From: mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 27 Sep 92 07:09:22 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington
Status: RO


 
OS/2 has captivated my imagination, as well as yours may have been.  Its 
high time we took a real close look, from a technical standpoint as well 
as a useable standpoint. 
 

I have been an OS/2 user since the general release, for the most part 
utilizing a 486/33 store-build.  The machine pays its way be having 
programs created on it - which leads to a very strong analysis 
"potential" over a period of time.  IIn addition, I used version 1.3 with 
sucessful results.  
 
1. OS/2 has *true* multitasking.  One will hear windows fans clamoring 
   for their icon speeds, their ability to run programs at a faster
   speed than *all of ours*.  
 
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.
 
3. OS/2's ability to format both floppies, with very little evidence on
   the screen [of it actually doing so] is touted as one of its many 
   virtues.  But really, folks.  Do we always format floppies in the
   drives, while playing solitaire?  Reminds me of the unknown fellow 
who named his module "plankton."  OS/2, my copy of it anyway, is used to
provide the necessary building, testing and implementation of various
executable files.  Perhaps yours is for using Lotus 1-2-3, while anothers 
may be for editing videos.  
 
                          Marvellous Points
 
1. OS/2 2.0, when used in a basic editor/compiler/word processor 
   environment, supplies efficient use of time - with very little lag
   in between the boxes (DOS 640k, 2meg).  This configuration, as will
   any other, depends on the abilities of the idle detection routines.  
   A DOS program which uses either a)undocumented calls, or b)interrupts
   masked beyond OS/2's "tasker's" intervals will cause the ther windows
   to pound their salt.  Procomm Plus is a prime example of this 
   annoyance.  OS/2 windows, however, seem unaffected to as large a 
   degree as OS/2's V86 multitasking.  Perhaps these limitations can be
   overcome by some ambitious slapping.  
 
   I have found that when using my general application, OS/2 essentially
   satisfied the work done by three separate 386/20's - in the same 
   of time.  Of course, if one were to bench-mark my three compilers
   cranking - they'd [os/2] would lose.
 
2. Networking support.  No longer are we forced to deal with the mundane
   abilities of a DOS network shell.  OS/2 is capable of dealing with
   networks in the same fashion as a unix system.  This is by OS/2's 
   design - its quasi-unix implentation of a "bag 'o drivers".  TCP/IP
   as well as TELNET are easily implemented protocols - simply by
   adding the necessary block drivers to the base operating system.  
   Other spinoffs include peer-to-peer, multiple client, multiple card,
   abilities.
 
3. Iconic representation of objects is no new phenomenon, but OS/2 
   offers a refreshing look at how our data and software is represented.  
   The workplace shell is a powerful, and correctly idealized graphical
   interface.  Need I say more?
 
                        ... and its dark side
 
1. OS/2 likes to crash.  I have "good days" and "bad days" with the
   crashability of OS/2.  Of all my good days, I've had only a handful
   of all-day link/debug cycles without having to resort to the big
   switch.  This is _not_ A Good Thing.  Due to this susceptibility, I
   cannot recommend it to anyone less than a hobbyist.  I can, on the
   other hand, safely say that Windows 3.1 is a satisfying environment
   to use.  
 
   Don't get me wrong - OS/2 is my operating system.  Its just that it
   *takes so damn long to get back up!*.  Crashes are usually due to
   some conflict created by the ol' memory shuffle.  [Bear Shuffle tune]
   These shuffles come about by my rapidly switching windows and opening
   up icon views - while wondering which window I should be in. :-|
 
2. (It crashed again...  )  (don't tell anyone...)
 
3. See #2.
 
4. HPFS is a grand idea - and I would have very little of it changed - 
   except that it is far too isolated.  Wouldn'nit be sweet if a device
   driver was made for DOS which would allow them to see and feel HPFS
   partitions?
 
5. (hey!  My clock stopped! ALT-ESC, ALT-ESC.  Wiggle mouse ALT-ESC...)
 
 
Matt
 
* OS/2 is a trademark of IBM.
* Windows is a trademark of Microsoft.
* Netware is a trademark of Novell.
 
Any others are trademarks of their respective owners.
 

mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
 
- A warning to anyone, still in command...


From monu6!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!convex!news.oc.com!spssig.spss.com!uchinews!ellis!sip1 Tue Sep 29 14:50:44 EST 1992
Article: 5330 of comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy