ACARS messages tend to be relatively small and tend to be somewhat expensive to send (charges are usually on a per message basis), so while ACARS is often used for things like WX alerts and NOTAMs, interrogating engine parameters, takeoff and performance numbers, etc., a continuous stream of ACARS data from an aircraft is probably not something an airline would want.
Hard to say, though. The tech is very useful, and maybe it would be in this instance.
Cockpit crew conversation during critical operational windows is supposed to follow "sterile cockpit rules", and is restricted to topics pertaining to the operation of the flight.
Comments about flight attendants on approach or during takeoff might be grounds for disciplinary action.
Nice features like this come at a cost. Google is a nice web site when using my web tablet, but I guess I'll have to turn Javascript off when using it in the future.
Just embed a SELECT command in an alias, and you can point-and-shoot almost anything. I used to do that all the time under 4DOS and 4OS2, and it's one of the things I wish the bash folks would implement. I think zsh has something kinda sorta similar...?
There were a number of shareware filemanagers were arguably better, anyway. ElfTree, StereoShell, DN, PC Valet, and lots and lots of others. It was fascinating to me to see so many different (but still quality) approaches to the problem of effective file management under DOS.
Of course, the GeoManager under Geoworks Emsemble 2.x and 3.x (and later Breadbox Ensemble) is probably my favorite, and it even uses the right mouse button effectively. Smart people, those folks at Berkeley Softworks...
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Yup, this eventually became true, but you perhaps forget that some of us were running OS/2 when the ONLY viable alternative on x86 hardware was Windows 3.x, perhaps with WinTools or Norton Desktop installed for those of us geeky enough to want to use a different desktop and filemanager.
Some folks did use things like DesqView/X or PC/GEOS, but I don't think either had much market share.
Linux in 1992-1993 was mainly diskette distros like SLS (SoftLanding Software) or Yggdrasil (or via mail order on a Colorado JUMBO 120 tape!), and I never could get X to work with my Diamond Stealth VRAM card. Thank goodness the SpeedStar 64 I replaced it with was a largely unmodified CL5343 card. OS/2 liked that one.:-)
For me, Linux wasn't useful until Slack first came out, and I admit I was slow. It wasn't until 3.1 that I took a serious look at it, but then again I was happy with my Win_WinTools, PC/GEOS, and OS/2 setup.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
I'm not in the Minneapolis area anymore. Need to update my web site... it's six years out of date. A lot of code and new languages have flowed under the bridge since then.;-)
Re:Many OS's were better and died or got very vew
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
16-bit OS/2 software (both PM [GUI] and VIO [text mode]) ran just fine on OS/2 2.x and later (and IBM was absolutely ANAL about keeping backwards compatibility intact), so you must have been referring to something which happened midstream during OS/2 1.x's development? The 32-bit versions after 1992 were all written in the US.
Of course, I can't speak for any in-house software that you folks developed. All I know is that I ran a LOT of older utilities in the OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 days before better alternatives came along. It's possible some failed... my software selection process filtered them out, so my memory could also be selective.:-)
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
With all due respect, Windows 95 did not exist when IBM made that claim in the 1992-1993 timeframe.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Older DOS extenders that used stuff like VCPI didn't work. New ones using EMS, XMS, or DPMI did for the most part. DOS4GW was largely a nonissue.
Doom had an issue with the sound code they contracted out near the end of the development cycle (early betas of the game worked fine, as do subsequent rewrites based on the source like Doom Legacy), and programs like C&C had issues with the CD detection code, but the former situation wasn't all that that common, and the latter was more common.
People forget that most of those also failed to run under Windows 95 unless you ran them in a dedicated DOS session. You could do the same thing with OS/2 via Dual Boot to DOS or simply booting to a separate partition, but most folks were willing to complain about it not working than actually trying to solve the issue. That isn't OS/2's fault, that's partisanship and/or laziness.
By "Win1," I suspect you mean Windows 3.x. the 16-bit programs almost all ran (and they should... WinOS2 was a copy of Windows 3.1 that was recompiled from the original source and re-engineered as a DPMI client. There were very few programs outside of system utilities, and that didn't use the Win32S 32-bit extention-of-the-month-club DLL, that wouldn't run.
Win32S was the thorn in OS/2's side until maybe 1996 or so when real 32-bit software became much more common, and Odin never really was able to run more than just a few 32-bit programs (IrfanView for 32-bit Windows ran fine, and some older things like RealPlayer, but I never did get much more to work).
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
No, I couldn't imagine Scott McNealy or Larry Ellison caving in like that, but neither Sun nor Oracle were the multi-headed Hydra that was (and is) IBM.
I loved IBM's EWS (Employee Written Software) program. Some good stuff there, most long since forgotten. I remember a good virtual desktop utility (not as nist as 9Lives, tho), and I know I used a few dozen EWS programs off and on.
