From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:13:53 GMT
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York

In article <SXMRP.20.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>
>Yes, it does, and from what I've seen, IBM has done a damn fine job with
>network support.  Howver, from my experience, those features which come built
>into an OS tend to be much better supported.  I can do network support with
>DOS, but it is a pain.  Windows is a bit better, OS/2 even better.  However,
>I think it is likely that there will be a dramatic increase in the number of
>apps the use the built in mail and other network features of NT.  In
>addition, I hope to a big increase in the number of client server apps
>available for NT.  It would be a big advantage for the base Mathmatica NT
>program to be able to do a remote procedure call to an Alpha machine on the
>network in order to handle some big calculation.  Built-in networking makes
>this much more likely.  Oh yeah, its kinda nice not to have to pay for the
>networking.

First, I completely agree that it is a good idea to standardize the network
support.  I also think that people will find the opportunity to use network
support, who didn't think they would.  And, can't any PC use it's serial port
for SLIP?  I can envision a friend bringing his/her OS/2 laptop to my house
and networking via the serial or parallel port...or people in my dorm....

>** Although those who don't need it will have to pay for it.

Please explain this.  It costs IBM a fixed amount to write the software.
Distribution on CD-ROM means it doesn't cost them extra disks.  I would pay
the cost of the disks to get TCP-IP.  But I can't justify several hundred
dollars so that I can run TCP-IP unless I am making money from it.  The fact
is, I am a home user, and all of my network access is for hobby.  I would
like to run TCP-IP over Amateur Packet radio using IBM's TCP-IP package, but
I don't have that kind of money to spend.  IBM's package is inaccessable to
the typical home user who, in my opinion, is likely to have a spare machine
or laptop which he will want to network on occasion.  It is too bad that I
can't use IBM TCP-IP, since it would cost me more than it is worth to me.

Then again, I certainly wouldn't spend money on another IBM package, until
IBM fixes the bugs that frequently make my OS/2 system unusable, such as
sys0008 when I try to run command.com, and my inability to get it to run a
separate instance of a communications package for two different serial ports.
I *hope* OS/2 2.0 gets fixed.  I am seriously losing confidence in it.  At
least with OS/2 1.3 I knew where I stood...a program worked or it didn't.  I
thought 2.0 was supposed to protect processes from each other...I just wish I
could protect them from OS/2!

Could someone please tell me which processes need IOPL?  I think I should try
setting it to no, like I did with 1.3.

 * * * * *  =================  Internet address is   mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * = Meir I. Green =  for short, mail to    mig@columbia.edu
 * * * * *  =================  UUCP Bang!            columbia.edu!mig
* * * * * * =================  Amateur Packet Radio  N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy