Slashdot Mirror
eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition Review
Gentu writes "OSNews reviews the latest incarnation of the legendary OS/2, eComStation 1.1 Entry Edition. The product was released less than a month ago, after a 1.5 years gap of the original 1.0 eCS version. The Serenity Systems guy seems to have overhaul the installation procedure, but not always with the best results."
for So long, i can now use all those Windows 3.1 & Dos apps ive had sitting on my shelf...and it'll only cost me $200 to buy the OS...WOOHOO!!
Where ever you go, there you are.
You know you've made an OS when Mozilla get ported!
I liked their idea better. Choke all of the complexity at a single point.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
So you want to buy a new implementation of a dead OS?
Yea, let me get in line.
I loved OS/2 (although I never tried Warp 4) back in the day. I stopped using it only when it was apparent that it was dead; but I have always had it in my mind that it was a really great OS (and compared to what was available at the time, it really was).
I installed eCS recently to revel in the computing bliss that was OS/2, only to find out that what was cool 8 years ago, isn't all that cool anymore. Oh well.
Ring.... Ring....
Hello?
This is 1991.... we'd like our Icons back.
Anyways... it *is* good to see OS/2 suport. I imagin that there are a few compaines that are very happy to use OS/2 and have the ability to keep deploying it - they probably have a lot of software that woulden't work on anything else.
That's one of the best features of Free Software - you don't *have* to upgreade if you don't want to - you can keep deploying to your heart's content.
Can you even *pay* Mirocosoft to sell you a copy of Win 3.11 ? You can't - they *force* you stay on the upgrade treadmill.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Not to knock it, i've always actually liked OS/2 even though i never got to play with Warp 4 but its not really an operating system for the average guy.. It was before its time but now it is past its time..
might be a nice little OS for old computers but we have linux for that.. dunno what these ppl are trying to do..
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
Makes it sound like a niche OS. Come on, doesn't eComStation imply that's only good for one thing? This alone will help make it hard for OS/2 to make a comeback of any kind.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Looks like the only legacy apps running (according to the screenshots) are Sailor Moon videos?..not exactly what most people need..
Oops..I forgot this is slashdot..
If I really wanted that experience I could always run winfile on Win98. Ick.
sulli
RTFJ.
I think I'll just fire up VMWare and try this out.
Oh wait. You say VMWare won't run OS/2. That's right...
-twb
And they say BSD was dying. Man. Were the trolls wrong. :)
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
Well, hobbyists, for one. OS/2 has what looks to me like a very small but hardcore following. Obviously, it being non-free makes it much less interesting for the general geek population to try out, but supposing you got hooked back when OS/2 was a contender, eComStation must be a godsend. I know Chris Wright seemed euphoric back when it first came out.
Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
I know up until very recently DieBold was a big user of OS/2. What would you rather have running your ATM, Windows or OS/2? As to why they haven't picked up free software, I'm not really sure.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using. I had the same problem with win2k once. Damn thing's fdisk just would not work right. I only wasted two hours on known good hardware before I gave up and installed Red Hat on it. Vendors and OEMs can get the help they need, obviously.
OS/2 users should move down the upgrade train for this one. Those screens shots are beautiful. Nice and clean, ah. Ease of use. Did 1.0 even have Mozilla? That alone would justify the cost for your users. I imagine that this will run on the same old hardware too, whereas windblows whatever will only install on the latest and greatest and you might as well jump to free software at that rate.
Me, I'll just stick with free software that I can fix. Who'da thunk it? "Easy to use software" is not as easy to install as supposedly difficult software. I can get the same good clean looks from OLVWM, but I prefer the beauty of Window Maker. Debian's hardware compatibility is just as good or better, and what other OS can you get to run reasonably on a P90 with 24 MB of RAM these days? Then again, I don't have any OS/2 softare sitting around besides two ancient compilers I got from a dumpster.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And nothing (not even DOS) runs DOS stuff as well as OS/2. I ran OS/2 from 1994 to 2002 for running that stuff (editing with Edix, compiling with Clipper and linking with Blinker, testing the resulting app), and OS/2 couldn't be beat. Windows is slower (you can easliy "feel" the difference between Windows and OS/2 on the same machine) and a lot flakier. And don't even get me started on Linux+DosEmu, which is what I use for that part of my job now (DosEmu is "good enough" but it sucks).
If maintaining those DOS apps were enough work to keep me busy fulltime, then I would still be running OS/2 today, because it's the best tool for that niche.
The problem is that it's a pretty small niche. Other OSes are capable of doing the job (just not as well) so if you also need to do "mainstream" stuff as part of your job, then it probably becomes worthwhile to run Windows or Linux and just put up with the inferior performance. (That's what I did.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Nobody is "picking" OS/2 in this day and age -- they picked it long ago and now they are stuck with it.
Some (large) corporations have inhouse or vertical software using those "old os2api's", so they don't have much choice to run OS/2 until they've finished migrating everything to Java or whathaveyou.
Meanwhile, OS/2 is a pretty managable platform, and actually runs some decent office software (MS Office 4.2), unlike Linux. Plus, IBM will support them as long as the checks clear. So there's no huge urgency for these corps to upgrade.