Put several programs and docs in a folder. Mark the folder as a Workgroup Folder by checking the little box.
From then on, every time you opened that folder, all of the programs and documents inside of that folder would start running and/or open up in their previous position. All at the same time. One double-click.
Close the folder, and all of them would fold themselves up and put themselves away. One double-click.
Instant workspaces.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Later on, after IBM decided they were effectively dropping the platform, they jacked the prices way up, but the initial pricing was extremely competitive. in 1992, OS/2 2.0 was a US$49 "upgrade" for all Windows users, and a $99 upgrade for all DOS users regardless of DOS flavor.
That's how I got into the fold... I was running Windows 3.0 at the time, so $49... no problem!:-) I had to become intimately familiar with my floppy drive in order to install the dern thing (it was 20 or 25 floppies, I think), and I remember posting on RIME Software Reviews to that effect, but the end result was really cool... even though the OS/2 2.0 WorkPlace Shell was relatively ugly compared to later incarnations, the magical DOS-juggling MVDM subsystem was all there in its full glory. Running DOS software was never the same again... I didn't have to use TSRs like Invisible Link anymore or Telemate to transfer files "in the background" (and Windows was really awful with 9600bps modems or faster).
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's actions regarding OS/2 1.x *did* do some serious harm. For example, the super expensive SDK for OS/2 1.x was a very sore point for some developers even a decade after that episode happened, and some of them refused to consider OS/2 2.x and later even though it was almost completely rewritten by IBM at that point and MS was out of the picture.
OS/2 *was* everything that Windows became in most technical respects. It lacked the mainstream application and much of the mainstream driver support that Windows enjoyed, and as Win95 because more popular the WinOS2 subsystem just wasn't enough, but in purely technical grounds it was a very successful platform.
People forget that some of us were running software like Visio 4 Pro, Photoshop 3.04, and QUicken for Windows on a Warp desktop. All mainstream programs, and all very well supported until OS/2... until (at least in Photoshop's case) a WinOS2 update broke PS 3.05.
Re:try running Windows 95 on modern hardware...
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Windows 95 (or Win2k, for that matter) are both pretty fax on a 200MHz PPro. I still have a few of those lying around, and at times they're more responsive than my XP desktop.
XTree for DOS was a completely different interface than Norton Commander. If you're used Midnight Commander, you are essentially seeing NC for DOS on steroids.:-)
XTree was quite different... I used a Linux version called utree back when I first got into Linux in the pre-1.0 kernel days (SLS 0.99), but there don't seem to be as many XTree clones. ZTree Bold is a good one for Windows and OS/2, while Midnight Commander and Far exist for Windows.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
IBM was a multiheaded monster at the time. IBM PSP (Person Software Products) was completely on board, at least as far as I could see from the outside, but IBM PCCO (the PC Company) was not. Different divisions, and somewhat different goals.
IBM PCCO wanted to move hardware as its primary goal, and Windows was not seen as a competitor by many in that division. It was a sales lubricant. Preloading Windows on PCs resulted in hardware sales. Another case of most customers preferring the defacto standard operating system they knew to one which was outside of their experience.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Windows 95's desktop is almost a point-for-point clone of OS/2's WorkPlace Shell, and it has very little to do with the MacOS or MultiFinder. No top menu. Similar right mouse button operations to OS/2 (and this after Microsoft enthusiasts totally trashed OS/2 for using the right mouse button in the WPS for years). Windows followed the OS/2 pattern much more closely (they should... Windows and OS/2 were once closely related). Restart/shutdown existed in OS/2 for years previous. Etc.
Just use the two. The WorkPlace Shell and MultiFinder both predate Win95 by some years, but it's the WPS which is much closer in basic operation, layout, ceonventions, decorations, and other respects to Windows 95. Not the Mac.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you followed the Microsoft anti-trust trial, you would know that at least part of the reason for this was the fact that Microsoft denied IBM a Windows 95 license until the very last minute because IBM wanted to load OS/2 on some of its boxes. At that point in time, Windows had a very strong presence in the market, and MS was able to apply a lot of pressure to PC makers... even IBM.
FWIW, OS/2 1.x was a Microsoft-branded product for most of its life, and was somewhat crippled with the dated desktop and DOS "penalty box". Besides, IBM's push of OS/2 didn't start until the version 2.0 release in the spring of 1992.
I think you're addressing a niche product and not the OS/2 that made serious inroads into Microsoft's marketshare and mindshare for the better part of four years.
Slashdot Mirror
ACARS messages tend to be relatively small and tend to be somewhat expensive to send (charges are usually on a per message basis), so while ACARS is often used for things like WX alerts and NOTAMs, interrogating engine parameters, takeoff and performance numbers, etc., a continuous stream of ACARS data from an aircraft is probably not something an airline would want.
