From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:19:11 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep1.135325.7248@dhw68k.cts.com> david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:

>We have no connectivity to the outside world at work, so my manager
>asked me if I would post this inquiry from my machine at home regarding
>"real" installations (not affiliated with IBM, as I understand his
>meaning) with respect to their experiences with OS/2.

I work at BITECH, we have no connections to IBM whatsoever. We don't own
any IBM hardware or software other than OS/2 2.0. 

>...
>migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
>others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
>lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.

We did not experience any problems in this direction. The sound
rubish to me IMO.

>...
>  migrating toward or away from it, or ignoring it?

Our company (BITECH) is switching entierly to OS/2 2.0. One machine
still needs a memory upgrade (whoever is the person claiming 4Mb
is enough for OS/2 ought to be fired) but the others have all been
converted. 

>* Why (not)?

Mainly reliability. Unlike Windows OS/2 does protect programs against
each other. Programs which did generate UEA's (GPF's) under Windows
do not seem to have problems under OS/2 2.0.

Also interesting is good multitasking, a nice UIF, perfect DOS support
and reasonable Windows support.

Major problems we have are unsoported items like Stacker and Syquest
removable hard disks. Both will be solved by the end of the year or
sooner. 

>* Is there anything about OS/2 that would cause you to recommend for or
>  against its use by persons who are not especially familiar with
>  computer science in general or operating system design in particular?

Actually for the unfamiliar's OS/2 2.0 is a mush have. Unlike the "fun"
of trying to get DOS configured. A bunch of drivers. A memory manager.
Windows etc etc OS/2 2.0 works out of the box. On a clean machine but
also on a machine already filled (without scratching anything).

>Again, the intent is to learn more about the experiences of individuals
>and sites that are not affiliated with IBM (except as customers of
>IBM).

>(I've tried to keep my personal biases out of this; if there's
>sufficient interest, I'll give that matter a passing mention in the
>summary.)

Also notice two alternatives to OS/2 2.0 in the power area. Windows NT
and DesqView/X. Windows NT is the one best marketed but especialy the
reliability of Microsoft is a large problem here. Revision after
revision (1.0 -> 2.0 2.0 -> 3.x) many programs have to be upgraded 
which is very expensive. MS already announced that only well behaving
DOS and Windows apps will run under NT, the top 100 as they call it.
This is frightening. Also for NT 1.0 -> 2.0 etc.

DesqView/X is another matter. For large scale computing (networks) it
might be the best way to run DOS programs there is. It does more and
better at DOS executing than even OS/2 2.0 in some respects. It is 
rock steady and very fast. It also runs on machines not suitable
for Windows and /2 2.0 like a 386SX.

>Thanks,
>david
>-- 
>David H. Wolfskill			david@dhw68k.cts.com


Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" ???? 
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I would admit my mistakes, if I had any ..."  (Bumper Sticker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy