). The SE orchistrates the monitoring of the physical system (such as how all the power supplies are doing, how the cooling units are doing, etc.).

The HMC is used to centralize the access to one or more systems. It also handles making backups of the SE, as well as calling "home" to IBM to retrieve any microcode maintenance for the processor, as well as calling "home" if there is a problem. The HMC is the main system operator access point to the processor (again allowing the operator to power down or power up and initialize the processor, or allowing a systems admin to configure LPARs (logical partitions), or to monitor overall system activity (how busy the system is).

What the SE and HMC are not. They do not "run" any of the mainframe operating systems. Think of the SE as the souped up holder of the ROM BIOS with a softkey power switch.

Technically, the HMC and the SE can be powered off and the processor will still function (though some control functions may not be available -- such as dynamically updating the I/O configuration, and of course the ability to "control" the system).

The SE is really just the evolution of the service console that has been used for decades in the S/370, S/390, z/Series processors.

But the comment that

"It's not going anywhere anytime soon..." is true.

Re:IBM can't kill off OS/2!

[RazorJ_2000]

Ahh! An IBM insider! I knew you guys were lurkers around here....

Re:Yes, William, Linux can do everything.

[RLiegh]

"you get what you pay for", a statement that seems highly dubious WRT ecomstation...

Favorite Bumper Sticker from 1993

[3ryon]

OS/2 on a PS/2, half an operating system on half a comptuer.

Great!

[man_ls]

Honestly - it's about time we saw something like this. I have my boxed set of OS/2 2.0 that I ran instead of Win 3.1 for a while (but later ditched because prorgams wouldn't work right.) It was a great OS - better multitasking, memory managment, etc.

For the new OS/2 to include the system apps to run apps from just about any operating system in existance (Java and legacy Windows apps natively, Linux and newer Windows programs in emulation, and X11 for native Unix apps) it will undoubtedly make it a lot easier to get servers up and running. Want Apache httpd to do your web serving, Oracle for your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth quite a bit of money to me.

Re:Great!

[dangermouse]

Want Apache httpd to do your web serving, Oracle for your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth quite a bit of money to me.

Bad example, man. :)

Re:Great!

[man_ls]

What childish sig? I don't usually read AC posts. I remember why now.

Re:Great!

[Hyped01]

>Want Apache httpd to do your web serving, Oracle for
>your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do
>it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth
>quite a bit of money to me.

OS/2 has done all of this for years, without VPC or Hob... most *nix apps can be recompiled for OS/2 (and many such as Apache, and various other ___d's as well like BIND and some ftpd's already have been). Also, there were OS/2 Oracle releases, though I always preferred DB/2 or MySQL for Warp.

Looks like it's been time for you to consider OS/2 (or better, eCS) for quite some time! ;-)

Rob

So what they are saying is...

[A_Non_Moose]

this is OS/2 v5.

It just might go as well as BeOS v5.

Oh, wait....

(only a quad boot? C'mon I had a quintuple boot 98se, 2000, slack 7, redhat 7 and BeOS 5...all via (drum roll) LILO! Taaadaaa!)

Not to offend, but linux zealots are interesting... os/2 had zealots, but they were called the "user base". Some were pretty scary when you brought up Windows {shudder}

My experience, mind you. I guess it is hard to be a zealot when you are...OOOOooo, shiney operating system!!!

Moose

Re:So what they are saying is...

[RLiegh]

I remember reading an ZD (forget which mag, offhand) that was pro-linux a few years back (98 or 99) which stated something along the lines of "unlike OS/2 users, Linux users will never stoop to sending death threats" and then the author went on to cite a anectdote where an OS/2 user did exactly that.

There's liking your OS, then there's really liking your OS, I guess...

Re:So what they are saying is...

[biohazard99]

While I don't remember that exact quote, the comment reeks of Dvorak. He's usually the one that makes the dumbest remark in an issuse of PCMag.

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.

Re:I'll give them credit, but

[Arandir]

Why is everyone dissing the OS/2 UI? When it came out it totally blew away the Windows 3x crap, and was still better than the Windows 9x gilded crap.

There were quirks, to be sure. They should have done something to halt the tabbed dialog infestation. They should have had a better help system. And they could have used a decent usability study. But overall it was the best UI I have ever seen.

The OS/2 WorkPlace Shell was document centric and object oriented. The former meant that you never needed application icons. Just open up the document and it used the appropriate application. Drag a new document out of the templates folder. All without cheesy file extensions or editing a million mime types. The latter meant that programs could inherit from objects. This allows image viewers and archivers to be merely specialized folders.

These things have all since been implemented in other desktops to one degree or another. But at the time it was revolutionary. Grab the best bits of RISC OS, Plan 9, KDE and GNOME, and integrate them into a whole. That was OS/2 WPS.

Holy moley!

[AbbaZabba]

K-Maps kick ass!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They Amplified the Original Flaw

[KarmaBlackballed]

OS/2 was cool because you could run OS/2 native applications (there were not many) and you could run Windows applications. Why didn't OS/2 specific applications take off? Because it was stupid to write OS/2 applications if you could get by with the inferior multitasking of Win 3.1.

