From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Service Pak, which one is latest?
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:15:44 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Nov23.053835.17471@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.204927.20862@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>I mean a SP of the complete diffs to GA, and of course, the files which were
>not in GA (which wouldn't be diffs).

Well, you've a few problems.  First of all, people have been
installing interrum patches all the while.  You don't want to make
customers re-install GA before the CSD can be applied?  You find a
million users complaining of lost desktop configurations and such.

Second, the process of applying the diffs (which usually includes
inserting and deleting bytes in a binary file) can consume so much
time that it'd be better to just replace files and get it over with.

Finally, if they got a new optimizer in their compilers or something,
the changes will be so numerous that the diffs may well be bigger than
the actual file.

>>>When is the *real* version coming out?
>>What do you mean?  You mean I'm running a fake?  I'll sue!  :-)
>
>I mean the version that lets you build a new version of GA+SP install disks
>without making you install GA and then the SP.

You aren't going to get one.  If you want a completely new package,
buy a new package.

>I mean, if you want to install a new WIN-OS/2 printer, the READ.ME
>file says you will have to reinstall GA, install the printer, and
>then install the SP.

No, no no.  Just install the printer driver from the GA diskettes as
you always do.  Then boot the CSD to patch the driver.  The CSD won't
replace everything the second time around.

I can understand your frustration if you thought that you had to
completely erase your OS/2 partition for each printer driver you
wanted to change, but that is just not so.

>Now in the *real* version, you should be able to install the printer
>driver without reinstalling OS/2+SP. 

You don't.

>>>Can I get it on CD-ROM?
>>Soon.  Probably after they get the bugs worked out.
>
>Remember that IBM claimed in ads that the code is "golden" and amazingly bug-
>free (I don't remember the exact language).

So?  The bugs in the core system have been worked out (mostly).
Unfortunately, this is a first release for the 32-bit graphics engine
and for the TSENG video drivers, so those units need to be debugged.

>Anyway, I hope that the "real" version comes out soon, and for free.

It will.  This won't be the last service pack you'll see out of IBM.
As more bugs get fixed, they'll be compiled into another service pack.
Based on the timetable for this SP, I'd expect to wait about 4-6
months for it.

>In this real version, which I thought the SP would be, I will be able
>to reinstall OS/2 *once* and have it work relatively trouble-free
>without having to reinstall until the next version.

Well, trouble free is relative.  I've had fewer problems than most
with the SP, so I like it.  As for re-installing, you won't have to do
that next time.  If you don't install any beta code (including beta
patches) you'll be able to install the next service pack right over
this one.  That's the way CSD's worked in the past.

>I should be able to install printers, uninstall printers, etc...and
>if I have to reinstall again, I shouldn't have to reinstall much more
>than the SP disks (install twice!). 

See above about reinstalling.  You're doing much more than you have to.

>Sorry to sound like I'm complaining.  I am expressing my disappointment in that
>I was led to believe that the SP was the final fix to OS/2 2.0, but to me it
>looks like another kludge, albeit a needed one.  What I would like to know is
>when OS/2 2.0 in its final version will come out, completely fixed, on 1 set of
>disks.  I am not concerned here wi *new* device drivers, only with *golden*
>code.

Keep waiting.  What you're asking is like a Unix user asking when AT&T
is going to get all the bugs out.  Large software packages have bugs.
And this is a relatively new system compared to Unix.  And it's much
bigger than DOS is.  As bugs get fixed, more patches will be
distributed.  Personally, I expect about one more year before OS/2 2.0
gets completely stabilized, simply because of the size and complexity
of it.

>I just wonder if this will ever happen.  I hope that 2.1 comes out soon, and
>that beta drivers are distributed separately, so that 2.1 is as robust as OS/2
>should be!

I'd like them to get 2.0 working before they start adding more
features to it!  I think that's what you mean as well.  IBM does not
up the version number unless features are added.  Bug fixes are kept
at the same version number with increasing service levels.

As for beta drivers, I don't want them being widely distributed.  You
talk about stability, and then you want to install beta code?  What a
contradiction in terms!
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~