The author says, after 2 weeks of effort and 3 machines, "...the installation procedure is buggy and it might work or might not work for you."
ahh, then you aren't familiar with Eugenia. it would take her "2 weeks of effort and 3 machines" to install winzip.
http://www.os2ezine.com/20030416/page_2.html
has a nice review of eComStation 1.1
It has been years since I've visited the os2ezine. I be the the slashdotting does them good! I doubt an os/2 site has gotten this much traffic since....wait..its err os/2 nevermind.
Only ancient servers use os/2 to run legacy apps.
Not entirely true - I know of several large banks and financial institutions that are still running it on the desktop for custom applications.
They love the stuff. Can't talk 'em into migrating for anything.
Hey!
How long do we have to wait for a Windows bigot to complain about the SIQ limitation in OS/2?
Have you tried the C64 port of Linux? It's AWESOME. Cool old hardware and FAST! I'm using it now. The only thing is that Mozilla in 40 column mode really sux0rz.
My journal has hot
hey dude, how are things in Afghanistan?
I loved OS/2 like no other os. OS/2 truely let me choose what i want out of my os.
:)
I could rip the gui off and install a 3rd party shell manager, i could install a command line shell/task switcher, i could extend the desktop, i could replace system objects and i could use modular file systems and much much more. It was just a "theme" or hack, it was extending the framework.. something unique even to this day!
Sure back in the 2.0 and 2.11 days running Windows Apps was an extra bonus, but i didn't bother with it other then saying "cool".
I was too busy bugging Mustang software to port wildcat! pro over, after they failed i jumped ship to PcBoard 15 and then eventually adopted synchronet all of which ran beautifully under OS/2 and still let me play my Sierra Games, surf the web and listen to my S3M's, MOD's and watch my future crew demos and chat online..
OS/2 Replaced DESQview 386 & Qemm as a stable and very nice MULTITASKING os. I was sure as hell glad when i finally got a CDROM as pushing floppies during install sucked ass. I had to upgrade to 16 megs of memory, but back then that was alot cheaper then pilling up multiple computers and running netware!!
But the golden era started when OS/2 Connect Came out. OS/2 connect taught me what networking was about. OS/2 connect gave me my first run into the world of TCP/IP, Netbios, and netware (had to install the OS/2 netware client to join up with my other machines for playing Doom!) I was able to run my BBS and have a 19.2 modem connection to the internet and it all worked through the magic SIO comm driver replacements. Runnning DOS doors, IRC chats, Usenet gateways and UUCP feeds, i was the baddest 15 year old running an BBS/ISP.
Not to mention i was a part of TeamOS/2, getting free shirts, visiting conferences and getting published in books! Remember those OS/2 unleashed books? I'm there
Everything started to peak at OS/2 warp 3.0.. for a while there was even 3rd party software at the store. Object desktop was showing the power of object oriented desktop and the gui/workplace shell and days were looking good.
Then came... OS/2 Warp 4.0 with its 179.00+ upgrade and 299.00 base fee.. NT 4.0 was now out and pushing for...uhm.. FREE on any PC you bought that day.. basically putting the nail in the coffin.
I ran OS/2 warp 4.0 for a while longer and then switched to Linux and NT myself.. Linux was finally coming of age and after being the first BBS in houston to offer linux for download i (12 floppies mang) i chose to convert myself.
BBS Scene died, had to spend more time in school, got a job and ended up working my way up through the internet world and now work as an oracle guru..
funny how OS/2 started it all for me. Nice to see some of that still alive. Visit OS2.org and say high! There is even a port of Wine to run windows apps emulated/native on OS/2 and much much more..
amazingly, driver support is still doing well. IBM *STILL* sells OS/2.. its just called "WorkPlace OS" now.
ROCK SOLID memory management is the KEY. I work for a very LARGE bank and we've got rights to the source code and LONG term contracts with IBM for support. It hooks in with Z/OS Linux on IBM mainframe hardware as if it was made for it :)
Native SNA connecticity doesn't hurt either.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Who wouldn't buy this?
.
I mean, come ON! The article says that it has support for Java, OS/2, Windows 3.1 and DOS applications
I've been looking for something that could run my Windows 3.1 apps for ages!
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
The website mentions that the OS is "REXX enabled", which is an OS/2 / IBM scripting language, right? Any other operating systems or applications use REXX these days?
I remember the Amiga had a version of this too... ARexx! Very useful back in the day.
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Big reason for this is that having a good installer for OS/2 would alienate the installed base.
What's Microsoft's excuse?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is useless to me without support for IPv6. I bet it has decent support for MCA adapters at least.
If so, I'd guess wiping my ass.
edonkey network
Last I knew, Nortel Norstar NAMs (Network Access Modules) ran OS/2. We got a new one within the last year or so and it had OS/2 just like our other one did from before. Further testament to OS/2 is the fact that these NAMs don't have power switches and are typically installed without mouse/keyboard/monitor. It is understood that you simply yank the power cord to power them off, plug it back in to turn them on, and the things just keep ticking.
if i only knew that 6-9 months ago.. i wouldn't have had to get a stolen copy of win3.1
on the other hand, feeling sorry for microsoft???? i feel guilty for feeling sorry that i ripped off microsoft for a little. hm. *wonders how much money it would take to get on this list..*
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
WTF is it so damned hard for the Open Source community to come up with something like the WPS, which is arguably the most efficient interface in existence...and it ran FINE on a 486 with 8MB of ram???
