Re: Reply to: Re: Windoze questions

[hseaver@xxxxxxxx (Harmon Seaver)]

On 04 Feb 95 12:34:44 EST, Mike Gawdun <73531.733@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 16 MB. I am always amazed at the difficulty in using Windows programs in
> WinOS/2, the amount of resources that I need to run OS/2 smoothly, and the
> fact that many useful off-the-shelf programs run flawlessly in plain-old
> Windows 3.1 and exhibit neurotic behavior or will not run in WinOS/2. Also, my
> Lotus Smartsuite applications run smoother on WinOS/2 than the Smartsuite
> which runs on OS/2.

  Oh, really? I have yet to find a dos or windoz app that I
can't get to run properly in OS/2 -- with the exception of
Simlife, by Maxis, which wants to change my screen resolution to
800x600 and I have it set to
1024x768, and then Doom, which won't play with sound in OS/2.
Maybe you just need someone to set them up properly.
> > I have seen Warp demonstrated and have listened to my coworkers curse during
> the 29 diskette installation process after the fifth failure to load the 22nd
> diskette.
>
  That is not my experience, or the experience of the vast majority of
Warp users.

> The question that I always ask is "why would anyone want to subject
> themselves to a bloated operating system (Warp) that is no longer in IBM's
> strategic architecture for desktop OS's?" Sure, Gerstner reshuffled the deck
> in senior managment last week to give OS/2 more visibility, but the 1997
> architecture doesn't even mention OS/2.

 This is pure FUD -- sounds like MS agit-prop to me. "Bloated
operating system"?? Have you looked at any other 32bit OS?? NT is
a lot more bloated, Solaris (a really super-fine OS) takes
500meg HD space just for the OS files, and even Linux takes up
100meg of my HD not including swap space or app space. Warp took
about 35meg (not including swap or windoz) actually does quite
well on only 4 meg. Bloated? Hardly.
 No longer in IBM's plans? Not in Apple's either, I suppose, eh?
FYI, the new Mac OS will be OS/2, as will the new PowerPC OS.

> After suffering through OS/2 version 1.2 and 2.0, I was forced into 2.1 and
> wish that it was not on my desk. I would rather have the company give me the
> money that it costs for a PS/2 with OS/2 and let me buy a machine that will
> let me be productive instantly. I would use the difference to help pay for my
> health care benefits that seem to have decreased in the last two years.
> > In our lab, we compared Warp to Windows 95 and are impressed by the fact that
> Microsoft designed its OS to include all network configurations during the
> installation. IBM still thinks that we are geeks that like to look at dozens
> of menus to configure a PC to a Token Ring network. I detest having to tell my
> PC what my network address is and the locations of my applications (Lotus
> SmartSuite, mainframe access etc.). Besides, OS/2 users will never have the
> abundance of applications that are currently available for Windows users 3.1
> today or Win95 in the future.

  And when will Win95 be out? 96? 97? I heard that Gates won't
ever release it -- it's just a scam to get developers to write
NT apps. And all those "abundance of applications" for windoz
will never be rewritten for the 32bit or 64bit hardware and OS we
have now, so will simply join the
CP/M apps in the trash bin.

Harmon Seaver hseaver@xxxxxxxx hseaver@xxxxxxxx
seaverh@xxxxxxxx harmon@xxxxxxxx

All is impermanent -- and this too shall pass away.
              a?