Think about it (back in the early 90's): Write a program in Windows and all the OS/2 & Warp users can run it AND all the Windows 3.1 users can too. Write a native application for OS/2 and you will see the difference in sales pretty quick.

Producing an OS/2 that runs native Windows + Linux ironically makes their previous business model flaw larger in that there is NO incentive for developers to write native OS/2 applications.

Sorry, this one is destined to die again ... slowly with vestiges kept alive for a while by islands of hobbyists that appreciate it or keep it for snob appeal. The market is not big enough to sustain an OS development and support effort without users that must have THAT OS to run their critical apps.

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:They Amplified the Original Flaw

[Arandir]

There is a big difference here. FreeBSD and Linux both have nearly identical APIs. A few minor #ifdefs to account for Linux peculiarities and you can write pure POSIX/X11 code and be assured that it will run on both.

Porting from Linux to FreeBSD, or vice versa, is as simple as a recompile. Porting from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 3.0 was several magnitudes more difficult. A Unix development firm can trivially support all known unices natively. A Windows development firm had to do major work to support OS/2 natively.

Re:They Amplified the Original Flaw

[Loligo]

Regarding OS/2's user interface...

The Workplace Shell was a good idea. Neat concept, object based, yadda yadda.

But put up against the Windows GUI (even Windows 3.x, but it was MUCH worse when Windows 95 came out), the OS/2 GUI just felt... raw.

The Windows 95 GUI had a level of polish and sparkle, it felt "finished", whereas OS/2's GUI always felt like they had gotten the basics down and just quit without refining it. And unfortunately, it's not always the technology under the GUI that colors users' perceptions of it, it's the flash and glitter on top.

I wish OS/2 HAD succeeded, I invested a lot of my early career into OS/2, first with monkey-level support, then deployment and deskside support, and finally with LAN Server integration testing. Once it was clear that OS/2 was going nowhere, I did a lot of interviews that included something like "Lots of OS/2 experience here... wish I could help you."

It wasn't until I shifted my focus to Windows and then finally *nix that I was able to break out of niche jobs that every IBM grunt in Austin was trying for.

-l

Re:They Amplified the Original Flaw

[Hyped01]

Major difference this time is that with Project Odin, comapnies that start to make an inroad onto OS/2 via VirtualPC can "recompile" their apps to be OS/2 native, with little or no modifications. In addition, they can add support for OS/2 only technologies like it's SOM and other OO technologies, as well as it's cross integration from C++ to REXX to C++ to every system and network service that is a part of OS/2 meaning immense levels of "power" on the parts of the programmers with little investment in extra coding to produce a nearly code level identical package that is OS/2 native.

That means if eComstation and/or OS/2 gain *any* market share, it becomes a very viable place to expend such non-effort... inotherwords, if it will cost you nothing, (or close to it with some OS/2 specific modification) to release an OS/2 "native" app, then why not? It's more money for near zero outlay.

This helps break the cycle that was pointed out by you - which indeed did happen. The reason I see it as something developers would consider, is that if there are a halfway decent number of eComStation sales (and the numbers are steadily growing), eCS users will almost always invariably buy an eCS version of an app before a Win version that runs under VPC or Odin - especially since it will be feature compatible - and may even have a few OS/2 only features.

The few things that wont (wihtout effort) get translated over in such a "recompile" are the ridiculous object-orientedness nature of a true OS/2 app... for instance, most people dont realize, that on a true OS/2 app (written with say IBM VAC++ for OS/2 or even written in REXX using GPFRexx), even "dialog text" is really just another object... that if you see it on the screen it's an object... if you dont see it and the program executes it, it's probably an object.

The beauty of course, is (for instance on an OS/2 system's scheme - or look and feel), making a change to an object type instantaneously changes all objects based off that object type - no "Apply" button or reboot. Thus, it's mostly things OS/2 users dont care about... yeah, it's neat being able to have every text line on a dialog box a different font, or being able to change them all at once by changing their default container's properties... but it isnt needed in 95% of the programs out there... so a recompiled Win app will be as fast as (and in some cases faster) and as stable as any other OS/2 app.

So, I think I've explained the incentive to developers... ("if I pick up even 500 new sales for doing nothing, it's worth it" - and with eCS's sales, that's an easy figure for most mainstream Win apps), as well as how in doing so, it promotes more and more OS/2 app development. If Company X makes a profit off of selling eCS/Warp apps, then why not spend a little more to make a bigger profit by adding some features OS/2 users expect out of an eCS or OS/2 app (like better drag-n-drop support, and more object orientedness / SOM support, or voice support).

Eventually, I would expect that Win users, seeing their apps run natively under eCS (an OS that will still run regular Win apps without issue)but as fast or faster, and without the tons of issues a Win user goes through (virus of the week for instance, crash of the day as another example), it's *possible*that they may thus consider eCS.

And the cycle starts - or maybe it doesnt.

