From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:16:06 GMT

In article <92284.215610HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu> <HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>
>   writes: OK, I finally got OS/2 2.0 and installed it on my system.
>   There are a few things that I really don't like.  Maybe they are
>   due to my ignorance of OS/2, and my use of MS-DOS for the past 12
>   years, but here they are:

First off, if you wanted some practical advice, c.o.o.a is the wrong
newsgroup.  Try c.o.o.misc:  I have seen nearly all your questions
answered there, most of them two or three times.

>   (1) No SVGA support.  I paid good money for an SVGA card with
>   extra memory, yet when I installed and have run OS/2, the only
>   option I was presented with was VIDEO GRAPHICS ARRAY, ie Standard
>   640x480 VGA.  Does release 2.01 support higher resolutions?

OS/2 drivers for SVGA boards are available from a fair number of
hardware manufacturers.  It seems your serious about giving OS/2 a go,
so why don't you contact the manufacturer?  If you like to do things
yourself, use the numerous PD drivers off of "ftp-os2.nmsu.edu".  I've
had no problem using "ftp-os2.nmsu.edu:pub/os2/2.0/drivers/
et4-os2.zip" with a Diamond SpeedStart SVGA.  The only disadvantage is
I can't run Microsoft Windows programs seamlessly (i.e. I have to run
them fullscreen) because I don't have an appropriate seamless window
driver.  The OS/2 FAQ (available periodically in c.o.o.misc and on
both ftp-os2.nmsu.edu and software.watson.ibm.com) has a little more
information on SVGA support, too.

For fullscreen Win-OS/2 sessions, you can use pretty much any Windows
3.0 display driver.  I'm using the SVGA Windows display driver that
came with my board for this.  I had to run the "SVGA ON" program in a
fullscreen DOS session, but other than that, it was effortless.  Look
in the "readme" for information on "SVGA".

>   (2) Windows Incompatability.  I am unable to use a number of my
>   standard features in my Windows software.  I do my word processing
>   in MS WinWord 2.0, and use the Equation Editor extensively.  I was
>   unable to insert objects into any of my documents.  Also, full
>   screen views were all screwed up.  CorelDRAW! 3.0 will not even
>   load, and if I can't use SVGA, I don't want it to anyway.  The
>   programs are also EXTREMELY slow.

First, read the "readme".  I think CorelDRAW! 3.0 is specifically
mentioned.  It requires Windows 3.1 I think, and, if so, can't be run
under Win-OS/2 3.0.  Someone else might know if it runs under Win-OS/2
3.1 (which it probably does).

As for the Equation Editor, you have to keep something important in
mind when using Win-OS/2.  The *.INI files that Windows uses and the
*.INI files that Win-OS/2 uses are kept in separate directories.  In
particular, when you installed the Equation Editor, it inserted a
dozen lines headed "[Embedding]" in your Windows "WIN.INI".  If you
installed it with Windows 3.1, it used the TrueType-compatible font
setup.  The appopriate lines won't be in your Win-OS/2 "WIN.INI" and
the required fonts won't be on your disk.

Now, I've gotten the Equation Editor to work (with W4W 2.0) under both
Win-OS/2 and Windows using the same copy of the program and font
files.  It took me a fair bit of tweaking.  I would suggest, unless
you are starved for disk space like I am, that you simply reinstall
the Equation Editor from within a Win-OS/2 fullscreen session, just as
you would to install it in MS Windows.  If you still have trouble,
drop me a line, and I'll give you information about my configuration
here.  NOTE: Make sure that the ATM (Adobe Type Manager) is enabled
before doing this.  Instructions on making sure this is the case are
included in the base documentation.

By "fullscreen views" not working, I assume you mean preview and
screen fonts look bad.  In fact, they look the same way they did in
Windows 3.0 without special preview fonts installed.  The first step
in resolving this is to get ATM running.  Then, define aliases so the
old TrueType fonts like PissHeadedStupidNameForHelveticaOrSwiss-
OrWhatever will be aliases to Helvetica, etc.  Information on this
latter aspect (without the flamebait) is available in the document
"\OS2\MDOS\WINOS2\README.ATM".  For documents with equations, make
sure you increase the ATM font buffer from 128K to something like
512K, or you'll get lots of thrashing.  Use the ATM control panel
"\OS2\MDOS\WINOS2\ATMCNTRL.EXE" to do this.  ATM fonts should be a
little slower than TrueType fonts, but *only* a little slower.  If
they are a lot slower, you still have some tweaking to do.

