...two transaction processing enviroments that run on Unisys 2200-series and Clearpath IX mainframes are currently used heavily at certain airlines.
Programs are small and fast. One enters a tran code, and a program runs which generates a response screen (which could be a data display or a fill-in format that the user has to fill in).
One secret to the high level of efficiency in this type of environment: the use of intelligent, syncronous terminals. The Unisys mainframes use a terminal type normally referred to as "UTS" or "Uniscope", and a UTS terminal processes all basic text editing (character and line insertion/deletion, cursor movement, etc.) locally with no need to communicate with the host. When a user is done editing the screen, a "Transmit" key is pressed which sends some or all of the screen back to the host for processing.
UTS terminals are smart enough to handle things like file justification and alpha/numeric data type enforcement on the terminal through the use of special terminal fields and attributes, offloading even more processing from the host.
That, combined with very fast databases, makes for a very fast interactive application environment...
That's what we were doing at the airline I worked for. The mainframe had the production data stored in small, fast, and proprietary file formats, but the same data streams were also archived on a Sun box at the same time.
That way, folks who wanted to use the data outside of a mainframe context could run queries against the external data store using industry standard tools, and can also do so without impacting the real production database (which needs to maintain quick response times in order to be effective in the production transaction environment).
Microsoft ignored the existing practice in TWO existing PC-based GUIs when it decided to continue to use the left mouse button for drag-and-drop operations.
Almost everything that Microsoft implemented in the Windows 9x shell was copied either from the MacOS or from OS/2's WorkPlace Shell.
Win95's interface wasn't bad. Too bad it was only a subset of UI's existing on other platforms, and that Microsoft didn't live up to their promises regarding the supposedly advanced architecture that was living underneath Chicago's new shell.
...so I suspect a beginner will find it tough going as well.
(I know almost a dozen good programmers with 10 or more years of experience who have been looking for work for six months or more, some of them for well over a year).
If you really want to do it, go for it. It's a lot better to work in the computer field because you actually love doing it than because you're simply in it for the money.
Keep in mind, though, that right now things in the technology world are about as tight as I've seen them in my 15-year career, at least as far as the job market goes. I've been looking for work (again) for seven months myself.
...and it usually tops out between $350 and $500/week depending on various factors. The formula is designed so UI benefits are roughly half of your qualifying income (i.e., have of what you were making), but the ceilings are such that even someone like me who was making $32/hour as a consultant only received $350/week before taxes.
That doesn't come CLOSE to paying my bills.
Not only that, but after that initial 26 weeks, there *is* no further unemployment income (thanks to our Congress who decided to drop the Federal Extension that existed for the past few ears), so even someone who was willing to spend that initial period of time trying to create a startup instead of actively looking for work is going to find the bottom falling out of his income very quickly.
It's pretty damned hard to live on an income of zero! And it's a lot harder to start a business in those conditions...
I know of a lot more Windows 95 OSR2 installations (both home and corporate) than I do Windows 95 installations. Both have FAT32 support, so the one compelling reason to upgrade wasn't there in 1998, and yet the upgrade costs for OSR2 have been significantly higher than for 98, making it harder for people to justify the cost of a full replacement copy (unlike Windows 98 users, Windows 95 OSR2 users haven't been eligible for the various "upgrade" versions of Microsoft's OSes over the years).
I've got five OSR2 installations myself at home, and for me to upgrade would cost over $1000!!
I'd love to upgrade my PPro boxes to XP, but I've been priced out of the market...
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...
...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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
> 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.
* 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.
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...
Slashdot Mirror
...two transaction processing enviroments that run on Unisys 2200-series and Clearpath IX mainframes are currently used heavily at certain airlines.
Programs are small and fast. One enters a tran code, and a program runs which generates a response screen (which could be a data display or a fill-in format that the user has to fill in).
One secret to the high level of efficiency in this type of environment: the use of intelligent, syncronous terminals. The Unisys mainframes use a terminal type normally referred to as "UTS" or "Uniscope", and a UTS terminal processes all basic text editing (character and line insertion/deletion, cursor movement, etc.) locally with no need to communicate with the host. When a user is done editing the screen, a "Transmit" key is pressed which sends some or all of the screen back to the host for processing.
UTS terminals are smart enough to handle things like file justification and alpha/numeric data type enforcement on the terminal through the use of special terminal fields and attributes, offloading even more processing from the host.
That, combined with very fast databases, makes for a very fast interactive application environment...
That's what we were doing at the airline I worked for. The mainframe had the production data stored in small, fast, and proprietary file formats, but the same data streams were also archived on a Sun box at the same time.
That way, folks who wanted to use the data outside of a mainframe context could run queries against the external data store using industry standard tools, and can also do so without impacting the real production database (which needs to maintain quick response times in order to be effective in the production transaction environment).
...and there were a number of Fortran dialects which predated F66.
Microsoft ignored the existing practice in TWO existing PC-based GUIs when it decided to continue to use the left mouse button for drag-and-drop operations.
Almost everything that Microsoft implemented in the Windows 9x shell was copied either from the MacOS or from OS/2's WorkPlace Shell.
Win95's interface wasn't bad. Too bad it was only a subset of UI's existing on other platforms, and that Microsoft didn't live up to their promises regarding the supposedly advanced architecture that was living underneath Chicago's new shell.
...so I suspect a beginner will find it tough going as well.
(I know almost a dozen good programmers with 10 or more years of experience who have been looking for work for six months or more, some of them for well over a year).
If you really want to do it, go for it. It's a lot better to work in the computer field because you actually love doing it than because you're simply in it for the money.
Keep in mind, though, that right now things in the technology world are about as tight as I've seen them in my 15-year career, at least as far as the job market goes. I've been looking for work (again) for seven months myself.
And because I only had a little over 13 years of experience in an extremely senior group.
The decision was made by HR based on tenure.
I hope you never have to go through what 30% of the IT department I worked for went through...
...and it usually tops out between $350 and $500/week depending on various factors. The formula is designed so UI benefits are roughly half of your qualifying income (i.e., have of what you were making), but the ceilings are such that even someone like me who was making $32/hour as a consultant only received $350/week before taxes.
That doesn't come CLOSE to paying my bills.
Not only that, but after that initial 26 weeks, there *is* no further unemployment income (thanks to our Congress who decided to drop the Federal Extension that existed for the past few ears), so even someone who was willing to spend that initial period of time trying to create a startup instead of actively looking for work is going to find the bottom falling out of his income very quickly.
It's pretty damned hard to live on an income of zero! And it's a lot harder to start a business in those conditions...
I know of a lot more Windows 95 OSR2 installations (both home and corporate) than I do Windows 95 installations. Both have FAT32 support, so the one compelling reason to upgrade wasn't there in 1998, and yet the upgrade costs for OSR2 have been significantly higher than for 98, making it harder for people to justify the cost of a full replacement copy (unlike Windows 98 users, Windows 95 OSR2 users haven't been eligible for the various "upgrade" versions of Microsoft's OSes over the years).
I've got five OSR2 installations myself at home, and for me to upgrade would cost over $1000!!
I'd love to upgrade my PPro boxes to XP, but I've been priced out of the market...
www.worldrps.com
Need I say more?
Newer versions of OS/2 (Warp 4 and eCS) can support both Windows filesharing (CIFS) and NFS.
...and it was part of the standard desktop package.
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...
...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).
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.
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...
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...
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.
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:
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...
I wish there was a Linux port...
> 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.
* 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...
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...
...but development was discontinued, much to the chagrine of most of those participating in (or watching) the beta test.