After all, it's all a matter of hype... and though WinXP is DOG SLOW - especially compared to eCS or Linux - much less to Win9X, people believe the hype, and companies like CompUSA are paid to shovel it down people's throats as "the best there is!". Of course, MS can prove that XP is faster than Win9X on new hardware - but that's only because Win9X wasnt designed for new hardware. It still has timing issues and RAM handling issues based off the (now compiled into the "kernal" of Win9X) legacy DOS memory and bus handling code... same issue that prevented Win95 from running on 100MHz FSB machines (for which a kludge was built into 98 to address).

So, is it hype that will win? I dont know. I'll stick with Warp and eCS (until IBM breaks in and takes my CD's back and reformats my machine)... and Linux here and there when I get the time... and MacOS on our few MACs... It's great having a server that runs our whole network, DNS, email, FTP, MySQL, backup web, time and more being only a P133 with 48MB of RAM. I dont like wasting hardware... new or old... so eCS, Warp and Linux for me - it's not "OS evangelism"... it's expecting to be able to use what I buy... if I get a car with a 500hp engine, i dont want to be stuck doing 40mph because the transmission manufacturer they subbed out the work to doesnt know how to make a tranny.

Just my thoughts... only time will tell...
- Robert

Re:They Amplified the Original Flaw

[duffbeer703]

Windows NT is also designed to run multiple types of applications natively.

win32 is one runtime, but there is also a win16, dos and posix runtime. These are no longer promoted or maintained.

Here's one

[Sloppy]

Are there any "I've been using OS/2 since.." posters instead of "I used to use..." posters out there in /. land?

Here's one. I've been using OS/2 since 1994. I used it today.

Part of my job is to maintain DOS applications. The compiler/linker (Clipper/Blinker) runs under DOS, and my fingers' favorite editor (Edix) runs under DOS. For doing this kind of stuff, OS/2 is king and there is no close second-place. Yes, Windows can do it too, but Windows is very clunky and inconvenient.

As far as I know, that's the only major advantage OS/2 has over Linux/FreeBSD and it's a hell of a small niche. OS/2 also has a nicer GUI than anything else I've seen, but I can get by with anything.

Lately I've been writing a web app in php, and OS/2 can ssh into my OpenBSD test box just as well as anything else. And it mounts Samba shares just fine. I suppose I could get apache and php for OS/2 but I haven't bothered, because I needed to justify the OpenBSD infiltration. ;-)

About once a week (rough average) I have to run something that requires Windows. The frequency is going to slowly increase with time and someday it may become frequent enough that I can't justify time spent rebooting. But I don't know when I'll reach that point. Hopefully WINE will be far enough along by then that I will get to switch from something that doesn't suck to something else that doesn't suck. But we'll see...

FWIW, I am not interested in this new ecomstation thingie. I can't figure out who would want it. First time OS/2 users? No fucking way. Nobody should switch to OS/2 at this point, unless they're unlucky enough to inherit my job or something. Old OS/2 users upgrading? No, none of the new features of this version of OS/2 would be useful to someone who is already getting by wiht Warp 4. I just don't get it.

Re:Here's one

[markhb]

FWIW, I am not interested in this new ecomstation thingie. I can't figure out who would want it. First time OS/2 users? No fucking way. Nobody should switch to OS/2 at this point, unless they're unlucky enough to inherit my job or something. Old OS/2 users upgrading? No, none of the new features of this version of OS/2 would be useful to someone who is already getting by wiht Warp 4. I just don't get it.

Some useful features in eCS and not in MCP:

• The Developer's Toolkit
  
• Lotus SmartSuite
  
• StarOffice (no longer available for OS/2)
  

Now, if they'd only get a license for Stardock's Object Desktop....

Re:Here's one

[Sloppy]

Don't people who want those things, already have them?

If OS/2 went open source...

[eventhorizon5]

I remember using OS/2 Warp 3 years ago on an old 486, since it flew on that machine; unlike win95 which ran like a piece of crap. OS/2 was a really fast operating system with direct virtual machine capabilities built in (you could boot operating systems from image files in the OS without any special software). Here's how OS/2 died. Back in the early 90's, Microsoft and IBM co-developed OS/2, and it was called Microsoft OS/2. When version 1.2 came out, the two companies split, and IBM continued production all the way to version 4, while Microsoft rewrote the kernel and transformed it into Windows NT. If you do speed benchmarks, you'll easily realize that NT is far more bloated than any version of OS/2. NT was and is a RAM hog, while OS/2 3 ran on 4 megs of RAM easily. If IBM opened up the source code for OS/2 and strictly made it illegal for microsoft to steal any kernel code advances, then we would all be set. We could develop a Windows-killer OS. That's what OS/2 was destined to be since version 2. It's funny how the development of OS/2 was the second time Microsoft ripped off IBM; the first was DOS when Microsoft sold IBM PC-DOS and kept MS-DOS for themselves. Then it was Windows NT versus OS/2.

...and another.

[gmezero]

Given the option, I always go with a OS/2 server solution for web server installs. The stability is un believeable. I've had a number of systems that ran for years with the only reboot happining because of a major power outage, or being taken down for hardware maintenance (HD replacement, etc...). The scripting with REXX is probably th emost powerful scripting language I've ever used, contrary to what Perl fan-boys will tell you.

Not Cheap

[GuanoBoy]

These prices are off the prismdataworks.com site:

eComstation Standard $329.00
eComstation Std. with 30 Day Support $418.00
eComStation PRO $464.00
eComStation PRO with 30 Day Support $553.00

Who's going to pay that much? Maybe someone who has a big investment in OS/2, but that's not too many people anymore.

Re:Not Cheap

[trentfoley]

Who's going to pay that much? Maybe someone who has a big investment in OS/2, but that's not too many people anymore.

That's why the per unit price is so high.

Re:Not Cheap

[kimchueng]

That's the SRP price for the full package. Upgrade price for Warp 4 user is a lot less.

Plus there will be an eCS/Entry ver with 1.1 which will push the price down.

The price has a lot to do with volume. As volume goes up, the price can come down significantly.

Kim

yeah marketing

[austad]

Wow, it's pretty damn obvious that market droids named this thing. "eComStation". Damn. Makes me wanna rush out in my Mazda MP3 and buy it now with my Titanium Visa.

Help me here.

[BigBir3d]

Why is there a need for two different versions, one with SMP support, and one without? Shouldn't that be a install option?

Bottom of this page.

Re:Help me here.

[Geezle2]

Just to clear things up for you a little. . .eComStation is not an OpenSores project. You have to, like, PAY for it. If you shell out the extra cash to get the SMP version, then you do indeed get the option at install time to set up as UNI or SMP.

Re:Help me here.

[Hyped01]

RE: SMP support...

It's more than a "you have to pay for it" issue... WarpSMP and WarpUNI use different kernels (for one). While a WarpSMP machine can run with 1 (to 64) CPU(s), the kernel was designed for 2 or more. This was a high end server option that came only in Warp Server 4 (Advanced?) and Warp Server for e-Business - to the tune of $1200+ per license.

SS seems to have accomplished quite a feat in getting IBM to allow them to include the SMP base in their eCS Pro release for so little. Especially when you compare it to an 8 way Win2000 or WinXP solution (which is the highest Win2K and XP go until you go to clusters, where the highest is currently 32 CPU 4 node 8 way - compared to eCS that will do 64 way - and with DSS or Vinca can do 4 or 2 node 64 way). So, the price for the SMP kernel and related code is very very low - when compared to the closest XP solution or even the WSeB solution the SMP base is from.

Is it worth it? Damn yeah! My 3 SMP machines FLY. Warp manages 90-95% utilization. Add a truly multithreaded app (like DominoGo WebServer and hopefully the new multithreaded Apache for OS/2) and watch your poor machine beg for something to do. Certain tasks seem faster on 2 CPU's than on one of twice the MHz... probably due to thread scheduling or small time execution threads slipping in on the second CPU that would otherwise be lagging waiting on the first...

- Rob

What's he running now?

[autopr0n]

Does he talk about it any more?

Re:What's he running now?

[Rude Turnip]

He stopped after "Jeff Schick from IBM" installed Windows 95 on his computer. Then Howard's enthusiasm about computers stopped. Let's look at that in slo-mo:

Running OS/2: Can't stop talking about all the cool things he can do on his computer.

Running Windows95: Stops talking about computers altogether.

CoINcidence?

Embedded Systems

[Detritus]

I still do sustaining engineering for a number of PCs that run OS/2 for telemetry and communications tasks. At the time the applications were developed, OS/2 was the best operating system for the job. It was a real 32-bit operating system with a GUI and decent software development tools that would run on cheap PC hardware. It beat the hell out of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1. Plus, IBM actually supported their software, a concept that is foreign to Microsoft and many other software vendors.

I don't care if OS/2 can't run the latest games and Microsoft bloatware. It does an excellent job of reliably running our custom applications.

Superior multitasking...

[mediageek]

I used to run a two line bbs using maximus under os/2. On a measly old 386, even with both lines connected I could still keep working in several programs without any noticeable lag. I'd keep a terminal open to log in and chat or play games with my users and even keep a dos session open to play the latest apogee shareware games. Worked like a charm! I miss those days.

At the time, the only other viable options for running a multiline bbs with maximus were to run the dos version under desqview (task switching, very slow) or BLECH windows 3.1. OS/2 ran like a charm. Too bad IBM didn't have any faith in it as a desktop platform.

Now if only Stardock had aquired it...

Re:Superior multitasking...

[ASIO]

oooh, those were the days. A mate used to run 4 lines with maximus on Warp 4, and I myself was running 2. Hellishly stable, and a ton of fun. That being said, it was wonderful to be able to see my mate fire up a game of Doom while all 4 lines were active, and not be able to notice any lag at all.

Try doing that on win95 on a p75/16mb of ram :)

Re:Superior multitasking...

[Hyped01]

>Now if only Stardock had aquired it... Dunno... Stardock had some interesting ideas for where they wanted to take it... but honestly, I think Serenity Systems seems to have a better plan - or in my opinion, more realistic.

I have been watching their posts in the groups and forums for 2 years now, and I've noticed that the puzzle they are building is quite big. More and more, new pieces are appearing, making the whole of it appear much better.

Serenity seems to be building a very strong base for their business plans, and offering, piece by piece, a lot of incentive for businesses to consider eCS. I noticed that with their plans for good document support (for things such as Office documents) - as well as their inclusion of choice in the matter... followed by their plans for the demo CD, and then most recently HobLink and VirtualPC in eCS.

Yet, the releases each come tailored to what the user needs. You dont have to buy the house to get the kitchen sink.

There's a lot more, on the business level, that I have seen them mention (and probably tons more than that which hasnt been mention in the public forums) that is all along that same path of creating and/or entering markets that eCS can be viable in (as oppsed to going after the home desktop for instance) To me it's amazing... it's (their plans) seem a lot like OS/2 itself... ultimately scalable to the sky (like Warp's seldom used 64 way CPU support, or 4 node 64 way (yes 256CPUs!!!!) support), but starting at a reasonable level that is realistic (just like Warp's ability to run on a 486 - even today).

So, while Stardock may have had some great plans, I think SS's are more realistic, and am anxious to see how things progress.

Rob

Re:who

[TinWeasle]

Sorry, i just Checked Netstat:

The site www.idsi.net is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) Debian/GNU PHP/4.0.6 mod_perl/1.25 on Linux.

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...:)

Our voice mail server as well

[ouija147]

We are using OS/2 on a system running our voice mail software. The system supports about 4000 mail boxes on a PENTIUM 200 with 64MB of RAM. This system has only crashed once in six years of operation. Other than that the system has been shut down for a hardware upgrade (to the current 200Mhz processor), when a hard drive failed, when the system was upgraded to OS/2 ver. 3, and when the power was out long enough that our 30KW battery backup shut all the servers down three times over the past five years (we added the module to shut down the servers a year after the battery backup was added...we are a small university and couldn't afford it all at once). It was in continuous operation for close to three years before the hard drive crashed.

Never let it be said that IBM doesn't know how to create an operating system.

Re:who

[trash eighty]

i use Warp on my PC and 2.1 on my laptop

i'm mainly a Mac user though but i use OS/2 a fair bit as well, mostly these days for learning FORTRAN. hmm now i feel old.

Re:Better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than...

[trash eighty]

funny, i always regarded (and still do) the WPS the best looking GUI ever done. maybe i am just weird

Odin libraries got Opera ported perfectly to OS2

[DABANSHEE]

Check this out.

Like WINE, Odin in a Win32 API, so OS2 can be natively Win32 compatible.

Odin has the potential to work much better than WINE, because OS2 & Windows share a bit of the same gene pool.

The OS2 version of Opera is a semi-ported Windows app that utilises Odin libraries, as a shortcut to save on the work involved in a full port.

That's my take.

I assume its similar to the way some Windows games that have been ported to Linux utilise WINE libraries.

Banks

[DABANSHEE]

Next time you want to get your money out do you want the ATM or your bank teller's PC to pull a BSOD.

Banks utilile OS2 by the millions & I think always will.

I doubt bank telling Software will progress much beyond what it alread.

After 90% of software/hardwar upgrades are just for wanking off.

Look at 486 Win 3.11 Netware networks, they are as good for browsing the web & writing letters as anything that's come out since.

I know because just of late I've been coming across heaps of Win3.11.Netware networks & they all seem to be running as well as they ever have been.

Consequently I bet in 10 years time the banks will still be using OS2 (oh & QNX - there's the odd QNX ATM too)

Re:Banks

[Sj0]

I'm not sure where this "no parts with drivers" myth comes from, I see OS/2 drivers for way more stuff than there are linux drivers for, not just old stuff either. My Savage4 had OS/2 drivers, as did every network card I've ever owned.

Also, why bother switching OSs? I don't see how moving to a slow OS with too many memory leaks to run for more than a week at a time will help a program do more. I thought (maybe I'm crazy here...) that programs did what they were programmed to do. I really don't see how using dos, or windows, or OS/2, or Linux, or BeOS, or QNX, or Minix, or Unix, or *BSD, or freedows, or Gimi, or XGUI, or PC GEOS, or whatever OS you run this week will make a program designed to do something do more.

Re:Banks

[crucini]

I hope someone mods this up. I think OS/2 evangelists did such a good job proclaiming the use of their favorite OS in ATM's that people have been blind to the gradual switch to Windows.

With the ATM networks changing the banks are taking the opportunity to rebuild their supporting networks. At least the internal departments are using the reason to grab more money and play for new toys.

I think this is a phenomenon we badly need to understand and leverage. A transition from a legacy OS to Windows seems to raise the prestige and budget of the department doing it. Why is that, and is there any way to make Linux similarly attractive?

netbooting no big deal

[DABANSHEE]

its being diskless but doing the processing locally that's different.

With those NCs the processing was all done of the server - which meant they were as slow as shit with 200 clients all running programs simultaniously (even just 7 NC clients will slow a Dual P3 500 app server to a crawl)

Re:netbooting no big deal

[Bishop]

In my post I was not refering to NCs. I was refering to *nix boxes without a disk running programs locally and storeing all data and programs on a server. Running *nix and dos+netware like this was quite common circa 1990. It also worked quite well, except when the network went down. All too common with thinnet (coax).

Re:Hilter-Stalin

[pamar]

Did you intentionally mispell HILTER in order to avoid Godwin's Law?

OS/2 API was way too complicated

[hargettp]

Okay, this might be unintentional flamebait...

Last time I looked at the OS/2 API (many, many years ago), I walked away with the thought that it was overdone. As an example: the CreateProcess function call had something like 10 parameters!!! It seemed like a function such as that should be simple, since invariably it would be called a lot (e.g., fork!). Of course, then there is the perspective that if there was a simpler function, I could have found it if there developer documentation had been friendlier?

I subscribe to the Unix philosophy of functions doing 1 thing and doing it very well. The amount of overloading on those API calls (due to all the flags and options passed in) could break the bank. And there's a lot of evidence that a simpler design leads to longer-lasting software: Linux, to name just one.

I always thought the complexity of OS/2's APIs scared away developers from the platform. At the time, Win 3.1 (aka Win16 API) had a much simpler API, albeit a much less powerful platform. Heck, another example of the value of simple APIs might have been Win16, since it did last for a long time and introduce a lot of programmers to WIMP programming.

Oddly, the Win32 API introduced by Windows NT echoed OS/2's complexity. CreateProcess still has 10 arguments! So how did it survive? Microsoft marketing, I guess. Or the complexity of the API had nothing to do with OS/2's demise....

My $.02

1993 just called

[Anonymous Coward]

They want their bumper sticker and their lame joke back.

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?

OS/2 Native Apps?

[ebooher]

Well, that all depends on what you consider to be "native." I have not yet noticed Odin mentioned here, so I'm going to mention it now.

Does WinAmp count as native? RealPlayer? What about WinZip? Oh here's one, what about Microsoft Word 97, does that one count? Then there is also Starcraft and Quake 3. All of these run natively under OS/2. Though I admit, the games don't yet know how to take over the full screen under OS/2, they stay in a maximized window.

Odin is not an emulator. Odin is a binary converter. The people behind the project have been working very hard to bring the Win32 API set into the OS/2 environment. Think ala WINE, I guess. But unlike WINE, since OS/2 was the basis for the NT kernel, if memory serves, and it still is 100% DOS Compatible, and it already has a built in Windows 3.1 run time environment, once you convert Windows 32bit apps with Odin, they become OS/2 native. No need to load Odin each time.

Although, the website, and the developers will be the first to tell you that it's best to load the Odin run time converter each time, so those of you that dual boot into Windows proper will be able to use your binaries afterwards. If you go full conversion to OS/2 native route, they will not run under Windows any longer.

The only reason I even know about any of this, however, is that my company has a large amount of OS/2 driven server systems in production and everyday use. So everyonce in awhile I go hunt out nifty things to do with non-production machines before they go back to full time use.

*shrugs* Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth of nothing.

Information on developing for OS/2?

[Dr. Manhattan]

I made the mistake of making my app too portable. It already runs on Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, Tru64, AIX (yuck), and even VMS. Now management wants SGI (easy enough), AS/400 (EBCDIC?!?!?), and OS/2 (should be simple...).

I have a boxed set of OS/2 Warp Connect, and VA C++ Pro 4.0, but boy is documentation of the OS/2 API hard to come by. Not much on the web, either. If I wanted to write an app for OS/2, where the heck would I find any documentation, hints, FAQs, etc.?

Re:Information on developing for OS/2?

[BlondeGuy]

Everything you need to develop for OS/2 is in the OS/2 developers toolkit. Like everything else in the OS/2 world, it isn't free. eComStation comes with a copy of the latest version of the toolkit, which has about 100 Mb of libraries, sample code and documentation. If you are porting a Unix-like app, then you can use the emx package, which you may download at no charge from the OS/2 file repository at http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/.

Re:Information on developing for OS/2?

[kimchueng]

You will meet a lot of OS/2 people at http://www.egroups.com/group/ecomstation. Getting close to 900 members at last count.

Re:Information on developing for OS/2?

[landley]

Grab the EMX package off of hobbes. It's a better compiler (gcc port to OS/2) and it comes with extensive documentation. And it's got most of the GNU library anyway...

Re:Information on developing for OS/2?

[Hyped01]

Re VAC++:

Documentation for it (and thusly the OS/2 API) can be found on the CD... *DO NOT PRINT IT UNLESS* you have a fast printer and LOTS of paper. Once all the documentation is printed, you will have roughly 500 pounds of docs. No, I am not joking.