Nautilus? Give me a fscking break!
I know up until very recently DieBold was a big user of OS/2. What would you rather have running your ATM, Windows or OS/2? As to why they haven't picked up free software, I'm not really sure.
The bank I work for is still running OS/2 on it's ATMs. Although they do occasionally threaten to "upgrade" them to Windows.
Now that I think about it, I can't remember the last time they needed to be restarted. It may be a butt-ugly os but it does work damn good.
I like OS/2 and use it every day. The most recent version of OS/2 is Warp 4.52 originally released by IBM in March, 2002 and updated and re-released in January, 2003. Warp 4.52 supports most current hardware and has recent UDF 2 support and USB 2.0 support. IBM continues to provide updated drivers for video devices, printers, IDE devices, USB devices, sound cards, modems, etc. OS/2 users and developers provide various other hardware and software support such as enhanced multimedia capabilities and desktop enhancements. The OS/2 Workplace Shell is a daily joy to use and a nice contrasting alternative to the relative drudgery of a Windows desktop. OS/2 is still used by many large enterprises for its security, multi-tasking capabilities, reliability, data security, and subsystem strengths. Warp 4.52 has a 'strictly-business' installer that is not fancy but works consistently and reliably, although most large sites probably don't use the installer but just clone new installations. I have never seen an x86 Intel or AMD system that Warp 4.52 could not be successfully installed on with IBM software support.
hehe you begged for this ;D
let me present you to the
c=one
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do NOT wave in a Vacuum " --Arthur C Clarke
99% OEM Preload marketshare.
"Only ancient servers use os/2 to run legacy apps."
If they're ancient, that means they have no apparent need to upgrade.
"I would be very supprised if any drivers for modern hardware are included."
Um... what kind of "modern hardware" would you need to put on a reliable server? IEEE 1394 controller? AGP graphics? If it works and does what it's supposed to, why "fix" it?
"It seems weird to use the old os2api's and the only software for os/2 is java enabled or maybe some ports of OSS."
If the software continues to work and do what it is supposed to, why do you need it to run "new" apps? Hell, unlike all of its competitors, OS/2 Warp 4 hasn't even reached its EOL yet.
"I would pick FreeBSD or Linux over this thank you."
Because why let your employer rely on IBM and their ilk to maintain the software when you can lock yourself into the position instead? Nothing like job security, hm? After all, I don't see you suggesting a commercial flavor of *nix there...
I grew up on OS/2 (well, after moving up from an old Sony SMC-70 and a variety of 8088s and 286s). I loved it's GUI. (yes, even without stable virtual desktops) It was just about the only thing that would handle our old P75's aging graphics card gracefully at anything other than 800x600. (sadly, we now use that box as a monitorless linux printserver and no longer have OS/2 installed anywhere else in this house)
Even now that I have happily switched over to Linux and KDE, I find that there's one feature that OS/2 got right, and that I still miss: right-click-drag.
It had the rmb handle dragging, leaving the lmb free for selection, which came in handy when I wanted to select a group of icons that weren't all in a convenient rectangle without having to move my hand to the keyboard and repeatedly click. It was nice when I wanted to select alot of email messages quickly in PMMail. I didn't have to use shift+click or ctrl+click. All I had to do was hold the left button and swipe over the icons that I wanted highlighted. Emelfm, the file manager I use, comes close to this with its chord/middle-click drag, but it just isn't the same.
heh... This much nostalgia in someone of my age can't be good...
I've read Grocklaw. BoycottNovell, you're no Grocklaw
OS/2 Still has the best GUI newsreader.
One Who Speaketh from Experience
Is it Washington Mutual? I remember when I applied for a home loan, my truck loan, my accounts, each time I could see OS/2 on the bank officer's PC. If you're ever in Cheney, WA, go to the WAMU on 1st street. You can see their S/390 churning away behind the teller's counter. On the subject, Cheney's city hall has an IBM mainframe in the center of the room behind the cashier's counter. The Spokesman-Review has an army of AS/400 models in their server room (along with many IBM NT boxes). The Associated Press used to sell turnkey systems for newspapers using OS/2 as the OS, but now all their stuff is W2K. Hooray.
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
Did 1.0 even have Mozilla? Easy enough to install. Look at the OS/2 section of Mozilla development.
A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using
My biggest bitch and Love against OS/2 has always been that its too hardware dependent. If you have crappy ram for instance (or a mix of different speeds) your install will always crap out. Once it installs though it's rock solid.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
A difficult/buggy install should not hold this software back if it's worth using.
What's your more elaborated opinion on this? I've heard so many reviews, and so many opinions on how Linux is so hard to install, etc., etc. But it's not like you turn on your computer, install an OS, use it, shut down, and have to restart the entire routine all over again. I find that a truly great OS is one that doesn't necessarily accentuate the ease of install -- once it's installed, it's installed for good.
