From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Thoughts during my forced OS/2 sabbatical
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:10:21 GMT

In article <CB.92Oct12135737@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk
(Chris Brewster) writes:

                                          For example, PC Shell allows me
   to view files of all kinds without needing to open the programs that use
   those file types.

Some people might think it unwise to include specific support for a
handful of application data file formats in an operating system.
There are several reasons for this:

        a)  It duplicates code from a third-party application, so the
            code to read this format is included twice on your hard
            drive if you happen to use the software, and the code
            in the operating system wastes space if you don't

        b)  Any new version of the third-party application is
            likely to alter the format, requiring an operating system
            upgrade.  If you supported five formats, and they eached
            released new versions every two years, you'd be talking
            about a lot of upgrades.

        c)  It is typically difficult to obtain actual source code from
            third-party application writers, so the operating system
            designers must write code from scratch according to a
            specification of the data file, which can be inaccurate or
            incomplete.

	d)  The purpose of the operating system is to provide a
            generalized structure for the launching and operation of
            third-party programs, not to replace them.  I can think of
            no operating system that provides specific support for
            viewing Lotus 1-2-3 files, for example.

If you want the file viewing functionality of PC Shell, why aren't you
running it in a DOS session?  With OS/2, you can keep it onscreen with
your applications: surely this is a step up from hotkeying to PC Shell
every five minutes under vanilla DOS!

                      It allows me to list many more files on screen at
   once than either of OS/2's listing styles (icon and details).

Try selecting the flowed icon view with the "no icon" or "small icon"
check box on in the "Icon View" settings.  This will give you plenty
of file names.

                                                                  It
   arranges these names in the most efficient way within the available
   space, rather than OS/2's way of arranging the icons without taking
   account of the shape and size of the window that contains the directory.

Hmm?  Have you tried using OS/2's "flowed" icon view?  This arranges
icons in rows spanning the full width of the window.  Alternatively,
select "Arrange" from the window menu, and your icons will be placed so
as to efficiently fill the window.

If you still can't get enough files on the screen, drag a smaller font
from the font palette to the file names.  This will space icons closer
together, if the filenames are long, and it should work on the details
view, too, though I can't verify this right now.

   The activity of moving around directories, seeing listings, and looking
   at files is part of the everyday use of an OS.  I think OS/2 should make
   this at least as easy as it is with standard DOS utilities.

Yes, OS/2 should make it easy to move around directories and see
listings.  In my opinion it does.  On the other hand, it should not
provide support for your favorite file formats.  An operating system
should be "non-partisan", unless you're talking about Microsoft (flame
bait, flame bait!).  Use third-party applications to look at
third-party files.

Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>