A printer such as (or comparable to) the IBM InfoPrint (with duplexer) is ideal for such things - just remember to empty the output tray as needed or be prepared to pick up lotsa paper from the floor ;-)

Rob

I never quit using it, virus free

[jlrowe]

I have several machines at home on a LAN. One is my OS/2 Warp 4 machine and does all of my incoming mail and most of the outgoing.

The short story is I have no virii to worry about. OS/2 is basically impervious to them. I also use it for some of my web browsing.

I also have Win98, Win NT, and Linux machines on the network.

BTW, Linux is IMB's new OS/2.

SS is an aggregator

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

While I applaud Security Systems efforts to attempt to market this OS to the public

It is going to be difficult if people can't even remember that their name is Serenity Systems.

If a nasty bug appears in any of the code, IBM isn't likely to fix it, and I'd assume that OS/2 fixpaks won't work with this (last I heard, they were going to charge subscriptions to receive them, anyway).

From my understanding, a subscription to eCS with "Upgrade Protection" (?) gives you the right to receive a fixpack CD on a quarterly basis while IBM's Convenience Package sends only yearly CDs so it is better in this way. (You can also download them if you paid for the passwords).
I understand that Serenity aggregates OS/2 users so that they are another of the big customers that IBM pays attention to.
You are not guaranteed a fix anyway. But, unless you are Enormous-Grossebank Gmbh, this is your best chance to get IBM to listen to you.

with the danidasd freeware fat32 IFS driver - I forget who made it,

Daniela Engert, the name is a hint.

niche market for it.

I hope that not all the meanings of "niche" will be explored.

WPS

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

The WPS was rock solid

I'd say that WPS is the least robust part of OS/2. OS2*.INI files get corrupted if you don't use costless third-party WPSTools regularly. And don't put too many shadows around.

But it also is the best part of OS/2. A pity.

MS monopoly tactics

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

If you couldn't even get an OS/2 PC pre-installed from IBM's PC division,

I read somewhere that MS threatened to stop mass-discounting Windows to IBM. But I didn't heard about it being mentioned in the trial.

Can somebody confirm?

Re:MS monopoly tactics

[Flywheel]

It was back in the old days - around Warp 3.0 or 4.0 (1995-1996) that happend. AFAIR it was mentioned in the first part of the trial

Do you understand "diskless" or Managed Client?

[BobStJohn]

The point is not being "diskless" .. and it isn't a configuration for every user. But the key is the ability to manage and deploy software, and to create a reliable and available workstation. See http://www.os2ezine.com/v4n7/thinisin.htm

The point is not the cost of a disk. And this is not really "diskless" .. this is more like a PC which doesn't realize that its hard disk is not local. And that's the point. It works like and feels like a PC. Just a lot more reliable and less expensive to manage.

Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems

You got something wrong (was It'll be Interesting

[BobStJohn]

First .. I appreciate the support .. but I want to make sure folks understand that Serenity Systems has an IBM OEM agreement, which means the product is supported by IBM (at least, the OS/2 components are). So, the IBM OS/2 defect support is completely engaged.

Option tabs

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

remember the tabs for the options? They were on the side and hideous

Since Warp 4 (1996?), they are on top and colourful. There are still applications with the old style though.

Re:Better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than...

[Richard Steiner]

One thing that was nice about the old "spiral notebooks" with the side tabs, though: you could fit more information in a given space, since the side-tabs could be squeezed together, and since they only had to be tall enough to hold one character plus a small border.

Comments are full assed

[BobStJohn]

Gee ... why would you make so many incorrect statements? eCS includes support from IBM, including the ability to submit defect reports.

You don't apply IBM Fixpacks directly because eCS builds the desktop differently. Therefore, Serenity Systems supplies its own fixpack which includes the IBM fixpack .. fixes for OS/2 and eCS specific fixes. At no charge .. no need for a subscription, as with IBM.

eCS installer has been well received. Problem reports generally occur with the network install and selective install .. which are parts of the IBM installer. And the IBM installer is still available. Users can install from CD2 and that will engage the IBM installer and create the "OS/2 classic" desktop. Using the CD1 install creates the updated desktop, or use CD2 and the convert.exe program.

Finally, it costs less than IBM. eCS uses OS/2 4.51 ... which means a user would have to get Warp 4 and SWC. Warp 4 (upgrade) on IBM's site is around $180 .. new user is around $250 ... then add $200 or so for Software Choice. You are going to be up around $400 .. and all you get is OS/2 4.51.

Next year .. things get dramatically better for eCS pricing as the eCS Entry will provide OS/2 4.52 for SRP $79 .. and even eCS Upgrade Protection, adding $89, only brings the cost to $168 ... well below the SWC price of $200 ... and new users would pay $199 and $89 for eCS compared to $250 and $200.

And ... eCS users get more software, including HOBLink X/11 Server which sells for about $200 .. IBM's Desktop on Call ...

Feel free to criticize eCS .. but get it right. Valid criticism helps us improve the product.