It doesn't clutter up, like Windows (and its *cough* all-encompassing registry) and leave extraneous files around -- 2GB of temporary files, 1GB of log files, etc. I don't have much experience with OS/2 beyond casual experimentation when I was younger, but I'm assuming it's much the same (disregarding its Windows 3.1 support). And yet operating systems like Linux, BSD, and true UNIXes don't have that clutter. And when something seriously goes wrong, my immediate response is never, "just format and reinstall."
Even friends of mine, less seasoned with computers, say, "Yeah, I have to wipe my hard drive and reinstall Windows." That's not natural! It's like saying you have to ditch your hard drive and reinstall a new one because the old one's cluttered... every two months... That's ridiculous.
My parents, for example, bought Windows XP, deciding to upgrade from Windows 98SE. I came over, installed it, and never looked back. It's much more feasable as a long-term operating system than its predecessors (for obvious reasons). So the natural question is: is ease of installation really that important, and should a company devote so many resources to making installation easy for the end-user? (considering most computers come with an operating system preinstalled?)
If ye have stable systems running DOS or OS/2 or Windows 3.1 or Linux, the replacing of the software is a minimal expense to data conversion. This is what really limits Microsoft's price expansion.
It takes me about two to three hours to bring a new or reformatted box up to some sort of usable form. On the other hand, to get my home-grown data to work might take several hours. Why?
Because the batch files &c have expectations of being run from certian locations. Because files that import graphics have to be pointed at the new location, and because the clean sweep gives some room to redesign the computer.
If ye have a computer that is chugging away, doing the same mindless task without error, there is little incentive to replace. This is why databases support ancient formats: most of the money is tied up just there.
The reason i keep installing my ancient Win16 word processor Amipro 3.1 is because all my files are in that format. I have more modern word processors, but Amipro 3.1 is more "open" to text scripts that i have built for it, and is at least adequate for its function that i have not decided to replace.
Microsoft have of course, the "legacy trap". By tying your precious data to their priority formats, you are tying yourself to their software. In the case of OS/2 or Linux or whatever, you are still linked to some other thing, the good thing is that IBM is still supporting it (along with a lot of OS folk: Daniela Engbert's drivers are widely regarded).
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Corparates, who actually buy operating systems and support.
o .phtml
Its amazing how a corparate OS was reviewed by the reviewer. At one point, I expected he would bitch about "game" support etc.
Wake up guys. That is NOT an OS to use at home. Allthough it can be used, its not the purpose of it.
Its name "eCom" lights a clue? Its for e-commerce etc. Well, read this "spec" and decide yourself how bad it was reviewed.
http://www.ecomstation.com/product_inf
I am a win2k professional user, I don't even think to migrate to that OS, since its not RIGHT for my user profile. But it doesn't give me right to say "its dead". I'd sound funny to IT pros, thats all. Sorry to say (I know this post will be at -1 or something, so nvm), Novell isn't right for home too. So, if you don't see it running on your friends house, it doesn't mean "its dead" too.
Also "Don't install to mission critical machines since it disables dual boot"? Oh give me a break... That guy is paid to review?
anyway, -1 me now...
Most ATMs run OS/2, too. It's flexible, reliable, easy to develop for, and supported by IBM. (You can say all that about Linux now, too, but not long enough ago to have penetrated the ATM market very deeply yet.)
Um... what kind of "modern hardware" would you need to put on a reliable server?
Gigabit Ethernet NICs? Ultra 320 SCSI controllers? RAID?
It's Diebold.
Diebold has been shipping OS/2 on it's ATMs since for more than ten years. It is a workhorse of an OS, a true 32 bit multitasking OS stable enough for an ATM. Most ATMs in the US still run OS/2. A little less than half in Europe still run on OS/2 (the rest are mix of DOS, WinNT)
Diebold now sells WinXP as well, depending on customer needs.
Before OS/2, the ATMs ran on an OS by Intel called RMX, a unix-like OS.
Bank of America has OS/2 on the desks of their loan officers using a Mozilla-based web app to fill out the applcation.
AmiPro 3.1 kicks ass! I thought I was its last fan.
And, there was an OS/2 version too!
among other platforms.
Check it out here
Here is another good link if you're sufficiently interested.
give me a
NT
Goes back to 1998, and named in 1999, when dot-com was all the buzz. First, Stardock wanted to do it but they didn't have the money to do it the IBM way. Serenity-Now Systems rounded up the needed dollars and got IBM real drunk (so I heard), and they wound up with it for 10 years. OS2 is a he-mans OS, that much I can tell. But I'm not a he-man (anymore! they say you're born one, but not me).
I wonder who would fork out for an OS/2 for his desktop, beside the old users with critical apps that wont run elsewhere. The features page is filled with marketing blabber and doesnt have anything a measly Windows 95 on a 486 dx4 cant do. Sure the Internet Java and XML are the future, and they can be supported by a 386 with 8 MB ram too(with Linux).
