From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:03:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.175139.22736@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie
.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>|> >2. OS/2 is *almost* stable enough to run in a so-called mission critical
>|> >   environment.  It *is* stable enough to run as a network server without
>|> >   its buggy graphical interface.  I've just run into one too many, and
>|> >   that was two months ago.
>|> >
>|>
>|> I think its about time to explode the myth that OS/2 is ALMOST stable
>|> enough to have mission critical applications run on it.
>|>
>
>I fully agree. If OS/2 is stable, I don't wanna know, how an unstable
>OS will behave.
>
>|> During development OS/2 crashed twice.
>
>Twice what? Twice a day? Twice a week?

Twice.  Read it slowly.  Twice. Period.
>
>Many people report that they have no problems with OS/2, but most of
>them use it only for multitasking DOS-Sessions.
>
Some of us use it for more than that.

>We have several machines (IBM PS/2 90, 16Meg) and installed OS/2,
>LAN-Server, TCP/IP, Database Manager, IBM C Set/2 and the PDK
>(all original IBM Products)
>
>I have almost no time for my development work, because I am busy to
>install all those bugfixes and CSDs, e.g. for the C-Compiler there
>is already CSD Level 14 for a 6 month old product and it still does
>not work reliable.

Right.  I'm going to assume the this is sacasm.
>
>This of course is not a bug, but a feature, because you don't have
>to take care so much, what you are coding, since the behavior of
>compilant is unpredictable anyway.
>
>Although I have installed those bugfixes, the system is still
>unstable, when you do real work on it. It usually crashes once or
>twice a day and I had reformat the partition twice, since I am
>using OS/2 2.0

>
>All this happens, if you really use OS/2 and don't just do DOS-Sessions
>with it.

Again, I to a fair amount of programming, am currently setting up a LAN and
have experienced very few problems.  It sounds like you just have been one of
the unfortunate ones who has not had very good experiences.  I have not had
good experiences with Windows.  Do I think that it is a totally worthless
system?  Of course not.  Not my preference, but certaintly can be quite good
for certain users.
>
>The screen I see most is "The system has stopped + register contents +
>Contact your service representative". That's fun. I have phoned to
>so many SEs at IBM, but none of them even knows, what a machine register
>is or the difference between segments and selectors.
>
So demand to talk to someone who does know.  They are availlable, just don't
take no for an answer.

>I am an experienced software developer and system maintainer for more
>than 10 years now. I have been working on mainframes, worstations and
>PCs, but I never had to work in such an unstable and buggy environment.

Try Windows 2.x and 3.0.  (3.1 is much better but not great)
>
>And to compare OS/2 2.0 with /NT. /NT is not even in beta now, but if
>you don't use the WIN16 or DOS Subsystem, it does what you expect. It
>never crashed and never garbled all data on my HPFS partition. And
>last but not least, the C++ Compiler produces output, that really does,
>what you coded in the source.
>
Amazing that the code I have written actually works.  How did this happen?  It
isn't supposed to actually work.
(I'm just kidding you here)
Seriously, the problems that you seem to be experiencing are probably releated
to hardware as software.  Now it is IBM's responsibility to account for this,
but it is hardly as bad as you seem to be making it out to be.

>Christoph
>--
>Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>Fido: 2:243/660
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy