HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:56:41 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.

>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?

Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
a modern OS.

Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: jj8200@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:50:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:


>Well, it may seem silly to all of you but I need some material [os/2's strong
>points] to tell to Amiga owners.

>When I had MS-DOS, my $4000 machine was constantly put down but I knew there
>was nothing to defend MS-DOS/WINdows with. Now I know that OS/2 is one of the
>best and most rock solid system in the market but I cant list its high points
>in comparison with "HIS MAJESTY" *THE* AMIGA ...

>Just to give you an example, "they" say that Amiga does perfect multitasking
>with an OS which comes only on 2 floppies [compare with OS/2's 30+Meg,
>or 18 meg for base system]. Now I have no idea how to justify its enormous
>size.

>You can email me responses.... NO FLAMES PLEASE!!!

>--nasir
>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca


   WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAaaahhhhhh ha ha ha ha!!!! An Amiga?!?!?  AHHHh ha ha
ha ha... He he he... ooooh, (time passes)...  Ok, I'm much better now.

   All you have to do is tell them to look at how ugly the "Workbench" is on
the Amiga compared to a nice, faster graphics environment like OS/2, then let
them in on the well known fact that the Amiga is a toy.
.
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:54:43 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <Bx73Kr.44D@harlie.lonestar.org> mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell) writes:
>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>So, IMHO, complaining that MS is fibbing to the market by calling Windows
>>an OS doesn't understand that the market doesn't care what the technical
>>definition of an OS is, and doesn't want to care about things technical
>>if at all possible.  It may be that people are trying to get an ego boost
>>by telling netland that they know what an OS is better than the MS marketing
>>department, but I guess thats their right.
>
>This is a first -- a programming newsgroup where someone touts the computer
>'expertise' of marketdroids as support for their argument. :-> :->
>
>Pete -- When Microsoft sells Windows as an operating system - that is when
>I can buy a copy of Windows 3.1; take it home and boot/install it on a 'virgin'
>hard disk; without purchasing a copy of MsDos to support it - then I'll
>believe it is an Operating System (mabe :-))

Mitch, the "packaging" of a particular software package has nothing to do
with whether or not the package meets a technical criteria.  For example,
(since we seem to be really talking about REDEFINING the standard
definition of an OS) I've seen it said that "modern operating systems
should handle resources like multitasking, networking, GUIs, etc" 
(someone else said this, not me)--then *by your above definition*
OS/2 is NOT an operating system (because the "networking" is in another
package).  Yes, this is silly, just as silly as saying that Windows+DOS
is not an operating system because the two parts are packaged separately.

>-- 
>* mitch@harlie.lonestar.org                       Mitch Mitchell      *
>* {digi| egsner | letni}!harlie!mitch       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: If it ain't an Operating System...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:19:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) says:

>I really can't take any of these arguments all that seriously.  About a
>year ago, I mentioned to a co-worker that Windows was an Operating
>System and he looked at me like I was stupid.  I said, "If it ain't an
>operating system, then what is it??"  He said, "An application program."
>
>Ha!  An *APPLICATION PROGRAM*!!!  I thought I'd die laughing...


Perhaps a better description would be to call windows a "dos extender".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:51:26 GMT

In <1992Nov9.091920.15928@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>In article <strobl.721261132@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>>It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
>>>Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know).   But the point here isn't
>>>who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine.  The 
>>>original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.
>>
>>Perhaps. But calling 1024 KByte a minimum for Windows isn't. For running 
>>a 300 K application (or two 150 K applications) Windows on a 1M machine
>>is a much better environment than OS/2 on a 4M machine. Especially
>>if you hard disk is slow.

>Blech!  Didn't you read what I wrote?  Since you edited the main point out,
>I'll say it again:  Anybody who complains that minimum requirements don't
>run satisfactorily is a dork.  I don't really care whether Win or OS/2 runs
>better on 1 or 4 megs respectively.  They both blow hard on min reqs.

Perhaps. But on my Windows 3.0 package it says: "640K required". 1M is
the recommended size, not the minimum requirement.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: low@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Hock-leong Low)
Subject:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?  
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:03:43 GMT

Hello,

Recent articles in PC Magazine and PC Computing did a comparison
test between Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.  Many of the results seem
to favor Windows 3.1--why is that?  Are the editorials bias or
what?  In one, it states that OS/2 needs max 30Meg HD space and
Windows max 10Meg...excluding MS-DOS which was never mentioned
to the reader.  And I'm sure they'll give great appraisals for
NT when it releases...even though it takes up 30+Meg HD.