Certain people obviously do spend for OS/2... I wonder what those critical apps are, I could make money building Linux/BSD/win32 app upgrades there.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Being a former BBS Sysop as well as a former OS/2 user (they kind of go hand in hand) I feel your pain.
Lately I've been using Mac OS X and I totally love it. There are, of course, some differences such as usable 2-button mouse vs. 1-button mouse. However, for the most part I feel the same spirit that IBM put into OS/2, Apple has put into Mac OS X. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that OS X derives directly from NeXT. Another factor is that OS/2 always was like a really powerful MacOS (classic).
It's really hard to put down in words, but both OS/2 and OS X just feel "right." Use either one for a few hours and you tend to feel like a fish out of water if you've used Windows all your life. Spend a week or two with either one and you start to realize that the polished user interfaces and attention to details really makes a difference.
However, all versions of OS/2 from 2.0 and later in 1992 (the 32-bit versions) were IBM products, and Microsoft had little or nothing to do with them.
More to the point, the major selling points of OS/2 (the Virtual DOS Machines, WinOS2 support, and the WorkPlace Shell) were IBM contributions (Microsoft wrote Windows 3.1, but IBM made it run as a DMPI client, tweaked the video to run seamlessls on the PM desktop, etc.)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
...but development was discontinued, much to the chagrine of most of those participating in (or watching) the beta test.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
This one?
Microsoft owns part of the copyright on the OS/2 codebase. They did everyting they could to suppress it, but IBM still had enough rights to keep it going. MS will never allow it to go open source, and they do have enough control over the code to prevent that.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I'm cracking up hearing all the talk about how the WPS was the nicest piece of software ever written, how it was "object oriented" before its time, etc., and how KDE and Gnome should go read history.
Please.
I wrote Object Desktop for OS/2. Yes, *that* Object Desktop. And let me tell you that the Workplace Shell programming interface was the biggest piece of shit I've ever dealt with, before, during, after.....you-name-it.
Since then, so-called object-oriented programming practices have been studied, documented, have been brought to universities all around the world. And during this time, if they had the WPS sources to look at, (which I didn't, but could pretty much write verbatim because of all the reverse engineering that was necessary to build Object Desktop), they could have used that as their "programming interface hall-of-shame". In other words, what *not* to do.
So, let's applaud KDE and Gnome for what they are doing, and while I am not informed on the programming interfaces *they* have expounded, I do know it couldn't be worse than what IBM foisted on the world in the early nineties in the form of "object technology."
Feh.
Leave it alone guys, this one has been dead for years, for good reason.
...so what's your point?
Here's a little known bit of REXX/Amiga trivia...
...sigh...
The Amiga got it's REXX implementation from IBM in trade for the Workbench architecture. Yes, that means that Presentation Manager is a decendent of Workbench...
I've often wondered if OS/2's struggle to survive is a result of it getting touched with the Amiga curse?
I remember this! OS/2's newreader was called NR/2, and it came with the OS. It had three separate windows: one listed the newsgruops, and double-clicking the group you wanted to browse brought up a second window with a list of headers from that group sorted by thread, and double-clicking the header you wanted brought up a third window with the message. Because of this, you could easily read the message fullscreen, something I haven't seen in a GUI-based newsreader before or since. Anyone know of an open source newsreader that works like this? Barring that, maybe I'll take a crack at writing one in Perl. It shouldn't be too hard; NR/2 was a simple, elegant newsreader.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
I'm actually somewhat interested in eComStation, since I never gained much familiarity with OS/2 in the first place. Unfortunately, this review doesn't really help me, and I doubt it would help anyone.
Some basic things I'd expect in a review like this would be how versions have progressed, including what was in the last few versions of OS/2, how the features compare, the significance of the improvements, etc. It'd be nice to know if paying $200 for eComStation is smarter than paying x amount of dollars for OS/2 Warp (which is still available in some places), for example.
The most lacking part was the discussion of hardware compatibility. The author spent a lot of time on this without saying what hardware he was unsuccessfully trying to make work, which would have been a strong matter of interest since he had so many problems. I came away no wiser about what kind of system would be useful to tinker with eComStation. (frankly, the eComStation website is pretty poor in this regard too)
Another matter of interest for me is why precisely there are no downloads or updates on the eComStation website - is it perfect and secure or is it just badly maintained, or what?
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Neither Linux nor the *BSD family was as useful on x86 hardware at that point in time.
OS/2 was also almost completely backwards-compatible to the DOS and Windows systems of the time (and that it was directly) intended to replace), providing a level of functionality that Linux still can't realistically provide even with DOSEMU, Wine, and friends...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Agreed, but you talked about today as well.
First, IBM has the PC-DOS and MS W16 source code. Second, GNU/Linux is intended to be POSIX, not MS-W32 compatible. Third, GNU/Linux made the option for robustness; backwards compatibility with MS-DOS and MS-Win has seriously damaged IBM OS/2 and MS-WNT.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
* One can arrange the icons on the desktop or in each folder in several different ways (around the top, bottom, left, right, etc), and UNDO the arrange command if it was done accidentally by selecting the "Undo Arrange" item on the main menu for that desktop or folder object.