Shoddy remarks like this are just FUD.

Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems

Re:Comments are full assed

[Sj0]

You are a clueless fucking idiot if you think people are stupid enough to pay $329 for your shit!!!

or are you a clueless fucking idiot for deciding not to finish reading the post?

Re:Comments are full assed

[BobStJohn]

There are a couple of thousand eCS users... the installer works fine. btw, you seem to have some sort of anal fixation.

Now .. to help you with the math, if IBM charges $180 for Warp 4 and $215 for SWC .. it costs $395 to get there with IBM .. and $329 SRP with eCS ...

Now .. if someone is clever enough to buy Warp 4 on eBay and they get eCS Entry 1.1 for $79 .. they would be saving a great deal over the IBM SWC price of $215.

Of course, the user can buy Warp 4 on eBay for $50 and go with a free fixpack. The product is unsupported and there is no legal accsess to fixes or drivers. From your tone, I doubt that license or legal access are issues for you.

And .. after all that, the user winds up with an unsupported OS .. while the eCS user has a supported OS, access to drivers and fixes, and a passle of software applications, a responsive vendor .. counts for something, and a product with a future.

But the $50 is well spent because it qualifies the person for the lower priced eCS upgrade from Warp 4 products.

So, we will keep packaging eCS in ways that meet the requirements of users. And they continue to buy.

No doubt someone is clueless. Isn't me. Isn't the person who gave eCS 7.8 ... isn't the happy group of eCS users.

It would seem to be .... you. You seem bitter and disappointed. I think you should try to relax. Something like eCS shouldn't upset you, so. You should try to get over it. Perhaps volunteer with Meals on Wheels or something like that.

Might make you feel better about yourself.

Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems

Sure. I've been using OS/2 since 1992...

[Richard Steiner]

...and it's a wonderful desktop operating system for my 64MB SCSI PPro.

Of course, I've been actively collecting software since that time (both native OS/2 stuff and older DOS and Windows 3.1 packages that work under WinOS2), so I have a much larger collection of working software than could easily be obtained today by a new OS/2 user (since many of the packages I use are no longer available through normal sources).

I find OS/2 plus 4OS2 (the JP Software OS/2 equivalent of 4DOS -- remember that?) to be a very nice command-line environment. I like it better than sh, bash, tcsh, zsh, or any other *nix shell I've been able to play with.

Also, OS/2's VDMs are much more robust than, say, DOSEMU, and much less resource-intensive than a Virtual PC or VMWare virtual machine, so they are a fairly nice (and lightweight) way to run DOS games and multimedia apps like QuickView (a DOS AVI/MPG player) and DAMP (a DOS MP3 player that does shifting/pulsating graphics while the music is playing).

It all depends on what you're used to and on what you want to do. I admit it's a lot easier to have stayed with OS/2 then it is to get into it now, since I've already paid the price of admission long ago...

Here are some reasons why I bought eComStation.

[Richard Steiner]

(1) It came with some useful software bundled (HobLink's X11 server and Lotus SmartSuite were the two biggies for me).

(2) It provided me with a chance to get an SMP kernel in the client version (IBM doesn't offer that, and Warp Server is *expensive*).

(3) It integrated all of the FixPaks into a single place. I didn't have to go through the somersaults to install them myself.

(4) It gives me an advocate (in Serenity Systems) that has some clout with IBM. Not a lot of clout, I suspect, but certainly more than I had by myself as a Warp 4 user.

Re:PATHETIC

[Sj0]

OS/2 is outdated -- why still use it? Get with the times.

WINDOWS is outdated -- why still use it? Get with the times.

Re:Add TCP/IP support to Warp 3?

[Hyped01]

If you can find another 24MB of RAM, any 66MHz or up 486 will run Warp 4 with TCPIP and NetBIOS quite nicely (and even pretty quickly). If you can suffer a little sluggish (but still capable of NetBIOS, TCPIP, MySQL and more) that same hardware will run Warp Server for e-Business (my "sluggish" machine is actually a 33MHz 486 with 32MB).

So, figured, just in case you have a little more RAM for the old machine and Warp 4, you might want to dropping it in there and using Warp 4.

- Rob

Re:InnoTek ports VirtualPC to OS/2

[Hyped01]

Oliver also forgot to mention that they are the ones who have brought Warp 4 and eCS the Flash 4 plugin ported or re-written from Macromedia's code and soon Flash 5. If these plugins and their work on Project Odin are any indication, I am expecting their completed/ported version of VirtualPC to be quite good. Flash 4 on my P Pro 180MHz machine performs as well as on my 266MHz Pentium II Win98 machine.

Thanks Innotek guys!

-Rob

Re:Better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than...

[rbeattie]

How the FUCK did I LOSE Karma on the above post!?! It was marked "interesting + 1", then "overrated -1" and then somehow the +1 disappeared (though the name stuck) and I lost a point.

What sort of uptight OS/2 user marks a "Score: 2" post "overrated"? Who ever you are, fuck you.

-Russ