:) Jason
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Disks
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:09:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.040929.10001
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>Win. 3.1 Disks...
>
>Microsoft(r) Windows (TM)
>        Operating System
>        ...
>        1) insert this disk in drive A.
>        2) type a: and press ENTER.
>        3) type SETUP and press ENTER.
>
>Well, where do I type a: from? I turn on the computer and it says:
>	"OS not found"
>So I try installing it like DOS or OS/2. I insert the 'setup' disk in drive
>and turn on the power... 'Please insert disk with OS in drive and press any
>key to continue' Hmmmm... This only kinda implies that THERE IS NO OS ON THE
>WIN 3.1 DISKS!!! ok, no arguement...

You're right, my computer won't boot from the Windows disks.  However, it
also won't boot from the OS/2 installation disks.  It will boot from the
Apple System 6 disk.  Therefore only Apple System 6 is an operating system.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Is Windows 3.1 an Operating System?
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:06:18 GMT

Is Windows 3.1 an Operating System?
It is.
No it isn't.
It is!
No it isn't!
Oh, excuse me, is this the five week argument or the full year?
Just the five week argument.
Ah, thank you.  Well, it is.
No it isn't!
IT IS!
This isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a
   proposition.  It's not just the automatic gain-saying of what the
   other person says.
Can be.
Oh, this is futile!
No it isn't.

May I suggest the next newsgroup?  It's getting hit on the head lessons in
there.  (With apologies to Monty Python.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 15:33:12 -0800
From: An_NT_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: An_NT_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

>I quote from the article (PC Week: November 2, 1992, pg 3):
>
>Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to be backing off its revised first
quarter
>ship date for the 32-bit operating system.  At a conference for
financial
>services customers in New York last week, Microsoft Chairmen Bill
Gates
>said NT would be shipped "in the first half" of 1993.
>
 BS> From InfoWorld; September 28, 1992; Pages 1,107:
 BS>  Gates says NT might not ship until early '93.
 BS>  By Stuart J. Johnston

 BS>  Windows NT is behind schedule and will likely miss its
 BS>  promised ship date later this year, Microsoft Corp.
 BS>  chairman Bill Gates admitted last week to attendees on
 BS>  the Agenda conference, in Laguna Niguel, Calif.

 BS>  The 32-bit operating system might not ship until early
 BS>  second quarter of 1993, Gates said.
 BS>  [Read "early second quarter" as Spring Comdex.]

 BS>  Many users, developers, and analysts said they would
 BS>  prefer the company ship a complete, bug-free product late
 BS>  rather than an incomplete version on time.
 BS>  [Like IBM did with OS/2.]

Brian, you forget to mention that Microsoft has a habit of shipping
buggy and/or incomplete releases such as Windows 3.0, OS/2 1.0, OS/2
1.1, and OS/2 1.2.   Of course this was not the case with OS/2 1.3
since they didn't have anything to do with it as it was an IBM
version.

 BS> I eagerly await your apology.

So now I suppose somebody should go quote from some issue of InfoWorld
or PC Week in early 1992 that says NT will ship by the end of 1992? 
Do you notice, Brian, that you are quoting older references?  Any
chance that Microsoft may have reevaluated the readiness of NT between
the end of September and the beginning of November?

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:52:49 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.225251.14539@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Nov5.165623.808@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>In <7714@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>>>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>>>>Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)
>>
>>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>>dealing directly with the hardware.
>>
>>And a reasonable definition it is, too.  Ok.  DOS fails the test
>>because:
>>
>>1) Anything doing graphics pretty much has to go straight to hardware,
>>the 'insulation' that DOS provides being so worthless.
>>

>Fred, DOS provides (via the BIOS) functions to switch to graphics modes nad
>plot pixels on the screen.   The routines are slow and don't work

The BIOS is NOT part of DOS so the rest of your argument is of no
consequence. In fact, isnt the VGA bios on the device itself?!