* Individual icons or groups of icons can be Locked to the desktop (becoming immune from future Arrange actions) and Unlocked for later moving.
* Each desktop shadow (shortcut/alias) has an item in its context menu called "Locate Parent" that lets a user quickly locate the parent of a given shadow.
* Desktop shortcuts actively track the original file across physical drives and adjusts desktop shadow pointers accordingly. A move of a whole directory tree from drive C: to F: would have no impact on the desktop (all desktop links that point into the tree are updated automagically by the WorkPlace Shell).
* One can create a "Workgroup Folder" to store a bunch of related programs and folders (say the stuff one needed for web site development). If one opens that workgroup folder, all of the items stored within are opened at once, unfolding the working environment.
* One can create a "Template object", basically creating an infinite stack of similar objects from which one can then "tear off" (via drag-and-drop) new copies of that object. This makes it easy to set up a document-centric work environment where one simply creates a series of template objects for all of the file types that one works with. To create a new document, image file, folder, or whatever, just tear a new one from the appropriate template.
* Support in the desktop for true objects that are able to inherit attributes from their parents. If one extends the base Folder object to add FTP client functionality, for example, and someone else decided to modify the base Folder class to handle something new, the "FTP Folder" child class will also gain the new functionality.
I'm sure there's stuff I'm missing...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
> backwards compatibility with MS-DOS and MS-Win
> has seriously damaged IBM OS/2 and MS-WNT.
How so? An OS/2 VDM has many more settings than the stripped-down functionality found in WinNT, and an OS/2 VDM can be locked down to the point where the software running inside a VDM process can have very little adverse impact on the rest of the system.
If one wants to enable direct access to things like the soundcard, etc., one can do so, but one has to *explicitly* enable that in the VDM's settings.
In other words, OS/2 provides the option to sacrifice some stability for compatibility, but that can be completely turned off for those who are not interested. In fact, the entire WinOS2 and MVDM subsystems are uninstallable.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I wish there was a Linux port...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Who is this? Kurt?
Look... Even though the WPS has some very ugly implementation details (heck, even my relative layman's brain can identify some serious flaws), it still possessed a number of features that the OS/2 end user could take advantage of and which haven't been seen on most other GUIs.
Some haven't been reimplemented on *any* other desktop UI's, at least that I'm aware of.
Additionally, and regardless of the underlying cruft, some of that useful functionality existed mainly because of the object-oriented nature of the WPS.
Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
In one word, complexity.
In free software POSIX systems, Wine and DOSEMU are separate projects, contained far away from the basic system. And POSIX evolved along years, with a nice design that took security, performance, resources consumption, extensibility, network and multiuser capabilities into account. Not only the MS Win, IBM OS/2 and MS-DOS family of systems, being derived from CP/M, never saw such thoroughout engineering, growing slowly by accretion, it made things worse by backwards compatibility with software that simply had contradictory goals.
The fact remains that backwards compatibility kept IBM OS/2 a proprietary, limited system, and delayed its stability by many years. Yes, later versions of IBM OS/2 are much more stable than MS WNT. But they are neither as stable, nor as capable, as GNU/Linux and BSD. And they are not open systems.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Probably ex-IBMers like myself. I still use it on an old thinkpad and a Dell Optiplex and runs just fine. I've heard stories and rumours of ECS, but I recommend just running Warp 4 with all the fixpak updates. I actually prefer the look and feel of the WPS' industrial look than that stoopid cartoony XP layout. I'm sorry to see it go, but I still wear my OS/2 shirts with pride.
-- After all is said and done, more is said than done.
While the Mac version of Virtual PC obviously has to emulate the CPU, that isn't necessarily the case with the native Windows and OS/2 x86 versions of that software.
Not all CPU emulation in software is too slow to be useful, BTW. For a good example of that, see Executor here:
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Is that for real? I'd like one for the geek factor, (in all practicality, an emulator is a better choice) but wonder about some of the specs.
3.5" floppy drive connector with 1581 emulation (using PC drive) with 64k RAM
I'd heard many times in the emu community that reading 1541 (5.25) or 1581 (3.5) disks with a PC drive is physically impossible, and that running a real 1581/41 over a serial port is impractical because of the precise timings of the system (the good old blinking drive led)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I hate to tell you people, but OS/2 isn't just for people with old slow computers, I am running a lan server with it for my home network of about 10 computers an xbox, ps2 and gamecube all with network adapters and my personal non-game machine runs it as well. I never bothered with eComstation because I own a copy of Warp Server for e-Buisness and have the latest fixpack level which is the same as eComstation. The machine is a AMD Athlon XP 2800+ on an Asus motherboard, onboard gigabit lan, via ac97 sound and all works, though the drivers don't come with the OS.. however i've gotten used to looking online for working drivers through my experiences with WinXP. Have a dvd player that works on par with windows and linux, divx, mpeg, mp3, wma, wmv all that I need, including folders which categorize the files by their types and codecs required, through the work of third party's we've even got the ability to play flac, mp3, and ogg files by just point and clicking (no stupid visual players required if not desired) sure there are places where things come up lacking, but the beauty of the OS is that you can fix things that you don't like, or replace them.. with little or no trouble.