Oh, yeah.  One other thing to keep in mind.  By default (in the
ATM.INI file), ATM uses bitmapped fonts for characters on the screen
smaller than 9 point.  This keeps the normal desktop fonts looking
good.  However, subscripts and subsubscripts in the equation editor
will have bitmaps substituted for them rather than ATM fonts.  This
means they will look a bit ugly on the screen.  They print correctly,
however.

>   (3) Desktop is bulky.  The folder icons are WAY too big in the disk
>   view.  I don't like to have to scroll all over the place to look
>   at my files.  This would be helped by support of an SVGA mode that
>   permitted smaller icons.

If you get the new display driver (from the "et4-os2" file mentioned
above), the icons will also be obnoxiously big, but there is a patch
available.  I just don't remember where...  It might even be included
with the driver documentation.

You could also try right clicking on the desktop, selecting the arrow
to the right of "Open", choosing "Settings", and selecting "Small
Icons" from the "View" tab.  If I remember correctly, this isn't a
very attractive-looking solution, but it'll certainly reduce the size
of your icons.

>   (4) Documentation.  The books that come with OS/2 2.0 are not even
>   remotely comprehensive.  The hypertext included is bulky and too
>   simplistic.

Mostly true.  In defense of OS/2, you can ship 15 disks and a couple
pages a lot more easily than 15 disks and 2 manuals.

>   (5) I was unable to run some of my DOS software, although I didn't
>   attempt to run them in a DOS only mode.  I'll try that and see if
>   it changes my opinions.

Give more detail.  I have been able to get every bit of DOS software
I've tried running under OS/2, with one exception:  a DOS ODI network
MLID was hanging on loading the last byte in the network card text.
All other software I got working with a little bit of tweaking, and
the ODI driver I got working by hacking out the card test.

The "readme" file lists the handful of exceptions:  those types of DOS
programs that *will not run* under OS/2.

>   Now, the things I *DID* like about OS/2:

>   (1) When in OS/2, it's nice and quick.  The GUI is fairly
>   comprehensive and I was able to adapt to it quickly.  I would
>   really like to see the changes in beta 2.01.

In summary, (and from heresay), it has _much_ faster Windows support
and, apparently, better SuperVGA support.  Also, of course, it has
support for Windows 3.1, including TrueType fonts, CorelDraw, etc.
The ability to migrate your Windows 3.1 desktop completely (which, if
it isn't on the beta, would, I expect, be included in the real
release) means you won't have to deal with the Win-OS/2 problems (like
the Equation Editor thing) that you mentioned above.

>   (2) The System PULSE is a very nice tool to determine CPU usage.

The "Jigsaw" puzzle is too cool for words, too.  ;-) It doesn't work
with the ET4-OS2 drivers though, as far as I can tell.

>   (3) I think that with some work, this could be a very flexible OS, although
>   I think that I've been working in win3.1 for too long.  Like I said, I'll
>   take a look at the beta of 2.01.

Some work has already been done on it:  chances are, if you find a bug
while fooling around (and you undoubtedly will on both counts), it's
been fixed in the service pack.

>   I'll keep playing, but for now I think that Windows 3.1 has a
>   sleight edge over OS/2 when it comes to availablility and use of
>   my existing software.  Granted, Windows are their native
>   environment and they are working out of it in OS/2, but I'd still
>   like to see better performance on my Windows apps.

If it's Win-OS/2 performance that bothers you, make sure you're
running fullscreen.  Seamless Win-OS/2 support is still buggy, it's
significantly slower, and it seems to take up more memory.

>   Can't say I'm not trying to be objective.
>
>   (FYI - System is a 33MHz 386, 130MB HDD, 8mb RAM, 1MB SVGA, Bus Mouse)

You're alone on this newsgroup.  ;)

Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>