>(naturally) with graphics modes that came out AFTER DOS's/BIOS design.
>But from a realistic standpoint, it can't been expected that ALL hardware
>will be supported by an OS.  Take for example my Lantastic network card--
>it doesn't work under OS/2 under any circumstances (even if I try to use
>a generic NE2000 driver).  Does this mean OS/2 is not an operating 
>system?  No... of course not, it means my network card is not
>quite a standard.

Remember the OS is not required to manage every piece of harware,
but if a piece of hardware is to be managed, it is to by done
by the OS.


>>2) Accessing upper memory.  DOS is so braindead that it requires
>>'extenders' to get outside 640k.  So much for 'insulation' on
>>management of the majority of memory on the machine.
>>

>So, there is no requirement for an OS to be able to access ALL of memory
>(various operating systems running in a VM can't).  

>Again, if you could find such a requirement, cite a bibliographical
>reference and I'll get off your back.

>>Shall I continue?  ;-)
>>
>>-- 
>>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:18:39 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

aarono@microsoft.com (Aaron Ogus) writes:
>I don't think the definition we got for an operating system was a very good one.
>I think that with all the references and interpretations and high minded ideas
>that the basic concepts were lost in the fray.

>Operating System - definition

>An operating system is any program or set of programs that provides a common
>set of functionality that would otherwise be required to be duplicated in 
>programs designed to run on a particular hardware platform.

>IMHO Aaron Ogus (11/03/92)

>Please tell me if there is anything you can see wrong with this definition.
>(Email please).

>BTW: this definition makes DOS an OS, Windows on DOS an OS, OS/2 an OS
>     CP/M and OS, DLL's part of an OS (extensions if you like), UNIX an OS
>     and makes no application an OS.

Hmm, there is a command-line version of ansi.sys - ansi.com; provides 
"functionality that would otherwise be rquired to be duplicated", runs
like an app, look like an OS by your definition.

Pete taught me to pick nits. :-)

Tom
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT not even close to reacdy
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:27:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.BxL8H9.9sK
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

A friend and I are working on developing some apps for OS/2.  We were
considering pkunking down the $80 odd bucks to get the NT Beta.  

we checked with other developers who *are* using NT and were told that NT as
it is right now is a bust.  That MicroSoft is hard to work with and they
thoguth that OS/2 would "blow NT out of the water" 

Any comments?

-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:28:44 GMT

linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>that implement the file system in a user-mode process?
>
>Explain.

Sure, consider a system that implements the file system as follows:

	1. There is a device driver that provides block-level access to
	the disk drive.

	2. There is a process that uses that device driver and understands
	and maintains the filesystem data structures on the disk.

	3. Processes that wish to access files use an interprocess
	communication mechanism to request the file data from the
	above filesystem manager process.

If someone's system did this, would it no longer be an operating system?

--Tim Smith
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Windows vs. OS/2
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:53:29 GMT

I've been thinking about all these arguments about which OS is "better" 
(indeed whether Windows could be considered an OS or not).  So I thought that
if there were people out there who could put up or shut up, I thought that
perhaps we could begin to put the issue at rest.

So what I propose is that we get some volunteers from both the Windows and
OS/2 camps to each do a "project"--for example, laying out the cover of a
published magazine (say, the Nov 10,1992 issue of PC Magazine)--each 
using his/her favorite operating platform, using their favorite software
that runs under their favorite OS.   When they get finished, they upload
it to a judging site (to be determined) where other volunteers view their
work.  Then each designer basically tells us *how* they did it, and how
*long* it took them to do it--we give more points for the first one
submitted.

Naturally there are many holes in what I propose... what's to keep the
designers from lying?  "I did it during my fifteen minute break"?  Well,
I think we're all adults here... 

What does everybody think?  Is it workable?

-> Joe <-
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT not even close to reacdy
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:58:35 GMT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY

In article <BxL8H9.9sK@ns1.nodak.edu> person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person ) writes:
>A friend and I are working on developing some apps for OS/2.  We were
>considering pkunking down the $80 odd bucks to get the NT Beta.  
>
>we checked with other developers who *are* using NT and were told that NT as
>it is right now is a bust.  That MicroSoft is hard to work with and they
>thoguth that OS/2 would "blow NT out of the water" 
>
>Any comments?
>
In my experience, Microsoft is incredibly easy to work with and, until
recently, IBM has been almost impossible.  I am glad to see that IBM is,
albeit slowly, beginning to respond more quickly to inquiries about OS/2
(use/development).  They've got a ways to go before they catch upwith
MS, IMHO.

I'm not currently using NT, but people I trust say the October beta runs
well.  It sounds to me like you're talking to OS/2 fans, which is ok,
but I wouldn't confuse their statements with anything but opinions.  

Joe
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: WIN 3.1 an OS?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:03:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.071408.19764@csusac.csus.edu> cs139121@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Todd Kepus) writes:
>This goes out to Wolfgang, Brian, Fred, and any others who continue to
>debate whether or not WIN 3.1 is an operating system.
>
>First, there are 3 cases...
>
>1. Win 3.1 is not an operating system.
>
>2. Win 3.1 is an operating system, but requires DOS to execute.
>
>3. Win 3.1 is an operating system, doesn't really need DOS at all, but
>Microsoft makes one 'need' it so they can continue to sell DOS to
>Windows users.
>
>Obviously, you probably wouldn't agree with case one, otherwise there
>would be no debate.  The second case is debatable, but will never be won
>because you won't convince most people on this thread that WIN 3.1 is an
>operating system AND it still needs DOS.
>
>What do you think about the last case?  Is it below Microsoft?

The last two cases are false.  Lookit the Tandy VIS:

"Windows programs on your television set?  That's what Tandy Corp. (Parent
company to Radio Shack) wants to sell you this Christmas.  It's CD-ROM
based, $700 MEmorex MD-2500 Video Information System (VIS) runs an optimized
version of Windows designed for VIS technology..."

Yes folks, it's Windows on ROM to run this VIS system.  Perhaps it has MS-DOS
in the ROM too--but regardless, it's one integrated package... there is no
"command line"--it's a specialized machine whose OS is, you guessed it,
Windows.

>
>Anyways, lets assume that WIN 3.1 is an operating system.  Then we can
>compare it to OS/2.
>
>How do they compare?

It sucks obviously.  But just because a Yugo compares unfavorably to a
Porsche, doesn't mean a Yugo is not a car.

>
>Well, OS/2 has preemptive multitasking, and can run almost all DOS
>applications quickly and efficiently.  For example, Borland C++ 3.1 runs
>perfectly under OS/2.  At the same time, one can be downloading from a
>BBS.  Personally, I do this quite often.
>
>I think that these two features ( preemptive multitasking + DOS ) coupled
>to the fact that OS/2 is indeed a stable platform is what most users
>enjoy so much about OS/2.  
>
>Now a little about NT...
>
>That doesn't mean that if NT is indeed superior that I and other users
>won't switch.  However, what we (OS/2 users) consistently hear about NT
>is that it doesn't run DOS apps as well as OS/2, and it requires more
>than 8MB of memory.  For most users, more than 8MB is too expensive.  It
>was hard enough to afford 8MB.
>
>Lets accept the fact that WIN 3.1 is basically an operating system.  Now
>lets compare it to OS/2.  I think that would be more suited to this
>thread.  That's why they call it advocacy.
>
>-Todd Kepus

Here! Here! (applause slowly subsides).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 15:33:48 -0800
From: 32-Bit_Apps_Believer@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: 1-2-3 for OS/2 2.0
Comment-To: Timothy_I_Miller@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: 32-Bit_Apps_Believer@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 TIM>      Well, as I understand it (and I heard it from Lotus), Ami
Pro
 TIM> and 123 are both going to be completely native 32-bit apps. 
This is
 TIM> because they use Borland C/C++ to do the development.  I don't
know
 TIM> about the rest of their products, though.

Interesting.  I wonder why 1-2-3 has references to IBM C Set/2
libraries inside its executables?  Perhaps it could be because it was
NOT done with Borland C/C++ for OS/2 but instead IBM C Set/2?

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:05:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In article <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu>,
tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
>
>Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
>just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
>said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app.
>But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
>effort.

     I'm not a programmer, but I sincerely appreciate you trying to
put out software in the barren wasteland of OS/2 applications.  From
what I've heard from others on this and other bboards, programmers
have had some difficulties programming for OS/2.  As a user, though,
I have been extremely happy about the lack of crashes on my machine
(even without the SP) and others have also been impressed with OS/2.
     Once again, thanks for trying to put out a native OS/2 app.

Timothy Miller