:). It shows it's age.. but to me that isn't a bad thing. I don't like change, I don't like worrying if a feature I use all the time will even exist 3 months from now.
:) I am always laughing at my girlfriend everytime her winxp machine makes coasters out of a stack of cd's.. and having folder classes for cd creation is a great thing too. I mean, for a dead OS there sure are alot of third party addons which make things alot more useful, if you're going to make a review of an OS, atleast try out some of the addons and see what they do.. it can only improve your experience and others, and if they are freeware there is absolutely nothing to lose.
Admittedly it isn't a laymans OS.. but then again neither is Linux or many of the alternative OS's. There is nothing overly compicated about setting up OS/2 on modern hardware if you know enough about comptuers to even configure your bios to boot a cd
And I know you linux ppl will agree CDRecord is about the best thing ever made
Yes, the single-user nature of OS/2 (because it is a fairly direct descendent of xx-DOS, not a POSIX or UNIX derivative) is arguably an architectural disadvantage.
The idea of a superuser is very nice, even on a single-user workstation (it prevents one from putting bullets in one's own feet!), and the open source nature of Linux and the BSD family is an extremely strong argument (IMO) in their favor.
My point was that OS/2's API compatibility with DOS and Windows programs, by itself, in no way compromises the integrity or stability of the overall system, and that the OS/2 approach to that problem is a considerably more robust approach than the Win9x approach.
(While Microsoft advocates made the claim for years that instability was the unavoidable price one had to pay for backwards compatibility, I think OS/2's real-world performance clearly shows that their claim was simply not true, and that Microsoft simply chose the "easy way out" rather than actually solving the problem the way that IBM did).
Also, I'm still under the impression (based more on anecdotal evidence than on any sort of real benchmark, unfortunately) that OS/2's optimized x86 kernel still has a number of performance advantages over Linux and BSD kernels, at least in some situations.
Keep in mind that software written for OS/2 tends to be *heavily* multithreaded, and the OS/2 kernel also seems to be relatively good at dynamically altering process priority as needed, making for a "smoother" user experience in some ways, at least when a low-resource machine is under load.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I'm not really in a position to disagree with you in an OS/2 technical context, so I won't.
:-)
(Not many people are, frankly).
However, a WorkPlace Shell quasi-workalike without the resource leakage issues and with a more robust method for handling desktop startup/shutdown issues might be an interesting project.
I just want the functionality, man...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I like being able to still use the copies of ABC Flowcharter, Quicken 3, and A&L Draw that I picked up several years ago for a song.
:-)
Some people are into riding the forced upgrade train, and some aren't...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
DOSEMU isn't quite the same approach. OS/2 could run a real DOS kernel via a Virtual Machine Boot, but a typical VDM used an emulated DOS interface, not a real one.
It would probably take a certain level of cooperation from the kernel folks, though, at least if one wanted low-level access to stuff like sound hardware.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
...but not anymore. Doom Legacy runs great in a VDM, as do Quake, C&C, WarCraft II, Descent, etc.
:-)
Even older CGA games like Sopwith or Elite.
Emulators like DVE, MAME, Retrocade, and Appler work as well, and I tend to play older 68k Mac games under Executor/DOS quite a bit under OS/2
(I like classic Mac Risk, Cyclone, and Glypha II).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
> However, a WorkPlace Shell quasi-workalike without the resource leakage issues and with
> a more robust method for handling desktop startup/shutdown issues might be an
> interesting project.
What are the things missing in KDE that you miss? Not that I'm about to rectify them, but I'm just learning Linux this month, having put it off after being burned using the "alternative" OS for so long.
Frankly, my original motivations for creating Object Desktop were to rectify massive shortcomings in the WPS, and because of that, I could only be likewise motivated again if 1) I was *really* enamored with an OS again and 2) that OS had massive UI shortcomings.
That being said, what in KDE and/or Gnome are "missing" WRT Object Desktop combined with the Workplace Shell?
Drivers for OS/2 is still and currently being updated by IBM (even now they are updated the drivers for USB and for printers and other devices used with/for/on OS/2 and eCS).
OS/2 is not dead. IBM still supports it and updates the drivers for it on a regular basis. It is only throuhg misinformation from a certain company that it is declared dead.
KDE is the best thing I've seen under Linux (since my beloved AfterStep, anyway), and it's coming close, but the latest version of Linux that I've looked at is Mandrake 8.2.
That uses KDE 2.2, I think, which is hardly a current version.
Personally, I really like template objects, and I also like the colored tabs that OS/2 uses.
I also like the fact that the WPS shows me visually when a program is running (the icon and associated shadows are given a crosshatched background), and I much prefer the rubber-band visual aid when creating a shadow to anything else I've seen for that action.
To be fair, though, I should install and play with a current version of KDE before making any serious comparative comments. Those are just a few things off the top of my head...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
With ODIN from Netlabs (http://odin.netlabs.org - IIRC on the URL), one can use more modern Win programs with OS/2-eCS. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/odinusers
There are Win-clones at http://www.sourceforge.net (open source projects to clone Win).
REXX is supported by more than just OS/2. Check out http://www.rexxla.org where they have links and support for more than just OS/2.