Hard to say, though. The tech is very useful, and maybe it would be in this instance.
Cockpit crew conversation during critical operational windows is supposed to follow "sterile cockpit rules", and is restricted to topics pertaining to the operation of the flight.
Comments about flight attendants on approach or during takeoff might be grounds for disciplinary action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule
Note: I am not a pilot, but I've seen one! :-)
Passengers are represented by unions?
Jesus saves, but Gretsky scores on the rebound?
Nice features like this come at a cost. Google is a nice web site when using my web tablet, but I guess I'll have to turn Javascript off when using it in the future.
Feature-itis strikes a once-elegant interface. :-(
Yeah, but CGA... Come on. :-D
Some OS/2 Warp 3 upgrade CDs were copy protected if I remember...
Just embed a SELECT command in an alias, and you can point-and-shoot almost anything. I used to do that all the time under 4DOS and 4OS2, and it's one of the things I wish the bash folks would implement. I think zsh has something kinda sorta similar...?
I use a mix of Far and Midnight Commander on my Windows desktops.
There were a number of shareware filemanagers were arguably better, anyway. ElfTree, StereoShell, DN, PC Valet, and lots and lots of others. It was fascinating to me to see so many different (but still quality) approaches to the problem of effective file management under DOS.
Of course, the GeoManager under Geoworks Emsemble 2.x and 3.x (and later Breadbox Ensemble) is probably my favorite, and it even uses the right mouse button effectively. Smart people, those folks at Berkeley Softworks...
Yup, this eventually became true, but you perhaps forget that some of us were running OS/2 when the ONLY viable alternative on x86 hardware was Windows 3.x, perhaps with WinTools or Norton Desktop installed for those of us geeky enough to want to use a different desktop and filemanager.
Some folks did use things like DesqView/X or PC/GEOS, but I don't think either had much market share.
Linux in 1992-1993 was mainly diskette distros like SLS (SoftLanding Software) or Yggdrasil (or via mail order on a Colorado JUMBO 120 tape!), and I never could get X to work with my Diamond Stealth VRAM card. Thank goodness the SpeedStar 64 I replaced it with was a largely unmodified CL5343 card. OS/2 liked that one. :-)
For me, Linux wasn't useful until Slack first came out, and I admit I was slow. It wasn't until 3.1 that I took a serious look at it, but then again I was happy with my Win_WinTools, PC/GEOS, and OS/2 setup.
I'm not in the Minneapolis area anymore. Need to update my web site ... it's six years out of date. A lot of code and new languages have flowed under the bridge since then. ;-)
16-bit OS/2 software (both PM [GUI] and VIO [text mode]) ran just fine on OS/2 2.x and later (and IBM was absolutely ANAL about keeping backwards compatibility intact), so you must have been referring to something which happened midstream during OS/2 1.x's development? The 32-bit versions after 1992 were all written in the US.
Of course, I can't speak for any in-house software that you folks developed. All I know is that I ran a LOT of older utilities in the OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 days before better alternatives came along. It's possible some failed ... my software selection process filtered them out, so my memory could also be selective. :-)
With all due respect, Windows 95 did not exist when IBM made that claim in the 1992-1993 timeframe.
Older DOS extenders that used stuff like VCPI didn't work. New ones using EMS, XMS, or DPMI did for the most part. DOS4GW was largely a nonissue.
Doom had an issue with the sound code they contracted out near the end of the development cycle (early betas of the game worked fine, as do subsequent rewrites based on the source like Doom Legacy), and programs like C&C had issues with the CD detection code, but the former situation wasn't all that that common, and the latter was more common.
People forget that most of those also failed to run under Windows 95 unless you ran them in a dedicated DOS session. You could do the same thing with OS/2 via Dual Boot to DOS or simply booting to a separate partition, but most folks were willing to complain about it not working than actually trying to solve the issue. That isn't OS/2's fault, that's partisanship and/or laziness.
By "Win1," I suspect you mean Windows 3.x. the 16-bit programs almost all ran (and they should ... WinOS2 was a copy of Windows 3.1 that was recompiled from the original source and re-engineered as a DPMI client. There were very few programs outside of system utilities, and that didn't use the Win32S 32-bit extention-of-the-month-club DLL, that wouldn't run.
Win32S was the thorn in OS/2's side until maybe 1996 or so when real 32-bit software became much more common, and Odin never really was able to run more than just a few 32-bit programs (IrfanView for 32-bit Windows ran fine, and some older things like RealPlayer, but I never did get much more to work).
No, I couldn't imagine Scott McNealy or Larry Ellison caving in like that, but neither Sun nor Oracle were the multi-headed Hydra that was (and is) IBM.
