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."
I loved OS/2 also, and yes, I even used Warp 4.0 for a while. (In all honesty, Warp 4.0 was the first really "mature" OS/2 release in many ways. It finally added such things as alternate fonts that looked better on laptops with LCD panels, colored tabs for menus, and an all-around more "polished" look and feel.)
I don't think it's quite fair to change your opinion that it was "a really great OS" based on trying it 8 years later and finding it lacking.
Show me *any* OS that doesn't get updated or supported with new drivers for 8 years and still offers a user-friendly and pleasing experience when it's installed on modern hardware!
If anything, I think it's a testament to the quality put into OS/2 that people do still run it (on older hardware) in production environments, and at least a few people cared enough about it to try to keep it alive (as e/Comstation).
Ultimately though, this product was dead as soon as IBM declared it so. They only half-heartedly tried to get 3rd. parties to support the thing, even in its heyday. (IBM was trying to walk a thin line between pushing OS/2 and kissing Microsoft's butt. They still sold a lot of IBM servers with Windows NT workstation or server pre-loaded on them, don't forget!) Most vendors were probably somewhat happy to hear of OS/2's demise. One less thing to have to keep developing drivers for.....
The same thing happened to BeOS. I still really, really want to use it, but don't because there is no future for it.
-twb
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.
This is useless to me without support for IPv6. I bet it has decent support for MCA adapters at least.
"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...