• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Os/2

Well, on slow old hardware, I tend to load X only when needed and use downlevel distros. For example, Debian Etch or Lenny seems to run fine on P1-series systems. I think most *nix systems tend to place too many resources into the GUI. I can't stand Unity--I use XFCE even on my modern systems. At least Linux (and BSD) seem to still put a lot of support behind the command-line interface.
 
Funny how a simple query about OS/2 turns into an OS bashing contest. Any chance of getting back on topic?
 
Last edited:
Sorry my fault. I wasn't "bashing" Linux, just point out that what goes round comes round, and that Linux was having problems achieving corporate penetration, some times for the same reasons OS/2 did.
 
Just did a fresh install of v4 on my k6-2 350 box, with 256megs of ram on an 8gig drive partitioned in half for giggles. I'd forgotten how long the boot up screen is up. One could be forgiven the the system had hung. Just the basics so far. The system normally runs win2k but used a win 98 hdd to create 3 installation from my old 2000 APC magizine cd which was bundled with Rh 6.2 and BeOS PE along with Warp 4 workstation.

Once the desktop is up it is very snappy. It's obviously lacking any usb support. I'll track down a suitable nic and see how get on with networking. Video is constrand to 800 x 600 65k colour but that can be improved using the Scitech display driver. I've got a SB16 that I know is supported if I get serious with it.

Like most OSs installation is the easy part ;) To be cont......
 
Last edited:
Chuck(G) said:
So Win7 will run on less memory and disk storage than, say, Windows XP? Say, the same amount as Win2K--it being a "throwback" to earlier Windows systems and all?

Wow, that wasn't my impression. My impression was that it was an improvement over Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't meaning to infer that Win7 has less of a resource footprint, than say XP. Just that IMO it seems to be less encumbered by extraneous GUI addons (if you don't use the silly "gadgets" and such), and that it seems to be snappier and very much streamlined in its use of drivers (one of MS's big bugaboos over the years). Since the addition of extra GUI layers, and such things as ReadyBoost, subsequent Windows versions will ALL use more resources.

I would venture to say that ALL OSs post-Win2K/Linux-of-the-year/MAC-OS-of-the-year suffer from the addition of LAYERS of GUI and security/intermediate networking code that really don't add that much value, but slow the machines to a crawl in some cases.

gwk
 
Caluser2000 said:
Like most OSs installation is the easy part ;) To be cont......
Click to expand...
Ok. Tracked down an ISA SMC 10BaseT nic and installed MPTS/TCP/IP. Set them up on installation. Two reboots later networking is up and running. The network requester takes some time to kick into life after you get to the desktop so I just opened an OS/2 window and pinged the router. About 30 seconds, if not more, later I was getting a reply back.

Just put on PMRirc and gave that a try accessing #vc It worked like a charm.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of lost in OS/2............
 
Last edited:
Well this is interesting. I decided to hook up my old 4 gig OS/2 v4 installation, shown in the LH screenshot above, just out of curiousity and run the FireBird browser up. Now this hasn't been online for quite some time and then only dailup. I'm posting this thread entry using it.

I need to track down a PCI 10/100 compatible nic and do some comparisons with my 200mmx Linux box. ;)
 

Attachments

  • os2_mark.jpg
    os2_mark.jpg
    73.7 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Charrisa said:
Despite not really knowing it's workings well really at all, I have a pretty big respect for this OS's legacy.

I kinda wanna get a computer to run it naturally, so I was wondering, does anyone know what the maximum newest tech that works with it? Because I know it doesn't work with any newer systems, unless you use the new version under the name "eCS/2".
Click to expand...
The last time I personally was running OS/2 was with a 486/66MHz 16MB RAM system (upgraded from 33MHz). We had a product a work which used OS/2 on PS/2 model 70. The 486 system lasted only until my Unix Xterminal broke back in 1992, then the 486 box was updated to run Linux instead of OS/2. I kind of liked OS/2, but for me as a software developer it couldn't do anything useful for me unlike a *nix box. In the beginning the Linux system was basically used as an Xterminal for a Sun system.

As for while OS/2 didn't take the market the same as Windows - ignoring costs (and I don't really remember what they were), I think that what was important for the stuff we did with OS/2 at work, things like proper multi-tasking, the ease of writing software that could do a remote login to a running customer system (through X.25) etc, those kinds of features weren't something a gamer or a document writer on a personal PC were looking for. They wouldn't notice the features that we found useful at work. So, pro features, mundane needs, and OS/2 couldn't compete.

-Tor
 
I leave for a week and VC breaks down over OS's.

That's very cool seeing #vc in OS/2! That's what I was going to do with it if I got it running.
 
Man, I really loved OS/2 (versions 2.0 and 2.1) for a while back in the day, despite the fact I had nearly zero native OS/2 software. It multitasked DOS programs so darn well, and somehow running Windows 3.x programs let you feel just a little less dirty than running them natively. Strangely enough it was Warp 3.0 that killed it for me. I'd never had that many encounters with the infamous SIQ problem before Warp but after upgrading from 2.11 it happened *constantly*. (Or maybe it was something else, because it seemed like CTRL-ESC would never work to unstick it? Whatever it was it happened on both computers I installed it on.)

Anyway, between that and some incredibly annoying issues with OS/2's internet dialup support I gave up, went back to naked DOS/Windows, and shortly thereafter ended up downloading a small Linux distribution out of curiosity. I've never actually experienced OS/2 post-"SIQ Fixpack"; thought about installing it just for grins a few times but generally end up fleeing when I realize just how many discrete little bits and pieces I'd have to assemble manually to make it fully functional. Eyes just sorta glaze over...
 
griffk said:
The OS/2 community should have been kept "in the loop" much better ***by both sides***. It didn't really make sense for MS to hawk IBM's goods at any rate, but both companies should have been more up front.
Click to expand...
BTW, my argument is not that it would have been particularly good, but that it would still be better than the alternative MS did instead.
 
Last edited:
From a user's perspective, I remember using OS/2 was mainly painful. If something worked, it worked, but IIRC Windows 3.0/3.1 was generally easier to manage. By the time Windows 95 came around Warp was too little, too late.
 
As far as interface look-in-feel consistancy goes- win3.x/ NT3.x (Program Manager or possibly using Calmira II ,New Shell or alternative shel)or Win9x/NT4(new fangled Start thingy or another shell) up seemed more consistant to me being a user/hobbiest. There certainly were features in OS/2 that never made it to MS Windows of course but it could lead to look'n feel inconsitancies which was annoying. Anyway its all in the past now and as with back then one can use whatever they like. As long as it does what the user wants who really cares?

I had a Dos/WfW 3.11 setup until I bought a second hand Win98FE system which was updated to the latest unoffical fixpacks and usb mass storage updates. The family mainly uses Linux now as I've given up on the MS Windows merry go-round for the time being. The exception is my darling wife who has a Windows 10 laptop and that is used to interface with the wireless printer.

For anyone interested I'm having a play with Desqview/X at present just for the hell of it.
 
Last edited:
I always had a question, maybe anybody know, OS/2 support two or more processors? like windows NT or like windows 9x?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top