I loved IBM's EWS (Employee Written Software) program. Some good stuff there, most long since forgotten. I remember a good virtual desktop utility (not as nist as 9Lives, tho), and I know I used a few dozen EWS programs off and on.
Put several programs and docs in a folder. Mark the folder as a Workgroup Folder by checking the little box.
From then on, every time you opened that folder, all of the programs and documents inside of that folder would start running and/or open up in their previous position. All at the same time. One double-click.
Close the folder, and all of them would fold themselves up and put themselves away. One double-click.
Instant workspaces.
Later on, after IBM decided they were effectively dropping the platform, they jacked the prices way up, but the initial pricing was extremely competitive. in 1992, OS/2 2.0 was a US$49 "upgrade" for all Windows users, and a $99 upgrade for all DOS users regardless of DOS flavor.
That's how I got into the fold ... I was running Windows 3.0 at the time, so $49 ... no problem! :-) I had to become intimately familiar with my floppy drive in order to install the dern thing (it was 20 or 25 floppies, I think), and I remember posting on RIME Software Reviews to that effect, but the end result was really cool ... even though the OS/2 2.0 WorkPlace Shell was relatively ugly compared to later incarnations, the magical DOS-juggling MVDM subsystem was all there in its full glory. Running DOS software was never the same again ... I didn't have to use TSRs like Invisible Link anymore or Telemate to transfer files "in the background" (and Windows was really awful with 9600bps modems or faster).
Microsoft's actions regarding OS/2 1.x *did* do some serious harm. For example, the super expensive SDK for OS/2 1.x was a very sore point for some developers even a decade after that episode happened, and some of them refused to consider OS/2 2.x and later even though it was almost completely rewritten by IBM at that point and MS was out of the picture.
OS/2 *was* everything that Windows became in most technical respects. It lacked the mainstream application and much of the mainstream driver support that Windows enjoyed, and as Win95 because more popular the WinOS2 subsystem just wasn't enough, but in purely technical grounds it was a very successful platform.
People forget that some of us were running software like Visio 4 Pro, Photoshop 3.04, and QUicken for Windows on a Warp desktop. All mainstream programs, and all very well supported until OS/2 ... until (at least in Photoshop's case) a WinOS2 update broke PS 3.05.
Windows 95 (or Win2k, for that matter) are both pretty fax on a 200MHz PPro. I still have a few of those lying around, and at times they're more responsive than my XP desktop.
File Manager was waaaay better than the old MS Executive in Windows 2.1. :-)
XTree for DOS was a completely different interface than Norton Commander. If you're used Midnight Commander, you are essentially seeing NC for DOS on steroids. :-)
XTree was quite different ... I used a Linux version called utree back when I first got into Linux in the pre-1.0 kernel days (SLS 0.99), but there don't seem to be as many XTree clones. ZTree Bold is a good one for Windows and OS/2, while Midnight Commander and Far exist for Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XTree
IBM was a multiheaded monster at the time. IBM PSP (Person Software Products) was completely on board, at least as far as I could see from the outside, but IBM PCCO (the PC Company) was not. Different divisions, and somewhat different goals.
IBM PCCO wanted to move hardware as its primary goal, and Windows was not seen as a competitor by many in that division. It was a sales lubricant. Preloading Windows on PCs resulted in hardware sales. Another case of most customers preferring the defacto standard operating system they knew to one which was outside of their experience.
Windows 95's desktop is almost a point-for-point clone of OS/2's WorkPlace Shell, and it has very little to do with the MacOS or MultiFinder. No top menu. Similar right mouse button operations to OS/2 (and this after Microsoft enthusiasts totally trashed OS/2 for using the right mouse button in the WPS for years). Windows followed the OS/2 pattern much more closely (they should ... Windows and OS/2 were once closely related). Restart/shutdown existed in OS/2 for years previous. Etc.
Just use the two. The WorkPlace Shell and MultiFinder both predate Win95 by some years, but it's the WPS which is much closer in basic operation, layout, ceonventions, decorations, and other respects to Windows 95. Not the Mac.
If you followed the Microsoft anti-trust trial, you would know that at least part of the reason for this was the fact that Microsoft denied IBM a Windows 95 license until the very last minute because IBM wanted to load OS/2 on some of its boxes. At that point in time, Windows had a very strong presence in the market, and MS was able to apply a lot of pressure to PC makers ... even IBM.
FWIW, OS/2 1.x was a Microsoft-branded product for most of its life, and was somewhat crippled with the dated desktop and DOS "penalty box". Besides, IBM's push of OS/2 didn't start until the version 2.0 release in the spring of 1992.
I think you're addressing a niche product and not the OS/2 that made serious inroads into Microsoft's marketshare and mindshare for the better part of four years.