Templates were cool, but I never really used them. In fact, I never really used the Workplace Shell. I only programmed for the shell. It was a shame, I tell you.
It was weird, as in W-E-I-R-D, thinking about it now. I had the baddest O-O program on the planet, and I had to use a command line. Why? Because in order to "debug" or compile/edit/test, I had to constantly tear down my shell in order to allow my WPS dlls to be copied over the ones the shell was using. So, I had written all this test harness code which would launch PMSHELL, allow me to use it for a little while, make some changes to my code, stage them for use in the SHELL, and then *bam*! bust a move and tear the whole shootin' match apart and start over.
It wasn't pretty. And that was not even using a source-level debugger! Which was a total PITA to use because of the *gasp* SIQ (since the C++ debugger was a PM program....IPMD....it couldn't reliably debug without hanging the shell, which 4 out of 5 times would hang OS/2). Because IBM wouldn't fix the stooopidest of limitations in OS/2: namely, one could not *attach* a debugger to a running process. The process had to be running by the debugger in order to debug it. Gee....let's see, Unix could do this 20 years ago. Windows did it early '90s, but IBM's advanced OS/2? Nope. The result? I'll get to that below.
Reboot city, man.
The biggest PITA was the freaking skinning stuff I wrote for the OS/2 Task Manager. Woohoo! That *always* required a reboot between compile/edit/test.
You know what the IBMers used to debug WPS code? The OS/2 kernel debugger. So, they were supposedly writing high-level OO code, right? Beautiful OO code generating pretty OO UIs, and they were debugging in assembler.
No thanks.
Something tells me that the KDE and Gnome guys have it better, I tell you, and the result? Better code, more reliability, and better ability to turn on a dime and write code that does things like templates, and drag with that mouse line you like.
It might be really neat to talk about what OS/2 and eCS could do 8 years ago, but you eiher are uninformed, (Linux?) zealots (with nice attitudes about it - of which oddly a large amount though run Windows - been posts on /. about it from /.'s own weblogs) or just very confused. If the rest of the /. community were better informed, than instead of sounding knowledgable, you'd sound pretty damn stupid. Of course, you just probably hadnt kept up on the subect you decided to discuss and were also just misinformed by the mindless, misguided media attention or inattention OS/2 and eCS have had over the last few years...
Big to point out how OS/2 was great 8 years ago, but this is now and it's a shame it doesnt have anything that makes it technically viable now. So... first, let's talk about what OS/2 could do years ago (that in some cases Linux and most cases Windows wishes it could). How about SMP with 64 CPUs? How long did it take Linux to achieve that (with IBM's susbstantial help in that area and STILL OS/2's and eCS's threading model is second to absolutely none in the PC world) - and still no one in their right mind would run more than a few CPUs (a "few" for me, having run or running numerous PC OS's, is 16-24) on Linux in any production environment - and dont "beowolf cluster" me either - in 1996 IBM trained me on their OS/2 clustering technology, which the whole world - even many OS/2 users seem to forget exists - so again, been there, done that far better with more CPUs per node - a long time ago). What about video support? SciTech Snap Graphics is just available (or soon to be) for Linux, OS/2 has had it for years - and pretty decent video driver support before that (better than Linux). How about printers? Wanna hit sound after that? System hardware? How about you go check the OS/2 Device Driver Repository and then come back - and then you check out OS2World, the OS2 USB Site and NetLabs (and numerous other places) where you'll find eCS and OS/2 user contributions in the driver arena that mean OS/2 has better driver support for more hardware than Linux. Once you are finished on IBM's site alone though, you should realize that. The IBM OS/2 DD Repository alone gets updated every couple of months or better. How about running DOS and Win16 and some Win32 Apps? Yeah it too could do that years ago too. How about connecting to virtually any network technology/topology there is? Again - years ago. What about being able to support frame relay, ATM and FDDI connections and handle the DS1/DS3/125Mbit/OC3 bandwidths carried on them (that to this day I bet most of us dreamt we had) - now keep in mind, that was on a Pentium level computer. How many Linux boxes does it take to support data serving on an OC3 - much less years ago?
So, that was years ago. We now all know that years ago, OS/2 (and thus eCS) were capable of things that Linux and many other OS's still only dream of doing or are just getting to (and in many cases because they need the higher end hardware just to keep up - keep in mind what that means OS/2 and eCS can do on that newer higher end hardware).
As for today, eCS and OS/2 still have that driver support that exceeds Linux, fully working, designed into the SMP model 64CPU per node support (and clustering if you know where it's hidden), and the ability to play virtually any multimedia file there is, the ability to run almost every Win32 app either via Odin/Wine or VPC or Win32s, the ability to run almost every Linux app wither via VPC, X11, native gcc, native emx, EverBlue or numerous other methods. Also has support to run on the newest hardware - including taking advantage of Intel's new HyperThreading engine in their CPUs, and supporting AMD M series processors in SMP setups. And a far easier installer as well.
Oh, and let's not forget the Workplace Shell... seems kinda
If you bothered to check, you might fin how much recent stuff is actually suported at the driver level.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.