From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:16:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.221126.25215@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.014747.6553@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	holes that allow the machine to lock up--even post SP--at least
>>	twice a week (more if I'm programming) randomly.  If I refrain from
>>	using DOS or Windows programs, I have no problems.  
>>
>>	I like what they've done, but I would have settled for reduced 
>>	DOS and Win compatibility if OS/2 was bulletproof.  It's not, and
>>	that bugs me.  This is 1993.  There is no valid excuse for the
>>	lackluster crash protection we've got--and it really drives me
>>	up the wall that IBM *trademarked* "Crash Protection".. 
>
>Out of curiosity, have you turned off IOPL in your config.sys?  In theory, it


	Eh?  Not yet.  Darn, should have RTFM.  Oops!  There isn't one.
	<Joking--I have the redbooks, but I'm still wondering when we're
	going to see something better than "Inside OS/2"..>


>should prevent some of the lockups due to giving DOS programs I/O privileges.


	Hmm.  Thanks for the advice.  I'll give it a shot.


>I'm wondering if it works in practice, but I don't have enough crashes to make
>any meaningful data.  There is also the option to list specific program names
>after the IOPL= statement to give only those programs you've determined "well-
>behaved" I/O privileges, so it is a workable solution if it's a solution at
>all.


	What might the negatives be?  

>P.S. I prefer the compatibility with the option to restrict it, rather than
>not having the compatibility option at all.  Stupid trademark, though:).


	I'd rather have solid shades than adjustable slat blinds that allow 
	some light to sneak through.

	As for the OS/2 trademark, I *like* it.  I still don't know why 
	people so object to it.  Sure, it's a little noisy (and, god forbid
	they ever switch to just one OS/2-in-a-circle, vaguely reminiscent
	of Pepsi or AT&T..or GE..), and the "IBM" in the middle of some
	logos looks repulsive, but otherwise (i.e. the one you see when
	you boot OS/2 if you haven't gotten rid of it) it's a lot nicer
	than some. 
	
	I even have one of the medium stickers on a clipboard that I use.
	(Of course, it's net to my two Perot stickers and a bunch of
	anti-PETA quotes)..
	
	But "ugly" or "bad"?  I think not.  I shudder to think, given the
	utterly repulsive logo that IBM uses for itself, what _could_ 
	have been...

	Consider the godawful Central Point logo (if memory serves, a toolbox
	about to crush and mutilate a little man in plaid pants and a red
	jacket).  Or the Windows 3.1 logo (which, although a vast improvement
	on the "actually looks like a window" logo of years past,now looks
	like some kind of repulsive flag).  

	OTOH, the OS/2 boxes are exceedingly drab.  Drab is better than
	downright ugly (superstore 2x, _anything_ from Quarterdeck--are 
	their ad execs colorblind??).  OS/2 is about equal to Wordperfect
	in terms of eye-catching ability (i.e., it has little or none).
	It's _almost_ ugly, though (look at that monstrosity they've 
	made of the OS/2 logo when they reworked it to a stupid dos-in-a-circle
	logo.  And blew it up.  U_g_l_y.. but so is DOS.

	IMHO, a really good way to package OS/2 would be to put it in a 
	black box with a silvered OS/2 logo in the center of the front
	of the box, and all of the promo material in an open-the-front-panel
	two-pages-side-by-side setup.  Put the hardware requirements 
	(minimum, recommended, recommended for "DTP" and for "WP" and
	for "Windows" and for "DOS") in white text in the lower left
	corner of the back.  The box and front-door should be in the
	style of the utterly useless but fantastically packaged
	Bitstream Makeup for Windows (including the little velcro tab
	to keep the front door closed).

	Stacker has an excellent package, too.  The "Stacker software
	doubles your disk capacity" in ever-shrinking text is a real 
	eyecatcher.


	<new sig for the faint of heart>

-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy